# Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews



## pal_of_poor

In fact, he went after them before he started exterminating Jews.  So, who hates communism, socialism, and homosexuals more, democrats, or republicans.  Here is an excerpt from a book, you know, a good, historical account, rather than a right-wing idiot paid to mislead you, so you can get all irritated about something that isn't even true, and look like a dummy.

Begin excerpt:

Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word Nazi, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to Sozi.  _Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of or an outgrowth from, Socialism.  True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital.  Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be the socialism of fools.  But from the very beginning Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the November traitors who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies._
The National Socialists wanted to unite the two political camps of the left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation.  The basis for this was to be the idea of race.  This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism.  Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity.  The idea of party, suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity.  In speeches and propagandas however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of National Socialist movement, just as the Social Democrats had talked of workers movement or, come to that, the feminists of the womens movement and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of youth movement.  The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics.  By presenting itself as a movement, National Socialism, like the labor movement, advertised is opposition to conventional politics and is intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.

By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology.  The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Partys official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in the mid-1920s: the field was bright red, the color of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white, and red, the colors of the official flag of the Bismarckian rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new,  Pan-German racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.

_The Coming of the Third Reich_, by Richard J. Evans  pp. 173-74

I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany.  Nazis were "National Socialists."  They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people.  They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.

I would say I'm surprised that people can be so uninformed, but with FOX, Limbaugh, and the host of other misinformation sites out there, I understand it perfectly.  They are willing to fine a quick flash of Janet Jackson's nipple, but they allow corporate media to flood the airwaves with lies, and misinformation, without penalty.  No wonder?


----------



## elvis

Yeah because republicans want all those people EXTERMINATED.


----------



## manu1959

I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.

except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....


----------



## elvis

manu1959 said:


> I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
> 
> except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....



Yes, in fact, the socialist party and communist party took enough votes away from each other  that it allowed the Nazis to come to power.


----------



## Xenophon

Robert Paxton wrote on Facism:

a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion
========================================

depending on your political bent you can make facism and nazism swing left or right, but the fact neither Nazis or facists were left or right, they were in their own catigory, and have no real connection to modern politics.


----------



## pal_of_poor

manu1959 said:


> I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
> 
> except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....



If you are saying that totalitarianism, often mistaken for Marxism, can be reached from both sides, then yea, I agree.  I think the conditions under Marxist Totalitarianism are quite different than under Fascism, as displayed in Germany, and Italy.  And by the way, tyrannical leaders can manifest under any economic system, even ours.  Look at Cheney, Rove, and Rummy.


----------



## elvis

pal_of_poor said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
> 
> except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are saying that totalitarianism, often mistaken for Marxism, can be reached from both sides, then yea, I agree.  I think the conditions under Marxist Totalitarianism are quite different than under Fascism, as displayed in Germany, and Italy.  And by the way, tyrannical leaders can manifest under any economic system, even ours.  Look at Cheney, Rove, and Rummy.
Click to expand...


Cheny, Rove, and Rummy are not Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, or Stalin. Try again.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Well you're partially correct. Hitler did hate Communists but he considered himself to be a loyal Socialist. The Nazi party itself was a Socialist Party. It's actually kind of funny reading about Hitler's hatred of the Communists when you realize that Communists aren't really any different than Socialists in the end. Hey the guy was a whacko right?


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Hitler was also vehemently Anti-Capitalism. Sound familiar? Hmm?


----------



## pal_of_poor

Xenophon said:


> Robert Paxton wrote on Facism:
> 
> a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion
> ========================================
> 
> depending on your political bent you can make facism and nazism swing left or right, but the fact neither Nazis or facists were left or right, they were in their own catigory, and have no real connection to modern politics.



You can try to be party ambivalent on this if you like.  It is certainly the brainwashing opinion that the corporate media seems to push.  But the quote you posted sounds way more like Republicans, and like I say, the republicans are the ones who hate the same group Hitler and Nazis hated, and attacked and removed before they even took on the Jews.  Today's Jews, or hated ones in the republican party, are Blacks and of course, Muslims.  You've got to have someone to hate in Fascism, it seems.

And like I said, there is a spectrum of politics, and Socialism is to the left of being a Democrat, and Fascism is to the right of being a Republican.  Are we there yet?  Pretty close, as it seems corporations pull the strings and manipulate our politicians at will.  Since Fascism is most easily described as corporatism, we've pretty much arrived.  Getting power back into the hands of people really requires a compete reform of how we finance our campaigns.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

This is the most useless conversation in the world. There is more to politics than a single axis - right or left. Arguing about with party today is closer to Nazi is both factually inaccurate and a really stupid way to make a point.


----------



## pal_of_poor

elvis3577 said:


> pal_of_poor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
> 
> except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are saying that totalitarianism, often mistaken for Marxism, can be reached from both sides, then yea, I agree.  I think the conditions under Marxist Totalitarianism are quite different than under Fascism, as displayed in Germany, and Italy.  And by the way, tyrannical leaders can manifest under any economic system, even ours.  Look at Cheney, Rove, and Rummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cheny, Rove, and Rummy are not Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, or Stalin. Try again.
Click to expand...


I don't know, wars for oil, and dominence in a region, over a certain group, the Muslims, for oil, and for pipelines.  Torture.  Tremendous nationalism was being promoted, over all other American policies.  Personal privacy was coopted, and people who dissented where threatened, and for a while there, during his first four years, they pretty much had a ministry of propaganda, totally all in for Bush's wars.

They were certainly entering the room where Hitler and his buddies had been.

They were damn sure knocking on the door.

You see, when I have compared the Republicans to the NAZIS, it has always been to the 1930s, and the leading up to the world war, you know, how they managed to corrupt everything, destroy dissent, and torture people, how they seized power, 9/11 and the Reichstag fire being precipitating events.


----------



## pal_of_poor

LibocalypseNow said:


> Well you're partially correct. Hitler did hate Communists but he considered himself to be a loyal Socialist. The Nazi party itself was a Socialist Party. It's actually kind of funny reading about Hitler's hatred of the Communists when you realize that Communists aren't really any different than Socialists in the end. Hey the guy was a whacko right?


National socialism is basically nationalism, country above all else, your private life, common decency, not torturing people, agreeing unquestioningly to everything whatever government puts in your head, through their corporatized media.

And once again, they had a Socialist Party, an entirely different party.  Capitalism as we have been practicing it in the last ten years or so, perhaps 20, is more or less Fascism.  There is this pretense that we have some power, we vote, leaders get in, they are bribed to do things, allow more pollution, allow companies to screw us with high drug prices, allow almost anything that helps corporations.

Of course there is this massive takeover of right-wing media, so they can give these authoritarian types that don't like to do their own thinking, but just want to take marching orders, and show up yelling at meetings to disrupt intercourse.


----------



## bodecea

LibocalypseNow said:


> Well you're partially correct. Hitler did hate Communists but he considered himself to be a loyal Socialist. The Nazi party itself was a Socialist Party. It's actually kind of funny reading about Hitler's hatred of the Communists when you realize that Communists aren't really any different than Socialists in the end. Hey the guy was a whacko right?



The Nazis were Socialists like the German Democratic Republic was Democratic...or a Republic.


----------



## Xenophon

pal_of_poor said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Paxton wrote on Facism:
> 
> a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion
> ========================================
> 
> depending on your political bent you can make facism and nazism swing left or right, but the fact neither Nazis or facists were left or right, they were in their own catigory, and have no real connection to modern politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can try to be party ambivalent on this if you like.  It is certainly the brainwashing opinion that the corporate media seems to push.  But the quote you posted sounds way more like Republicans, and like I say, the republicans are the ones who hate the same group Hitler and Nazis hated, and attacked and removed before they even took on the Jews.  Today's Jews, or hated ones in the republican party, are Blacks and of course, Muslims.  You've got to have someone to hate in Fascism, it seems.
> 
> And like I said, there is a spectrum of politics, and Socialism is to the left of being a Democrat, and Fascism is to the right of being a Republican.  Are we there yet?  Pretty close, as it seems corporations pull the strings and manipulate our politicians at will.  Since Fascism is most easily described as corporatism, we've pretty much arrived.  Getting power back into the hands of people really requires a compete reform of how we finance our campaigns.
Click to expand...

I was being polite about it, but the argument you trying to make is asinine.

And in fact, the current political left is far closer to the antics of the nazi party on its rise to power (1921-31) then the right was, which such nonsense as truth squads, stacking and faux protests, trying to intimdate voters, lying and demonizing opponents (The dems hae this down to a science, it was Hitler's favorite tactic also).

Both the American left and right have similarities to the Nazis, but you are trying to hint its more the GoP.

No, they are both the same in this.


----------



## Sunni Man

Hitler was just misunderstood


----------



## Ringel05

Fascism & communism, by definition are forms of socialism, (basic gov studies 101).  Bolsheviks (Soviet style communists) and their associated communist offshoots saw facism as the final step in the logical progression from capitalism to communism.  Fascists however viewed their system as being the perfected system which they saw as the ultimate socialist system.
(2nd part paraphrased from _*The Dark Vally*_, _a panorama of the 1930s_ by Piers Brendon)


----------



## L.K.Eder

Xenophon said:


> pal_of_poor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Paxton wrote on Facism:
> 
> a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion
> ========================================
> 
> depending on your political bent you can make facism and nazism swing left or right, but the fact neither Nazis or facists were left or right, they were in their own catigory, and have no real connection to modern politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can try to be party ambivalent on this if you like.  It is certainly the brainwashing opinion that the corporate media seems to push.  But the quote you posted sounds way more like Republicans, and like I say, the republicans are the ones who hate the same group Hitler and Nazis hated, and attacked and removed before they even took on the Jews.  Today's Jews, or hated ones in the republican party, are Blacks and of course, Muslims.  You've got to have someone to hate in Fascism, it seems.
> 
> And like I said, there is a spectrum of politics, and Socialism is to the left of being a Democrat, and Fascism is to the right of being a Republican.  Are we there yet?  Pretty close, as it seems corporations pull the strings and manipulate our politicians at will.  Since Fascism is most easily described as corporatism, we've pretty much arrived.  Getting power back into the hands of people really requires a compete reform of how we finance our campaigns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was being polite about it, but the argument you trying to make is asinine.
> 
> And in fact, the current political left is far closer to the antics of the nazi party on its rise to power (1921-31) then the right was, which such nonsense as truth squads, stacking and faux protests, trying to intimdate voters, lying and demonizing opponents (The dems hae this down to a science, it was Hitler's favorite tactic also).
> 
> Both the American left and right have similarities to the Nazis, but you are trying to hint its more the GoP.
> 
> No, they are both the same in this.
Click to expand...


you are stacking the deck by limiting the comparison to the time frame you arbitrarily chose, 1921-31. why did you choose this time frame? by 1930 most lefties left the party. i say what was left were ultra right wing nationalists. wrapping themselves in the flag and pointing fingers at enemies outside and inside the reich who were responsible for everything that was wrong. claiming germany was the best, germans the best, everyone else should shut the fuck up. see how easy it is to warp it to make it sound like you want it to sound like. this is no accusation at you personally. 

but i am sick of hearing even insinuations that hitler was to the "left", a "liberal" etc. he was nothing of this sort, he was special, granted, but he was to the RIGHT.

additionally, i don't like your time frame because when you think of nazis, NO ONE thinks of nazis out of power. this is annoying.

to sum up, why did you choose the time frame 1921-31?


----------



## BasicGreatGuy

pal_of_poor said:


> In fact, he went after them before he started exterminating Jews.  So, who hates communism, socialism, and homosexuals more, democrats, or republicans.  Here is an excerpt from a book, you know, a good, historical account, rather than a right-wing idiot paid to mislead you, so you can get all irritated about something that isn't even true, and look like a dummy.
> 
> Begin excerpt:
> 
> Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word Nazi, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to Sozi.  _Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of or an outgrowth from, Socialism.  True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital.  Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be the socialism of fools.  But from the very beginning Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the November traitors who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies._
> The National Socialists wanted to unite the two political camps of the left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation.  The basis for this was to be the idea of race.  This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism.  Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity.  The idea of party, suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity.  In speeches and propagandas however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of National Socialist movement, just as the Social Democrats had talked of workers movement or, come to that, the feminists of the womens movement and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of youth movement.  The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics.  By presenting itself as a movement, National Socialism, like the labor movement, advertised is opposition to conventional politics and is intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.
> 
> By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology.  The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Partys official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in the mid-1920s: the field was bright red, the color of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white, and red, the colors of the official flag of the Bismarckian rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new,  Pan-German racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.
> 
> _The Coming of the Third Reich_, by Richard J. Evans  pp. 173-74
> 
> I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany.  Nazis were "National Socialists."  They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people.  They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
> 
> I would say I'm surprised that people can be so uninformed, but with FOX, Limbaugh, and the host of other misinformation sites out there, I understand it perfectly.  They are willing to fine a quick flash of Janet Jackson's nipple, but they allow corporate media to flood the airwaves with lies, and misinformation, without penalty.  No wonder?


When it comes to a post like this, I am tempted to say the same thing, but I believe the ugly irony of that truth would be lost on the author of this thread.


----------



## Xenophon

L.K.Eder said:


> to sum up, why did you choose the time frame 1921-31?


It should be obvious.

This was the time of the Weimer republic when the Nazis could not simply dictate or remove people, they had to work within the system to gain control.

And yes, they did use large doses of Socialism to get that control, what they did afterward is another story.

It is disingenious and revisionism to paint them as radical right wingers, that postion in Germany was held by teh Stalhemn movement and was backed by the monarchists, they made a marriage of convience with the nazis not understanding that the Nazis were only using them.

This is also where so many people get it wrong when they discuss facsim or Nazism, what those systems preached and what they did were different things, the many modern attempts to compare today to Facism are equaly valid from left or right so as to make the comparison worthless.

National socialism was indeed socialism, an attempt to make all Germans work for germany, that is what it was billed as and Hitler refused to ever change the offical party platform from that, which he wrote in 1924. The fact the he and the other Nazis ignored it is another story.

Getting back to the here and now, hhis is also why many protestors have crossed out swazsikas, they are making the same statement about what they see going on, they recognize the baby steps to totalitarianism and they don't like it.


----------



## garyd

The only difference between National socialism and socialism is the the national part.  And almost none of what you just said was part of Moussolini's Fascist party. Moussolini's Fscism was an economic movement as much as a political movement and Moussolini always claimed to be a socialist. Fascism and Naziism are not identical by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing Fascist Italy actually spent Italian blood trying to save jews from Hitler's ovens.

You really need to read Jonah Goldberg's excellent book "Liberal Fascism"


----------



## paperview

garyd said:


> The only difference between National socialism and socialism is the the national part.  And almost none of what you just said was part of Moussolini's Fascist party. Moussolini's Fscism was an economic movement as much as a political movement and Moussolini always claimed to be a socialist. Fascism and Naziism are not identical by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing Fascist Italy actually spent Italian blood trying to save jews from Hitler's ovens.
> 
> You really need to read Jonah Goldberg's excellent book "Liberal Fascism"


Oh Brother.

That piece of shit by _Mommy Dearest_ Goldberg is the biggest pile of crap to ever be put to print.


----------



## garyd

name one thing he said tha was in error and provide references to prove it wrong.


----------



## Political Junky

pal_of_poor said:


> In fact, he went after them before he started exterminating Jews.  So, who hates communism, socialism, and homosexuals more, democrats, or republicans.  Here is an excerpt from a book, you know, a good, historical account, rather than a right-wing idiot paid to mislead you, so you can get all irritated about something that isn't even true, and look like a dummy.
> 
> Begin excerpt:
> 
> Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word Nazi, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to Sozi.  _Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of or an outgrowth from, Socialism.  True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital.  Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be the socialism of fools.  But from the very beginning Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the November traitors who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies._
> The National Socialists wanted to unite the two political camps of the left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation.  The basis for this was to be the idea of race.  This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism.  Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity.  The idea of party, suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity.  In speeches and propagandas however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of National Socialist movement, just as the Social Democrats had talked of workers movement or, come to that, the feminists of the womens movement and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of youth movement.  The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics.  By presenting itself as a movement, National Socialism, like the labor movement, advertised is opposition to conventional politics and is intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.
> 
> By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology.  The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Partys official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in the mid-1920s: the field was bright red, the color of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white, and red, the colors of the official flag of the Bismarckian rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new,  Pan-German racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.
> 
> _The Coming of the Third Reich_, by Richard J. Evans  pp. 173-74
> 
> I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany.  Nazis were "National Socialists."  They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people.  They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
> 
> I would say I'm surprised that people can be so uninformed, but with FOX, Limbaugh, and the host of other misinformation sites out there, I understand it perfectly.  They are willing to fine a quick flash of Janet Jackson's nipple, but they allow corporate media to flood the airwaves with lies, and misinformation, without penalty.  No wonder?


----------



## garyd

Also wrong, Pre Nazi Germany had several socialist parties.


----------



## elvis

garyd said:


> Also wrong, Pre Nazi Germany had several socialist parties.



they had a communist party, a socialist party, and about 25 other parties.


----------



## garyd

Half the parties in Germany called themselves some ind of socialistr or the other.


----------



## Ringel05

BasicGreatGuy said:


> pal_of_poor said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, he went after them before he started exterminating Jews.  So, who hates communism, socialism, and homosexuals more, democrats, or republicans.  Here is an excerpt from a book, you know, a good, historical account, rather than a right-wing idiot paid to mislead you, so you can get all irritated about something that isn't even true, and look like a dummy.
> 
> Begin excerpt:
> 
> Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word Nazi, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to Sozi.  _Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of or an outgrowth from, Socialism.  True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital.  Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be the socialism of fools.  But from the very beginning Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the November traitors who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies._
> The National Socialists wanted to unite the two political camps of the left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation.  The basis for this was to be the idea of race.  This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism.  Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity.  The idea of party, suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity.  In speeches and propagandas however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of National Socialist movement, just as the Social Democrats had talked of workers movement or, come to that, the feminists of the womens movement and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of youth movement.  The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics.  By presenting itself as a movement, National Socialism, like the labor movement, advertised is opposition to conventional politics and is intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.
> 
> By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology.  The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Partys official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in the mid-1920s: the field was bright red, the color of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white, and red, the colors of the official flag of the Bismarckian rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new,  Pan-German racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.
> 
> _The Coming of the Third Reich_, by Richard J. Evans  pp. 173-74
> 
> I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany.  Nazis were "National Socialists."  They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people.  They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
> 
> I would say I'm surprised that people can be so uninformed, but with FOX, Limbaugh, and the host of other misinformation sites out there, I understand it perfectly.  They are willing to fine a quick flash of Janet Jackson's nipple, but they allow corporate media to flood the airwaves with lies, and misinformation, without penalty.  No wonder?
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to a post like this, I am tempted to say the same thing, but I believe the ugly irony of that truth would be lost on the author of this thread.
Click to expand...


I may be mistaken but wasn't Richard Evans a Social Democrat?


----------



## garyd

I believe you are correct. this is in fact one of the earlier revisionist attempts to make both Hitler and Mussolini into something neither one actually was especially so in the case of Mussolini.


----------



## paperview

garyd said:


> name one thing he said tha was in error and provide references to prove it wrong.


You're kidding, right?


----------



## paperview

I'm a little too tired tonght to write out something original.

I can point you here though, to get you started:

"...Goldberg, who has no credentials beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It&#8217;s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history. 



 The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming _anti-liberalism_. One might as well write about anti-Semitic neoconservatism, or Ptolemaic quantum theory, or strength in ignorance. Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak. 



 Indeed, Goldberg even makes some use of Orwell, noting that the author of _1984_ once dismissed the misuse of "fascism" as meaning "something not desirable." Of course, Orwell was railing against the loss of the word's meaning, while Goldberg, conversely, revels in it -- he refers to Orwell's critique as his "definition of fascism." 



 And then Goldberg proceeds to define everything that _he himself_ considers undesirable as "fascist." This is just about everything even remotely and vaguely thought of as "liberal": vegetarianism, Social Security, multiculturalism, the "war on poverty," "the politics of meaning." The figures he labels as fascist range from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt to Lyndon B. Johnson and Hillary Clinton. Goldberg's primary achievement is to rob the word of all meaning -- Newspeak incarnate. 



 The term "fascism" certainly is overused and abused. The public understanding of it is fuzzy at best, and academics struggle to agree on a definition, as Goldberg observes -- and he makes use of that confusion to ramble on for pages about the disagreements without ever providing readers with a clear definition of fascism beyond Orwell's quip. 



 Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism, which, while widely varying in many regards, has seen a broad consensus develop regarding certain ineluctable traits that are uniquely and definitively fascist: its populism and ultranationalism, its anti-intellectualism, its carefully groomed culture of violence, its insistence that it represents the true national identity, its treatment of dissent as treason, and what Oxford Brookes scholar Roger Griffin calls its "palingenesis" -- that is, its core myth of a phoenix-like rebirth of the national identity in the mold of a nonexistent Golden Age. And, of course, it has historically always been vigorously -- no, viciously -- anti-liberal. 



 So when Goldberg proclaims early on: "This is the monumental fact of the Nazi rise to power that has been slowly airbrushed from our collective memories: the Nazis campaigned as _socialists_," more thorough observers of history might instead just shake their heads. After all, the facts of Mussolini's utopian/socialist origins and the Nazis' similar appeals to socialism by incorporating the name are already quite well known to the same historians who consistently describe fascism as a right-wing enterprise. 



 What these historians record -- but Goldberg variously ignores or minimizes -- is that the "socialism" of "National Socialism" was in fact purely a kind of ethnic economic nationalism, which offered "socialist" support to purely "Aryan" German business entities, and that the larger Nazi cultural appeal was built directly around an open antipathy to all things liberal or leftist. Indeed, whole chapters of _Mein Kampf_ are devoted to vicious smears and declarations of war against "the Left," and not merely the Marxism that Goldberg acknowledges was a major focus of Hitler's 

More:Jonah Goldberg's Bizarro History | The American Prospect


----------



## Political Junky

paperview said:


> I'm a little too tired tonght to write out something original.
> 
> I can point you here though, to get you started:
> 
> "...Goldberg, who has no credentials beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It&#8217;s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history.
> 
> 
> 
> The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming _anti-liberalism_. One might as well write about anti-Semitic neoconservatism, or Ptolemaic quantum theory, or strength in ignorance. Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Goldberg even makes some use of Orwell, noting that the author of _1984_ once dismissed the misuse of "fascism" as meaning "something not desirable." Of course, Orwell was railing against the loss of the word's meaning, while Goldberg, conversely, revels in it -- he refers to Orwell's critique as his "definition of fascism."
> 
> 
> 
> And then Goldberg proceeds to define everything that _he himself_ considers undesirable as "fascist." This is just about everything even remotely and vaguely thought of as "liberal": vegetarianism, Social Security, multiculturalism, the "war on poverty," "the politics of meaning." The figures he labels as fascist range from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt to Lyndon B. Johnson and Hillary Clinton. Goldberg's primary achievement is to rob the word of all meaning -- Newspeak incarnate.
> 
> 
> 
> The term "fascism" certainly is overused and abused. The public understanding of it is fuzzy at best, and academics struggle to agree on a definition, as Goldberg observes -- and he makes use of that confusion to ramble on for pages about the disagreements without ever providing readers with a clear definition of fascism beyond Orwell's quip.
> 
> 
> 
> Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism, which, while widely varying in many regards, has seen a broad consensus develop regarding certain ineluctable traits that are uniquely and definitively fascist: its populism and ultranationalism, its anti-intellectualism, its carefully groomed culture of violence, its insistence that it represents the true national identity, its treatment of dissent as treason, and what Oxford Brookes scholar Roger Griffin calls its "palingenesis" -- that is, its core myth of a phoenix-like rebirth of the national identity in the mold of a nonexistent Golden Age. And, of course, it has historically always been vigorously -- no, viciously -- anti-liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> So when Goldberg proclaims early on: "This is the monumental fact of the Nazi rise to power that has been slowly airbrushed from our collective memories: the Nazis campaigned as _socialists_," more thorough observers of history might instead just shake their heads. After all, the facts of Mussolini's utopian/socialist origins and the Nazis' similar appeals to socialism by incorporating the name are already quite well known to the same historians who consistently describe fascism as a right-wing enterprise.
> 
> 
> 
> What these historians record -- but Goldberg variously ignores or minimizes -- is that the "socialism" of "National Socialism" was in fact purely a kind of ethnic economic nationalism, which offered "socialist" support to purely "Aryan" German business entities, and that the larger Nazi cultural appeal was built directly around an open antipathy to all things liberal or leftist. Indeed, whole chapters of _Mein Kampf_ are devoted to vicious smears and declarations of war against "the Left," and not merely the Marxism that Goldberg acknowledges was a major focus of Hitler's
> 
> More:Jonah Goldberg's Bizarro History | The American Prospect


What would Jonah be if his mother, Lucianne, hadn't had her fifteen minutes of fame?


----------



## paperview

Political Junky said:


> What would Jonah be if his mother, Lucianne, hadn't had her fifteen minutes of fame?


The only reason SHE had any fame (and position) was cause she gave LBJ a slurping BJ.

Truth.

Then her blue dress monica 'gotcha' spilled more of the same...

And from the spunk her progeny turned out to be literally - a dickwad.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Xenophon said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> to sum up, why did you choose the time frame 1921-31?
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious.
> 
> This was the time of the Weimer republic when the Nazis could not simply dictate or remove people, they had to work within the system to gain control.
> 
> And yes, they did use large doses of Socialism to get that control, what they did afterward is another story.
> 
> It is disingenious and revisionism to paint them as radical right wingers, that postion in Germany was held by teh Stalhemn movement and was backed by the monarchists, they made a marriage of convience with the nazis not understanding that the Nazis were only using them.
> 
> This is also where so many people get it wrong when they discuss facsim or Nazism, what those systems preached and what they did were different things, the many modern attempts to compare today to Facism are equaly valid from left or right so as to make the comparison worthless.
> 
> National socialism was indeed socialism, an attempt to make all Germans work for germany, that is what it was billed as and Hitler refused to ever change the offical party platform from that, which he wrote in 1924. The fact the he and the other Nazis ignored it is another story.
> 
> Getting back to the here and now, hhis is also why many protestors have crossed out swazsikas, they are making the same statement about what they see going on, they recognize the baby steps to totalitarianism and they don't like it.
Click to expand...



Your time frame is not obvious to me. If you want to describe the time before they were in power then the logical cut-off would be 1933. Only thing worth mentioning that happened in 1931, in my opinion, was the coalition of the right wing parties Stahlhelm, NSDAP, DNVP and some other smaller groups to the Harzburger Front. A coalition of RIGHT-wing parties. 

In 1930 the NSDAP "lost" the left wing, because on their road to power they had a failed in several elections and they had realized that socialist rhetoric like "promising to help the workers" was not working. They also realized that over-the-top anti-semitism was not a good method to get enough votes.



> And yes, they did use large doses of Socialism to get that control, what they did afterward is another story.


This is where we part. It is another story, alright, but it is THE story. The one that counts, the one where genocide and WWII happened, e.g.

A party gets into power by fooling the electorate, nothing special. How much the NSDAP lied and deceived to get enough on board is interesting and would be a nice topic for a discussion. They certainly stopped the radical rhetoric on both extremes of the spectrum, causing the "left wing" to abandon ship, as i wrote.

What is important, is what the party did when in power.

To get rid of political opposition was first.

Here is a link to a site listing the members of parliament who were killed. It is in German, but the list speaks for itself. Note the party affiliations, KPD, SPD, one DVP.

Gedenken an 96 vom NS-Regime ermordete Reichstagsabgeordnete - Gedenktafeln Berlin

a random excerpt:


> JULIUS ROSEMANN * 1878  1933 POLIZEIGEFÄNGNIS HAMM SPD
> KARL SATTLER * 1896  BERGEN-BELSEN KPD
> JOHN SCHEHR * 1896  1934 KZ BERLIN-COLUMBIAHAUS KPD
> MICHAEL SCHNABRICH * 1880  1939 KZ SACHSENHAUSEN SPD
> ERNST SCHNELLER * 1890  1944 KZ SACHSENHAUSEN KPD
> ENST SCHNEPPENHORST * 1881  1945 GEFÄNGNIS BERLIN- LEHRTERSTRASSE SPD
> WERNER SCHOLEM * 1895  1940 KZ BUCHENWALD KPD
> GEORG SCHUMANN * 1886  1945 UNTERSUCHUNGSGEFÄNGNIS DRESDEN KPD


summary, left wing opposition was killed or made to leave the country, right-wing "opposition " was forced to join the NSDAP. The last remnants of "lefties" in the NSDAP was purged 1934, see Gregor (not Georg, as i wrote somewhere else) Strasser.

I think that people in the US are protesting now carrying anti-nazi symbols has nothing to do with Hitler, or what the NSDAP did, because bluntly put, they have no fucking clue about that history, and if they realized how they are used by propagandists, they'd have to point their anti-nazi signs at themselves.


----------



## editec

Adolf Hitler was about as good a socialist as Bernie Madoff was a good investment advisor. 

Those of you seeking to simplify and dumb down historical reality in order to pigeonhole it into your pet social science theories are either blinded idealogues or flat out liars.

Hitler's government just doesn't fit into those simplistic political visions most of you have dancing in your heads

It wasn't capitalism run amuck, neither was it socialism run amuck.

Hitlerian Germany had elements of both capitalism and socialism, true.

But it was really little more than a personality-cult driven totalitarian dictatorship.

What most of you people think of as Germany's socialism was left over from the pre3vious German state.

The Kaiser's Germany was one of the most socialistic states in the world. Theyir FDR type socialism was in place before WWI for goodness sakes.

And they did that socialistic stuff in a nation that clearly believed in capitalism, too.

This dividing line you folks have, this mythical socialism that some of you image existed, and the even more imaginary free market capitalism that you people imagine existed, never happened in Germany.

Never happened here, either, really.

Everything any government does could be described as socialisTIC.

The military is socialism.  Courts and police also socialism..the way SOME of you folks use the word.

Indeed all government is socialism according to the ideology many of you attempt to advance here on this board.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Hitler was staunchly Anti-Capitalism. Just go do some research and observe his own quotes and writings. He really did consider himself to be a loyal Socialist. You cant even get to Fascism or Dictatorships unless you go the Socialist/Communist route first. It's just the way it is. Both parties in this country have gone the Socialist route in recent years and it's time we get rid of them all and start from scratch. The powers that control both parties have heavy Socialist leanings therefore the leaders of both parties need to be voted out. I mean i actually still cringe when the ridiculous Liberal Press calls George Bush a "Conservative." George Bush was anything but Conservative. His policies were certainly Socialist-leaning. In fact i would call Barack Obama merely George Bush on Steroids at this point. Nothing new or different with him so far. Americans just need to take their country back. Time to vote out all Socialist Democrats & Republicans. The time is now America!


----------



## Agnapostate

The descriptions of Hitler and Nazism as "socialist" in nature are nothing if not flagrantly incorrect. A more accurate assessment of economic structure in Nazi Germany would note that it was decidedly non-socialist in nature. This reality is noted by Buccheim and Scherner in _The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry_, for instance. 



> Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.



Moreover, looking at the broader picture, fascism and socialism are rather distinct from each other, and in many cases, are outright conflicting ideologies. To consider the elements of fascist political and cultural ideology and economy, we might look at Umberto Eco's conception of "Eternal Fascism," or Zanden's _Pareto and Fascism Reconsidered_, for instance. 

Firstly, as Zanden puts it, _"[O]bedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along creative lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism."_ This is not consistent with the socialist principle of elimination of alienation as defined by Marx's _The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844_. Such elimination necessitates revolutionary class consciousness, which obviously conflicts with "obedience, discipline, faith, etc." Revolutionary class consciousness is also rather inconsistent with the "cult of tradition" identified by Eco as an integral tenet of Eternal Fascism. _"[T]here can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."_

From an insistence on revolutionary class consciousness comes opposition to class itself on the part of the socialist. This is egregiously contradictory to the elitism that constitutes a core tenet of fascism. As Eco writes, _"[e]litism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies *contempt for the weak.* Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism."_

Fascism also has a necessarily anti-democratic nature. As Zanden notes, _"the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions."_ Similarly, Eco writes that _"the Leader, knowing his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler."_ This strongly conflicts with the participatory elements of socialism, as it necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. For instance, Noam Chomsky notes that libertarian socialism is _"based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all."_ Other forms of socialism are necessarily democratic at the very least.


----------



## bodecea

LibocalypseNow said:


> Hitler was staunchly Anti-Capitalism. Just go do some research and observe his own quotes and writings. He really did consider himself to be a loyal Socialist. You cant even get to Fascism or Dictatorships unless you go the Socialist/Communist route first. It's just the way it is. Both parties in this country have gone the Socialist route in recent years and it's time we get rid of them all and start from scratch. The powers that control both parties have heavy Socialist leanings therefore the leaders of both parties need to be voted out. I mean i actually still cringe when the ridiculous Liberal Press calls George Bush a "Conservative." George Bush was anything but Conservative. His policies were certainly Socialist-leaning. In fact i would call Barack Obama merely George Bush on Steroids at this point. Nothing new or different with him so far. Americans just need to take their country back. Time to vote out all Socialist Democrats & Republicans. The time is now America!



Hitler really hated Krupp, didn't he?


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Nazi: National Socialist Workers' Party. Hitler did not hate Socialists because he considered himself to be a good & loyal Socialist. In fact all Nazis considered themselves to be good & loyal Socialists. You can't even get to Fascism or Dictatorship without first going the Socialist or Communist route. That's why our Founding Fathers were true geniuses. They really did have it right all those years ago when they founded our great nation. Our Public Schools as usual have it wrong and continue to indoctrinate our kids with nonsensical B.S. when it comes to the reality of Hitler and the Nazis. The true history of Hitler and the Nazis is that they were loyal Socialists all along and right up til the end. Oh well we are talking about Public Schools right? It's just not very surprising that they have something else wrong. Nuff said.


----------



## Agnapostate

Self-description is not a sufficient validation, unless you consider the Soviet-controlled German "Democratic" Republic or the "People's Republic" of China to be legitimately such. Even the populist elements of the Nazi party weren't legitimately socialist, and they were all destroyed on the Night of the Long Knives anyhow.


----------



## L.K.Eder

LibocalypseNow said:


> Nazi: National Socialist Workers' Party. Hitler did not hate Socialists because he considered himself to be a good & loyal Socialist. In fact all Nazis considered themselves to be good & loyal Socialists. You can't even get to Fascism or Dictatorship without first going the Socialist or Communist route. That's why our Founding Fathers were true geniuses. They really did have it right all those years ago when they founded our great nation. Our Public Schools as usual have it wrong and continue to indoctrinate our kids with nonsensical B.S. when it comes to the reality of Hitler and the Nazis. The true history of Hitler and the Nazis is that they were loyal Socialists all along and right up til the end. Oh well we are talking about Public Schools right? It's just not very surprising that they have something else wrong. Nuff said.



fuck you!


----------



## bodecea

LibocalypseNow said:


> Nazi: National Socialist Workers' Party. Hitler did not hate Socialists because he considered himself to be a good & loyal Socialist. In fact all Nazis considered themselves to be good & loyal Socialists. You can't even get to Fascism or Dictatorship without first going the Socialist or Communist route. That's why our Founding Fathers were true geniuses. They really did have it right all those years ago when they founded our great nation. Our Public Schools as usual have it wrong and continue to indoctrinate our kids with nonsensical B.S. when it comes to the reality of Hitler and the Nazis. The true history of Hitler and the Nazis is that they were loyal Socialists all along and right up til the end. Oh well we are talking about Public Schools right? It's just not very surprising that they have something else wrong. Nuff said.



I'm guessing you went to a 'special' school with that nonsense you are spouting.


----------



## Political Junky

bodecea said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi: National Socialist Workers' Party. Hitler did not hate Socialists because he considered himself to be a good & loyal Socialist. In fact all Nazis considered themselves to be good & loyal Socialists. You can't even get to Fascism or Dictatorship without first going the Socialist or Communist route. That's why our Founding Fathers were true geniuses. They really did have it right all those years ago when they founded our great nation. Our Public Schools as usual have it wrong and continue to indoctrinate our kids with nonsensical B.S. when it comes to the reality of Hitler and the Nazis. The true history of Hitler and the Nazis is that they were loyal Socialists all along and right up til the end. Oh well we are talking about Public Schools right? It's just not very surprising that they have something else wrong. Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you went to a 'special' school with that nonsense you are spouting.
Click to expand...

No doubt.


----------



## Zona

Lol


----------



## Sunni Man

Hitler was just misunderstood


----------



## Agnapostate

You already said that.


----------



## William Joyce

It is a dumb debate.  Hitler's main object was the resurrection, restoration and expansion of a Germanic racial state.  Whatever economics he thought would fit that, he probably would have gone with.

I personally think the quality of the human beings making up the country matters far more than whatever economic system is chosen.  I generally think free markets are better, but would you rather live in socialist Sweden or capitalist Sierra Leone?


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Hitler despised Capitalism. Sound familiar? Hitler and the Nazis sure did hate but Socialism is not one of the things they hated. Hitler didn't hate Socialists because he was one of them. Socialism/Communism never work in the end. Lets hope more Americans see this before it's too late.


----------



## L.K.Eder

LibocalypseNow said:


> Hitler despised Capitalism. Sound familiar? Hitler and the Nazis sure did hate but Socialism is not one of the things they hated. Hitler didn't hate Socialists because he was one of them. Socialism/Communism never work in the end. Lets hope more Americans see this before it's too late.



your stuff will be true after the 129066th repetition, you will make it!


----------



## paperview

LibocalypseNow said:


> Hitler despised Capitalism. Sound familiar? Hitler and the Nazis sure did hate but Socialism is not one of the things they hated. Hitler didn't hate Socialists because he was one of them. Socialism/Communism never work in the end. Lets hope more Americans see this before it's too late.


He loved them so much he killed them when he got into power.

Now *that's* love.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Hitler killed anyone who got in his way and if there were a few fellow Socialists who got in the way,they were toast too. The Nazi Party itself was a Socialist Party though and this is just fact. Just go do some real research of your own on Hitler's own writings and quotes and you quickly see that he was a loyal Socialist right up til the end.


----------



## paperview

LibocalypseNow said:


> Hitler killed anyone who got in his way and if there were a few fellow Socialists who got in the way,they were toast too. The Nazi Party itself was a Socialist Party though and this is just fact. Just go do some real research of your own on Hitler's own writings and quotes and you quickly see that he was a loyal Socialist right up til the end.


Oh geezuz.

And when did _you_ start studying Hitler, Ms. Now? last week?

Your knowledge of history is about as thin as Joe Wurzelbacher's hair.


----------



## AllieBaba

manu1959 said:


> I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
> 
> except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....




Take a good hard look at Obama's policies and get back to me about what fascists Republicans are.

Republicans believe, above anything, in INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. Something communists and fascists of all ilks are steadfastly opposed to.


----------



## bodecea

AllieBaba said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
> 
> except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a good hard look at Obama's policies and get back to me about what fascists Republicans are.
> 
> Republicans believe, above anything, in INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. Something communists and fascists of all ilks are steadfastly opposed to.
Click to expand...



Funny how the Republicans here in California wanted to take away my freedom to marry the law-abiding, tax-paying CITIZEN of my choice (and her choice too).


----------



## Agnapostate

William Joyce said:


> I generally think free markets are better, but would you rather live in socialist Sweden or capitalist Sierra Leone?



Sweden is not a socialist country; the Scandinavian social democracies are merely misidentified as such. 



LibocalypseNow said:


> Hitler despised Capitalism.



Will you stop repeating this stupid blather? You've not even pretended to be able to rebut objections to your nonsense. 



AllieBaba said:


> Republicans believe, above anything, in INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.



What an obscene joke that is. The Republicans, as with the Democrats, are a capitalist party and therefore support the authoritarianism of the capitalist labor market, and oppose the extension of democracy into the economic realm. 



AllieBaba said:


> Something communists and fascists of all ilks are steadfastly opposed to.



Once again, you speak out of ignorance. I'm a communist, and an anti-authoritarian communist who follows in the libertarian tradition.







I have a perfect social libertarian score of -10.0. What's yours?


----------



## AllieBaba

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
> 
> except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a good hard look at Obama's policies and get back to me about what fascists Republicans are.
> 
> Republicans believe, above anything, in INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. Something communists and fascists of all ilks are steadfastly opposed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Republicans here in California wanted to take away my freedom to marry the law-abiding, tax-paying CITIZEN of my choice (and her choice too).
Click to expand...


Two of the same sex do not a marriage make. You'll have to take that one up with whomever decides what words mean.


----------



## AllieBaba

Agnapostate said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> 
> I generally think free markets are better, but would you rather live in socialist Sweden or capitalist Sierra Leone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweden is not a socialist country; the Scandinavian social democracies are merely misidentified as such.
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler despised Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you stop repeating this stupid blather? You've not even pretended to be able to rebut objections to your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans believe, above anything, in INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an obscene joke that is. The Republicans, as with the Democrats, are a capitalist party and therefore support the authoritarianism of the capitalist labor market, and oppose the extension of democracy into the economic realm.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something communists and fascists of all ilks are steadfastly opposed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you speak out of ignorance. I'm a communist, and an anti-authoritarian communist who follows in the libertarian tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a perfect social libertarian score of -10.0. What's yours?
Click to expand...


You're a child molester. Who cares?


----------



## Agnapostate

AllieBaba said:


> You're a child molester. Who cares?



You're the baby raper here, bitch. What's that nasty sig pic you've got there?


----------



## AllieBaba

It's from a site called "World's worst jobs". Not sure where you're going with that. No kids there, Pederastate. Sorry if that bursts your masturbubble.


----------



## RadiomanATL

pal_of_poor said:


> In fact, he went after them before he started exterminating Jews.  So, who hates communism, socialism, and homosexuals more, democrats, or republicans.



Ummm....so?

Stalin hated capitalism, individual freedoms, and the right to bear arms.

So who is Stalin more like, Democrats or Republicans?

Wow, false equivocation is FUN  !~!~!~!


It's also complete bullshit. Anyone who does it has zero critical thinking skills.


----------



## RadiomanATL

LibocalypseNow said:


> Hitler killed anyone who got in his way and if there were a few fellow Socialists who got in the way,they were toast too. The Nazi Party itself was a Socialist Party though and this is just fact. Just go do some real research of your own on Hitler's own writings and quotes and you quickly see that he was a loyal Socialist right up til the end.



Yeah, ummm.....no.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Political Junky said:


> [What would Jonah be if his mother, Lucianne, hadn't had her fifteen minutes of fame?



I found this interesting trivia on his wikipedia entry:

*Goldberg graduated from Goucher College in 1991. His was the first class at Goucher to admit men.*

Hmmm, first class to admit men...I wonder if he knew any of them??


----------



## Political Junky

LibocalypseNow said:


> Hitler despised Capitalism. Sound familiar? Hitler and the Nazis sure did hate but Socialism is not one of the things they hated. Hitler didn't hate Socialists because he was one of them. Socialism/Communism never work in the end. Lets hope more Americans see this before it's too late.


Karl Marx was a Jew .. Hitler hated Jews and Marxism/Socialism.


----------



## Agnapostate

AllieBaba said:


> It's from a site called "World's worst jobs". Not sure where you're going with that. No kids there, Pederastate. Sorry if that bursts your masturbubble.



Well, Babble, it looks to me like you're inserting your fetishistic kinks where they're not wanted yet again...let's at least hope you're following the law this time.


----------



## Polk

LibocalypseNow said:


> Hitler was also vehemently Anti-Capitalism. Sound familiar? Hmm?



That really depends on how one defines capitalism.


----------



## Polk

LibocalypseNow said:


> Hitler did not hate Socialists because he considered himself to be a good & loyal Socialist.



He also considered himself a good and loyal Christian while promoting a revival of Germanic mysticism.


----------



## elvis

Polk said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was also vehemently Anti-Capitalism. Sound familiar? Hmm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That really depends on how one defines capitalism.
Click to expand...


hitler hated capitalism and communism.


----------



## Polk

elvis3577 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was also vehemently Anti-Capitalism. Sound familiar? Hmm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That really depends on how one defines capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hitler hated capitalism and communism.
Click to expand...


If we're defining capitalism as market allocation of resources, than yes. If we're looking at the more real world example (returns from production returning to the owners of those means, but without any sort of real competition in most sectors), than not so much.


----------



## Agnapostate

If we're defining capitalism as _including_ market allocation of resources in addition to the private ownership of the means of production and the establishment of wage labor, that was the economic structure that existed in Nazi Germany and was actively supported by the Third Reich.


----------



## Political Junky

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." - Adolf Hitler


----------



## RadiomanATL

Political Junky said:


> "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." - Adolf Hitler



Whats yer point?


----------



## elvis

Political Junky said:


> "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." - Adolf Hitler



Yeah because Hitler carried out everything he said he would.  You don't know very much about Nazi Germany if you truly believe he was a Christian or that he really tried to promote any  form of Christianity.


----------



## Polk

elvis3577 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." - Adolf Hitler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because Hitler carried out everything he said he would.  You don't know very much about Nazi Germany if you truly believe he was a Christian or that he really tried to promote any  form of Christianity.
Click to expand...


I would agree with that, but I'd also point out the same is true for claims of him being a socialist.


----------



## elvis

Polk said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." - Adolf Hitler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because Hitler carried out everything he said he would.  You don't know very much about Nazi Germany if you truly believe he was a Christian or that he really tried to promote any  form of Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would agree with that, but I'd also point out the same is true for claims of him being a socialist.
Click to expand...


I agree with you on that as well.


----------



## AllieBaba

He made a huge power grab, used propaganda to blind the people,  and then he slaughtered millions, including his own citizens.

Obama's just in the power grab/propaganda phase right now.


----------



## RadiomanATL

AllieBaba said:


> He made a huge power grab, used propaganda to blind the people,  and then he slaughtered millions, including his own citizens.
> 
> Obama's just in the power grab/propaganda phase right now.



Oh Lord, please stop with the fear mongering. It's just downright dumb.


----------



## rdean

Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews?

Wow, sounds like a Republican.  Don't they hate all those things?

I bet that's why all the KKK and the Aryans belong to the Republican Party, or as some now refer to it, the "Confederate Party".

I think I've heard everything the Confederate Party is against, besides forced religion and tax breaks for the rich, what are they for?


----------



## Polk

Crazy thought, but... Why not considering actual ideas instead of calling each other Nazis?


----------



## RadiomanATL

rdean said:


> Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews?
> 
> Wow, sounds like a Republican.  Don't they hate all those things?



Stalin hated capitalism, religion and individual freedom?

Wow, sounds like a Democrat. Don't they hate all those things?






Moron.


----------



## elvis

rdean said:


> Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews?
> 
> Wow, sounds like a Republican.  Don't they hate all those things?
> 
> I bet that's why all the KKK and the Aryans belong to the Republican Party, or as some now refer to it, the "Confederate Party".
> 
> I think I've heard everything the Confederate Party is against, besides forced religion and tax breaks for the rich, what are they for?



and you sound like an idiot.  but you always sound like an idiot, so you're shooting par.


----------



## Agnapostate

AllieBaba said:


> He made a huge power grab, used propaganda to blind the people,  and then he slaughtered millions, including his own citizens.
> 
> Obama's just in the power grab/propaganda phase right now.



Really, shut the fuck up. Is it that difficult to conclude that neither the Democrats or Republicans are legitimately comparable to _Hitler_?


----------



## Contumacious

pal_of_poor said:


> .  Capitalism as we have been practicing it in the last ten years or so, perhaps 20, is more or less Fascism.  .



We haven't been practicing Capitalism since circa 1913 and yes we are practicing Fascism.


.


----------



## Political Junky

Agnapostate said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> He made a huge power grab, used propaganda to blind the people,  and then he slaughtered millions, including his own citizens.
> 
> Obama's just in the power grab/propaganda phase right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, shut the fuck up. Is it that difficult to conclude that neither the Democrats or Republicans are legitimately comparable to _Hitler_?
Click to expand...

He's just spewing the wingnut talking points.


----------



## Contumacious

Agnapostate said:


> [. Is it that difficult to conclude that neither the Democrats or Republicans are legitimately comparable to _Hitler_?



Really?

Read the Nazi Party Platform , then repost.


----------



## Agnapostate

Cuntufascist, you shut the fuck up too until you get around to rebutting my posts on the topic.


----------



## Contumacious

Agnapostate said:


> Cuntufascist, you shut the fuck up too until you get around to rebutting my posts on the topic.



HUH?

Have I touched a nerve?


.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> 
> [. Is it that difficult to conclude that neither the Democrats or Republicans are legitimately comparable to _Hitler_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Read the Nazi Party Platform , then repost.
Click to expand...


Yeeeeaaaah....neither one is comparable.

I don't see either side saying only those of pure blood can be citizens, only these citizens can hold office, Jews must leave the country, all newspapers printed in a language other than english must get permission from the state first and so on.

Not only that, but I don't see either party doing the things that made the Nazi's, well, Nazi's, after this was written in 1920. I think that those old boys went even farther than those pages in their platform a few years later.


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> 
> [. Is it that difficult to conclude that neither the Democrats or Republicans are legitimately comparable to _Hitler_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Read the Nazi Party Platform , then repost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeeeeaaaah....neither one is comparable.
Click to expand...



OK Vern, Let's dissect the Nazi Platform:

*7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

*

Aren't the zombified persecuting Our Mexican Alien Friends; Aren't the Know Nothings demanding that aliens be excluded from Obama's Hellcare. Didn't President Hoover  expatriate Hispanics of Mexican Descent even if they were US Citizens?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?



.


----------



## Agnapostate

Contumacious said:


> HUH?
> 
> Have I touched a nerve?



Yeah, it's part of my "intolerance for complete morons" perspective, I suppose.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Read the Nazi Party Platform , then repost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeeaaaah....neither one is comparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK Vern, Let's dissect the Nazi Platform:
> 
> *7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
> 
> *
> 
> Aren't the zombified persecuting Our Mexican Alien Friends; Aren't the Know Nothings demanding that aliens be excluded from Obama's Hellcare. Didn't President Hoover  expatriate Hispanics of Mexican Descent even if they were US Citizens?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Had to go all the way back to Hoover?

Lets just nip this in the bud here.

Just because certain parts of Hitler's, the Nazi,'s Stalin's, the Communist's (fill in the blank with your favorite hated regime in history) platform happens to be pretty analogous to certain parts of a modern American political party's platform does not mean that the modern American political party is comparable to all that those regimes stood for. If the Nazi's declared that water is indeed wet, does that then make it evil that H2O tends to actually be a bit moist? If the Nazi's wanted a strong military, does wanting a strong military make one a Nazi? If the communists did not want religion in the government, does that make wanting a non-religious government communistic?

It's intellectually dishonest. And those that purvey this view are either a) knowingly intellectually dishonest themselves b) trolls or c) just plain stupid.

Multiple choice. Take yer pick.


----------



## rdean

elvis3577 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews?
> 
> Wow, sounds like a Republican.  Don't they hate all those things?
> 
> I bet that's why all the KKK and the Aryans belong to the Republican Party, or as some now refer to it, the "Confederate Party".
> 
> I think I've heard everything the Confederate Party is against, besides forced religion and tax breaks for the rich, what are they for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you sound like an idiot.  but you always sound like an idiot, so you're shooting par.
Click to expand...


Yea, okay, so I'm an idiot.  But still, KKK and Aryans consider themselves more Republican than Democrat.  Republicans want school prayer, tax breaks for the rich.  Republicans hate  Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals and are not very fond of the Jews.  Republicans are anti education (they want to teach "mysticism" is equal to "science").

And for those that say Hitler wanted a "final" solution and neither Democrats or Republicans are like that, I believe it's only because of the law.  If Republicans thought they could enforce a "final solution" against the gays, does anyone believe that wouldn't?  If they had the opportunity?  You only have to read what they believe on this site alone.

All you have to do is a search on "Gay final solution Republican" and you get lots of people like Scott Renfroe:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsQZiKyJgmw]YouTube - Scott Renfroe Compares Being Gay to Murder[/ame]

I just wish I understood why Republicans are so dishonest.


----------



## RadiomanATL

rdean said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews?
> 
> Wow, sounds like a Republican.  Don't they hate all those things?
> 
> I bet that's why all the KKK and the Aryans belong to the Republican Party, or as some now refer to it, the "Confederate Party".
> 
> I think I've heard everything the Confederate Party is against, besides forced religion and tax breaks for the rich, what are they for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you sound like an idiot.  but you always sound like an idiot, so you're shooting par.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, okay, so I'm an idiot.  But still, KKK and Aryans consider themselves more Republican than Democrat.  Republicans want school prayer, tax breaks for the rich.  Republicans hate  Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals and are not very fond of the Jews.  Republicans are anti education (they want to teach "mysticism" is equal to "science").
> 
> And for those that say Hitler wanted a "final" solution and neither Democrats or Republicans are like that, I believe it's only because of the law.  If Republicans thought they could enforce a "final solution" against the gays, does anyone believe that wouldn't?  If they had the opportunity?  You only have to read what they believe on this site alone.
> 
> All you have to do is a search on "Gay final solution Republican" and you get lots of people like Scott Renfroe:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsQZiKyJgmw]YouTube - Scott Renfroe Compares Being Gay to Murder[/ame]
> 
> I just wish I understood why Republicans are so dishonest.
Click to expand...


The dumb is strong with you.


----------



## elvis

rdean said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews?
> 
> Wow, sounds like a Republican.  Don't they hate all those things?
> 
> I bet that's why all the KKK and the Aryans belong to the Republican Party, or as some now refer to it, the "Confederate Party".
> 
> I think I've heard everything the Confederate Party is against, besides forced religion and tax breaks for the rich, what are they for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you sound like an idiot.  but you always sound like an idiot, so you're shooting par.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, okay, so I'm an idiot.  But still, KKK and Aryans consider themselves more Republican than Democrat.  Republicans want school prayer, tax breaks for the rich.  Republicans hate  Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals and are not very fond of the Jews.  Republicans are anti education (they want to teach "mysticism" is equal to "science").
> 
> And for those that say Hitler wanted a "final" solution and neither Democrats or Republicans are like that, I believe it's only because of the law.  If Republicans thought they could enforce a "final solution" against the gays, does anyone believe that wouldn't?  If they had the opportunity?  You only have to read what they believe on this site alone.
> 
> All you have to do is a search on "Gay final solution Republican" and you get lots of people like Scott Renfroe:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsQZiKyJgmw]YouTube - Scott Renfroe Compares Being Gay to Murder[/ame]
> 
> I just wish I understood why Republicans are so dishonest.
Click to expand...


Thank you Comrade Stalin for that informative rant.


----------



## AllieBaba

rdean said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews?
> 
> Wow, sounds like a Republican.  Don't they hate all those things?
> 
> I bet that's why all the KKK and the Aryans belong to the Republican Party, or as some now refer to it, the "Confederate Party".
> 
> I think I've heard everything the Confederate Party is against, besides forced religion and tax breaks for the rich, what are they for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you sound like an idiot.  but you always sound like an idiot, so you're shooting par.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, okay, so I'm an idiot.  But still, KKK and Aryans consider themselves more Republican than Democrat.  Republicans want school prayer, tax breaks for the rich.  Republicans hate  Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals and are not very fond of the Jews.  Republicans are anti education (they want to teach "mysticism" is equal to "science").
> 
> And for those that say Hitler wanted a "final" solution and neither Democrats or Republicans are like that, I believe it's only because of the law.  If Republicans thought they could enforce a "final solution" against the gays, does anyone believe that wouldn't?  If they had the opportunity?  You only have to read what they believe on this site alone.
> 
> All you have to do is a search on "Gay final solution Republican" and you get lots of people like Scott Renfroe:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsQZiKyJgmw]YouTube - Scott Renfroe Compares Being Gay to Murder[/ame]
> 
> I just wish I understood why Republicans are so dishonest.
Click to expand...


They aren't dishonest. You're wrong. Most Republicans don't want to kill gays. And most KKK members and white supremecist groups aren't Republican. In fact, the KKK comes out of the South, which has traditionally been a DEMOCRAT stronghold, and the isolationist groups are libertarians.

"Final solution" is eugenics, and I'll give you one guess on who supports it. That's right, our current fascist regime and the majority of democrats who want to do away with unwanted and poor children, old people, and imperfect people. And if you listen to their verbage, they describe anyone who doesn't agree with them on any subject as imperfect. Stupid, ignorant, inbred, etc.

"Final solution" is the determination that a group of people is somehow lesser than your own group, and that's exactly what you see with the Dems and their insistence that Christians and/or Republicans are substandard.

Where do you think this is going?


----------



## AllieBaba

BTW, Peta wants all humans off the face of the planet as do most environmentalist groups.

Are they Republicans, too?

And Immanuel openly states he wants to deny health care to ppl "for the good of" the rest of the population, starting with old folks. That's "final solution" stuff for real.

Is he a Republican?


----------



## paperview

AllieBaba said:


> BTW, Peta wants all humans off the face of the planet as do most environmentalist groups.
> 
> Are they Republicans, too?
> 
> And Immanuel openly states he wants to deny health care to ppl "for the good of" the rest of the population, starting with old folks. That's "final solution" stuff for real.
> 
> Is he a Republican?



To quote an earlier poster:





rdean said:


> ....
> 
> I just wish I understood why Republicans are so dishonest.


----------



## AllieBaba

Look what I found when I googled "Democrat Final Solution":

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated" 

"Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort." 
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

"Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others"

"Some of the amicus curiae briefs submitted to the Supreme Court expressed the same logic: "Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide" and "the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care." 
NEJM -- What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?

"In the Netherlands, approximately 3100 cases of euthanasia and 550 cases of physician-assisted suicide occur annually, representing 2.3 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively, of all deaths.31 (There are an additional 1000 cases [0.7 percent] in which euthanasia is performed without the patients' explicit, current consent.31 Such cases are neither sanctioned in the Netherlands nor permitted by the current proposals for legalization of physician-assisted suicide in the United States.)"
NEJM -- What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?

"Clearly, the more life forgone, the greater the projected savings. In addition, Dutch physicians estimated that 8 percent of the patients who died as a result of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia would have lived longer than six months29,30; such patients are not "terminally ill," as defined by Oregon's law governing physician-assisted suicide and most American proposals for legalization, and thus would not be permitted to receive a physician's assistance with suicide in the United States."
NEJM -- What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?
The Netherlands information is there because there's is a country that allows euthanasia...and it has lead to non-consensual euthanasia (aka, "murder") on a grand scale. It's not legal, but nobody is prosecuted for it. It's an open secret.

From the same link:

"Another reason may be that people overestimate the number of Americans who die each year. Less than 1 percent of Americans die each year. Of these, many would be unable or ineligible to request a physician's assistance with suicide, even if it were legalized: newborns with serious birth defects, minors, victims of trauma, persons who die suddenly from myocardial infarctions or strokes, and patients with dementia. More important, if Americans were to choose physician-assisted suicide at the same rate as the Dutch choose euthanasia, only 0.027 percent of Americans might choose physician-assisted suicide if it were legalized. Put another way, more than 99.97 percent of Americans would continue to receive the usual health care at the usual cost. Because physician-assisted suicide would not affect the health care provided to the vast majority of Americans, it would not substantially reduce overall health care costs."

Again Immanuel:

"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. *Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia*."


----------



## AllieBaba

Also, the "Confederates" were straight up democrats. Republicans were the abolitionists.


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeeaaaah....neither one is comparable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK Vern, Let's dissect the Nazi Platform:
> 
> *7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
> 
> *
> 
> Aren't the zombified persecuting Our Mexican Alien Friends; Aren't the Know Nothings demanding that aliens be excluded from Obama's Hellcare. Didn't President Hoover  expatriate Hispanics of Mexican Descent even if they were US Citizens?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had to go all the way back to Hoover?
> 
> Lets just nip this in the bud here.
> 
> Just because certain parts of Hitler's, the Nazi,'s Stalin's, the Communist's (fill in the blank with your favorite hated regime in history) platform happens to be pretty analogous to certain parts of a modern American political party's platform does not mean that the modern American political party is comparable to all that those regimes stood for. If the Nazi's declared that water is indeed wet, does that then make it evil that H2O tends to actually be a bit moist? If the Nazi's wanted a strong military, does wanting a strong military make one a Nazi? If the communists did not want religion in the government, does that make wanting a non-religious government communistic?
> 
> It's intellectually dishonest. And those that purvey this view are either a) knowingly intellectually dishonest themselves b) trolls or c) just plain stupid.
> 
> Multiple choice. Take yer pick.
Click to expand...


I see, so the fact that the US  has a huge welfare/warfare state  apparatus is a mere coinkidink ?


.


----------



## paperview

AllieBaba said:


> Also, the "Confederates" were straight up democrats. Republicans were the abolitionists.


*Were.*

Operative word there.


----------



## NYcarbineer

* Both in theory and practice, National Socialism opposes liberalism.*

Joseph Goebbels, 1933.

So, the challenge is, for some of you, to show that Nazism wasn't anti-liberalism when even Nazism's own founders and practitioners believed otherwise.


----------



## elvis

paperview said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the "Confederates" were straight up democrats. Republicans were the abolitionists.
> 
> 
> 
> *Were.*
> 
> Operative word there.
Click to expand...


so republicans are in favor of putting blacks in chains?  MMMMMMk.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK Vern, Let's dissect the Nazi Platform:
> 
> *7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
> 
> *
> 
> Aren't the zombified persecuting Our Mexican Alien Friends; Aren't the Know Nothings demanding that aliens be excluded from Obama's Hellcare. Didn't President Hoover  expatriate Hispanics of Mexican Descent even if they were US Citizens?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had to go all the way back to Hoover?
> 
> Lets just nip this in the bud here.
> 
> Just because certain parts of Hitler's, the Nazi,'s Stalin's, the Communist's (fill in the blank with your favorite hated regime in history) platform happens to be pretty analogous to certain parts of a modern American political party's platform does not mean that the modern American political party is comparable to all that those regimes stood for. If the Nazi's declared that water is indeed wet, does that then make it evil that H2O tends to actually be a bit moist? If the Nazi's wanted a strong military, does wanting a strong military make one a Nazi? If the communists did not want religion in the government, does that make wanting a non-religious government communistic?
> 
> It's intellectually dishonest. And those that purvey this view are either a) knowingly intellectually dishonest themselves b) trolls or c) just plain stupid.
> 
> Multiple choice. Take yer pick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so the fact that the US  has a huge welfare/warfare state  apparatus is a mere coinkidink ?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Sweden is Nazi??


----------



## paperview

elvis3577 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the "Confederates" were straight up democrats. Republicans were the abolitionists.
> 
> 
> 
> *Were.*
> 
> Operative word there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so republicans are in favor of putting blacks in chains?  MMMMMMk.
Click to expand...

Right after the word "so" was where you took a flying leap.


----------



## NYcarbineer

elvis3577 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the "Confederates" were straight up democrats. Republicans were the abolitionists.
> 
> 
> 
> *Were.*
> 
> Operative word there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so republicans are in favor of putting blacks in chains?  MMMMMMk.
Click to expand...


Well, modern day Republicans are openly talking about secession.  Which political side of 1860 would that put them on?


----------



## elvis

paperview said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Were.*
> 
> Operative word there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so republicans are in favor of putting blacks in chains?  MMMMMMk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right after the word "so" was where you took a flying leap.
Click to expand...


so you were defending the democrats, not attacking the republicans in that statement?


----------



## paperview

elvis3577 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so republicans are in favor of putting blacks in chains?  MMMMMMk.
> 
> 
> 
> Right after the word "so" was where you took a flying leap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you were defending the democrats, not attacking the republicans in that statement?
Click to expand...

For a new perspective, perhaps you should consider not starting your next presumption with *so.*


----------



## paperview

NYcarbineer said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Were.*
> 
> Operative word there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so republicans are in favor of putting blacks in chains?  MMMMMMk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, modern day Republicans are openly talking about secession.  Which political side of 1860 would that put them on?
Click to expand...

I'm going to take a wild guess at "Not Lincoln's" for $200.


----------



## elvis

paperview said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right after the word "so" was where you took a flying leap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you were defending the democrats, not attacking the republicans in that statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a new perspective, perhaps you should consider not starting your next presumption with *so.*
Click to expand...


perhaps you should tell your liberal friends on here to stop calling the republican party the "confederate party".


----------



## paperview

elvis3577 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you were defending the democrats, not attacking the republicans in that statement?
> 
> 
> 
> For a new perspective, perhaps you should consider not starting your next presumption with *so.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> perhaps you should tell your liberal friends on here to stop calling the republican party the "confederate party".
Click to expand...

Do you imagine I am their leader or something?


----------



## pal_of_poor

Agnapostate said:


> Self-description is not a sufficient validation, unless you consider the Soviet-controlled German "Democratic" Republic or the "People's Republic" of China to be legitimately such. Even the populist elements of the Nazi party weren't legitimately socialist, and they were all destroyed on the Night of the Long Knives anyhow.



Yea, it's hard to call yourself a socialist, then run around killing all the communists and socialists.

It seems a bit, um...contradictory.

Man, republican worlds of misinformation are crashing all around these Jonah Goldberg fans.  Jeez, just looking at his titles is enough to make one know the books aren't worth reading.   Seriously, _liberal media_?  Who are you kidding, that little _canard _has been exposed long ago for a big pile of BS.


----------



## paperview

> perhaps you should tell your liberal friends on here to stop calling the republican party the "confederate party".



Maybe you could have a few words with your side...(but be careful)

You can start with discussing  their chosen flag.*










*not all, some.


----------



## rdean

In reference to links by Alliebaba:

This is why you people are so dishonest.  To even suggest that Democrats are for killing old people is ridiculous.  Look at the first article you link to.  It begins with "Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge."

Republicans don't even know that.  They want to turn "scarce organs and vaccines" into "pull the plug".  

Scarce: (skârs)
adj. scarc·er, scarc·est 
1. Insufficient to meet a demand or requirement; short in supply: Fresh vegetables were scarce during the drought.
2. Hard to find; absent or rare: Steel pennies are scarce now except in coin shops.
adv.
Barely or hardly; scarcely

The problem is Republicans don't know how to debate because they are always looking for an "Ah ha" moment, they don't even put it in context.

First:

Racist Democrats left the party and swelled the ranks of the Southern Confederate Republican party.  Don't try to pretend otherwise.  Macaca, ho, Obama signs with ribs and fried chicken - it's all there.  There and plain to see.  The intention is clear.  Don't call a sow's ear a can of tomatoes.

Look at well known Republican and conservative Scalia: The ruling (ending laws aimed at gays), Scalia said, &#8220;held to be a constitutional right what had been a criminal offense at the time of the founding and for nearly 200 years thereafter.&#8221;

Of course, at the time, we also had slavery and women were property and couldn't vote.  The Confederate Republican "good old days".

The truth is, Republicans discriminate and they come up with ZERO solutions.  Health Care is bankrupting our country - no solutions.  They are anti gay, anti black and anti education.  The result from that is clearly demonstrated by the FACT that less than 6% of scientists ARE Republican.  They even want to teach "mysticism" in place of science.

Now, the question I have is"

WHY ARE REPUBLICANS SO DISHONEST????


----------



## NYcarbineer

paperview said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so republicans are in favor of putting blacks in chains?  MMMMMMk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, modern day Republicans are openly talking about secession.  Which political side of 1860 would that put them on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm going to take a wild guess at "Not Lincoln's" for $200.
Click to expand...


Republicans as the party of Lincoln expired quite some time ago.


----------



## rdean

elvis3577 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you were defending the democrats, not attacking the republicans in that statement?
> 
> 
> 
> For a new perspective, perhaps you should consider not starting your next presumption with *so.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> perhaps you should tell your liberal friends on here to stop calling the republican party the "confederate party".
Click to expand...


Actually, I got that name from well known conservative and life long Republican Kathleen Parker.  A person who is upset that the Republican Party has been hijacked by the Religious Right.  She refers to the Republican Party as either the Confederate Party or the party of "Ooga booga".

As long as the anti black, anti science crowd is in charge, the Republican Party, once the party of scientists and "the party of ideas" is now, most definitely, the Confederate Party or the party of "Ooga booga".  Get used to it.  Change it or own it.


----------



## Luissa

pal_of_poor said:


> In fact, he went after them before he started exterminating Jews.  So, who hates communism, socialism, and homosexuals more, democrats, or republicans.  Here is an excerpt from a book, you know, a good, historical account, rather than a right-wing idiot paid to mislead you, so you can get all irritated about something that isn't even true, and look like a dummy.
> 
> Begin excerpt:
> 
> Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word Nazi, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to Sozi.  _Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of or an outgrowth from, Socialism.  True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital.  Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be the socialism of fools.  But from the very beginning Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the November traitors who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies._
> The National Socialists wanted to unite the two political camps of the left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation.  The basis for this was to be the idea of race.  This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism.  Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity.  The idea of party, suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity.  In speeches and propagandas however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of National Socialist movement, just as the Social Democrats had talked of workers movement or, come to that, the feminists of the womens movement and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of youth movement.  The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics.  By presenting itself as a movement, National Socialism, like the labor movement, advertised is opposition to conventional politics and is intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.
> 
> By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology.  The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Partys official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in the mid-1920s: the field was bright red, the color of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white, and red, the colors of the official flag of the Bismarckian rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new,  Pan-German racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.
> 
> _The Coming of the Third Reich_, by Richard J. Evans  pp. 173-74
> 
> I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany.  Nazis were "National Socialists."  They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people.  They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
> 
> I would say I'm surprised that people can be so uninformed, but with FOX, Limbaugh, and the host of other misinformation sites out there, I understand it perfectly.  They are willing to fine a quick flash of Janet Jackson's nipple, but they allow corporate media to flood the airwaves with lies, and misinformation, without penalty.  No wonder?


why don't we just stick to comparing hitler to hitler.
The Dems or Repubs are nothing like Nazi's or Hitler and all we do when try to compare them is creating fear.


----------



## AllieBaba

paperview said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> For a new perspective, perhaps you should consider not starting your next presumption with *so.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps you should tell your liberal friends on here to stop calling the republican party the "confederate party".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you imagine I am their leader or something?
Click to expand...


I imagine like attracts like. Your friends are ignorant and you probably are as well.


----------



## pal_of_poor

rdean said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews?
> 
> Wow, sounds like a Republican.  Don't they hate all those things?
> 
> I bet that's why all the KKK and the Aryans belong to the Republican Party, or as some now refer to it, the "Confederate Party".
> 
> I think I've heard everything the Confederate Party is against, besides forced religion and tax breaks for the rich, what are they for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you sound like an idiot.  but you always sound like an idiot, so you're shooting par.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, okay, so I'm an idiot.  But still, KKK and Aryans consider themselves more Republican than Democrat.  Republicans want school prayer, tax breaks for the rich.  Republicans hate  Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals and are not very fond of the Jews.  Republicans are anti education (they want to teach "mysticism" is equal to "science").
> 
> And for those that say Hitler wanted a "final" solution and neither Democrats or Republicans are like that, I believe it's only because of the law.  If Republicans thought they could enforce a "final solution" against the gays, does anyone believe that wouldn't?  If they had the opportunity?  You only have to read what they believe on this site alone.
> 
> All you have to do is a search on "Gay final solution Republican" and you get lots of people like Scott Renfroe:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsQZiKyJgmw]YouTube - Scott Renfroe Compares Being Gay to Murder[/ame]
> 
> I just wish I understood why Republicans are so dishonest.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure why so many dismiss this as invalid argumentation, since there are republicans at these meetings calling Obama a Nazi.  I think it's important we decide which party is more like the Nazis, in order to avoid going down that road any farther.  And you can compare unlike things--is an orange more like a grapefruit, or is an orange more like an apple?  Clearly, in ways that matter, an orange, while not exactly being a grapefruit, is more like the grapefruit, in texture, substance, and even taste.  It has cells, and is juicy.

Anyway, yes, of course they'd exterminate gays if they could, my God, have you seen the people out there at these meetings?  Birthers, deathers, obvious racists, toting guns.  These people are the most backward that live in the states, and for the most part, the least educated.

Republicans wanted these wars of aquisition, republicans sometimes base the wars on "we've got a better way," so it's okay to kill you folks to put our system in place.  Republicans torture, openly embrace torture, and make fun of decent people who don't see it as a preferred method.  Republicans use the government to kill people, through the death penalty.  Republicans do hate homosexuals, Socialists, Communists, and though the democrats are going pretty corporate these days, the Republicans are pretty corporatist, and if there is one word to describe Fascism, it'd be corporatist, where the government does everything to help corporations along, even providing them with wage-slaves, cutting back wages, paying for them to move to third world countries, with cheap labor, and no environmental or safety standards, even though it obviously hurts America.  I mean, we've got an unofficial unemployment rate of 19 percent now, shouldn't we start looking at what is good for Americans, not America, the corporation?

Yea, it's important to have this discussion, and no, no one is exactly like NAZIS, obviously.  But in the face of morons going out and calling Obama a NAZI, some response is required, and one can only conclude we evicted the Nazis in 2008.  I might add, Bush/Cheney was as close to a dictatorship we've ever had.


----------



## Contumacious

Luissa said:


> The Dems or Repubs are nothing like Nazi's or Hitler and all we do when try to compare them is creating fear.



1- Are there over 2,200,000 inmates in US prisons?

2- Do we have a massive domestic standing army as amply demonstrated by the Davidians invasion?

3- Hasn't the federal government USURP plans to declare martial Law and/or complete control by the scumbags inside the DC Beltway?


.


----------



## Agnapostate

AllieBaba said:


> BTW, Peta wants all humans off the face of the planet as do most environmentalist groups.



I'm not familiar with that particular initiative. Cite your source, please.


----------



## Yukon

Adolph Hitler was one of the greatest men the world has ever known. Unfortunately he was unable to finish the job but his dream lives on.


----------



## AllieBaba

Good lord.


----------



## paperview

Agnapostate said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Peta wants all humans off the face of the planet as do most environmentalist groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not familiar with that particular initiative. Cite your source, please.
Click to expand...

You don't really expect her to back that up, do you?


----------



## LibocalypseNow

So many people doing so much babbling on this thread. Just go and do some real research on Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler and the Nazis did consider themselves to be loyal Socialists. Hitler was vehemently Anti-Capitalism. Just go and read his own writings and comments on this subject and many others and you might just learn actual facts rather than useless interpretations and opinions. Go and find out what the man himself actually wrote and said. Go to the source for God's sake. Read People! Read!


----------



## Polk

Why read his writings when I can look at his actions?


----------



## Agnapostate

LibocalypseNow said:


> So many people doing so much babbling on this thread. Just go and do some real research on Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler and the Nazis did consider themselves to be loyal Socialists. Hitler was vehemently Anti-Capitalism. Just go and read his own writings and comments on this subject and many others and you might just learn actual facts rather than useless interpretations and opinions. Go and find out what the man himself actually wrote and said. Go to the source for God's sake. Read People! Read!



Will you end this nonsensical drivel already? Believe it or not, you're actually making less sense than Allie.


----------



## AllieBaba

paperview said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Peta wants all humans off the face of the planet as do most environmentalist groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not familiar with that particular initiative. Cite your source, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't really expect her to back that up, do you?
Click to expand...


Have you ever listened to Peta's Queen speak?

I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I dont have any reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at least I wouldnt be harming anything.
 The Washington Post, Nov 1983


----------



## AllieBaba

-"Humans have grown like cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the planet."
Ingrid Newkirk
Founder, PETA
Reader's Digest, June, 1990


----------



## Agnapostate

So there's no advocacy of the destruction of humans that you can refer to? That doesn't surprise me. Rightists' typical claims that the animal rights movement seeks to equate humans and animals are idiotic enough; yet, you've gone a step beyond that.


----------



## AllieBaba

Gosh, I guess the reference to cancer indicates her desire to watch it grow.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Geez what a snooze fest. Yet more babbling,useless interpretations,and opinions. Stop being so lazy and go do some research on what Hitler himself wrote and said about these subjects and many others. Go to the source for God's sake. The information is out there if you're interested in fact. READ PEOPLE! READ!


----------



## mal

manu1959 said:


> They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.



That is some really Dishonest Shit...

I Hope you don't Honestly Believe that.



peace...


----------



## Agnapostate

AllieBaba said:


> Gosh, I guess the reference to cancer indicates her desire to watch it grow.



Or engage in behavioral or policy changes. But I guess that's too complex for you, sweetie.


----------



## Polk

LibocalypseNow said:


> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Geez what a snooze fest. Yet more babbling,useless interpretations,and opinions. Stop being so lazy and go do some research on what Hitler himself wrote and said about these subjects and many others. Go to the source for God's sake. The information is out there if you're interested in fact. READ PEOPLE! READ!



Who cares what he wrote about the topic when you have the record of his actions to go by?


----------



## mal

Polk said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Geez what a snooze fest. Yet more babbling,useless interpretations,and opinions. Stop being so lazy and go do some research on what Hitler himself wrote and said about these subjects and many others. Go to the source for God's sake. The information is out there if you're interested in fact. READ PEOPLE! READ!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what he wrote about the topic when you have the record of his actions to go by?
Click to expand...


It Appears that Hitler and the Modern Islamist have MUCH in Common with this Thread's Title...



peace...


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Ok there is way too much pompous babbling on this thread but not a whole lot of facts so I'll go ahead and buck the system and include a little fact for ya..."We are Socialists,we are enemies of today's Capitalistic economic System for the exploitation of the economically weak,with its unfair salaries,with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance,and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." - Adolf Hitler.

I don't know about you but it seems to me that today's American Socialists sound a lot like Adolf Hitler. Scary stuff.


----------



## Agnapostate

Nothing gets through your head, does it? Apart from the fact that the Third Reich placed tremendous emphasis on the sustainment of private property, as previously mentioned, there is no viable group of "American socialists," since socialism requires the public ownership and management of the means of production.


----------



## Contumacious

Agnapostate said:


> Nothing gets through your head, does it? Apart from the fact that th*e Third Reich placed tremendous emphasis on the sustainment of private property*,.



Correct. 

Statists are parasitic in nature , so Hitler was smart enough to know that no bureaucrat could effectively manage , for example, The family business, known as Friedrich Krupp AG Hoesch-Krupp. So private industry is tolerated , of course under massive government control.

Some corrupt businessmen like fascism  because they usually get to form coercive monopolies.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Talk about "Nothing gets through your head?" lol! Your pompous interpretation and opinion means nothing. Do some real research on Hitler and the Nazis and then get back to us. Get the facts and not just more stale repetitive opinions and conjecture. READ PEOPLE! READ!


----------



## Agnapostate

Really? I'm the one here who's referred to accurate analyses of the role of private property in the Nazi economy, such as the industrial sector through reference to _The role of private property in the Nazi economy: the case of industry_:



> Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.



Not that I'd expect you to pay attention, of course.


----------



## paperview

LibocalypseNow said:


> Talk about "Nothing gets through your head?" lol! Your pompous interpretation and opinion means nothing. Do some real research on Hitler and the Nazis and then get back to us. Get the facts and not just more stale repetitive opinions and conjecture. READ PEOPLE! READ!


You're a big fan of reading...one question I'd like you to answer:

Have you read Mein Kampf?


----------



## rdean

Yukon said:


> Adolph Hitler was one of the greatest men the world has ever known. Unfortunately he was unable to finish the job but his dream lives on.



So, which one do you vote for?

A.  Republican

B.  Democrat

C.  Independent

D.  Don't vote

E.  Other


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Just more pompous opinion and interpretation. Go to the source for God's sake. Hitler's beliefs on many issues are out there for anyone who wants facts. Otherwise you're just spewing someone else's tired interpretations and opinions. Nothing more,nothing less. The facts are out there people. You just have to take some time and research.


----------



## AllieBaba

Agnapostate said:


> Nothing gets through your head, does it? Apart from the fact that the Third Reich placed tremendous emphasis on the sustainment of private property, as previously mentioned, there is no viable group of "American socialists," since socialism requires the public ownership and management of the means of production.



Private property for an elite few. They confiscated the property of those who didn't toe the line, and dispersed it amongst themselves.


----------



## paperview

LibocalypseNow said:


> Just more pompous opinion and interpretation. Go to the source for God's sake. Hitler's beliefs on many issues are out there for anyone who wants facts. Otherwise you're just spewing someone else's tired interpretations and opinions. Nothing more,nothing less. The facts are out there people. You just have to take some time and research.


Are you just a broken record, or do you actually answer questions?

To repeat:

You're a big fan of reading...one question I'd like you to answer:

Have you read Mein Kampf?


----------



## AllieBaba

rdean said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adolph Hitler was one of the greatest men the world has ever known. Unfortunately he was unable to finish the job but his dream lives on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, which one do you vote for?
> 
> A.  Republican
> 
> B.  Democrat
> 
> C.  Independent
> 
> D.  Don't vote
> 
> E.  Other
Click to expand...


Yukon doesn't vote in this country at all. He's a Canadian. Just another foreign retard who is intimidated by debating politics in his own country, so migrates to our boards to insult our system and tell us all the reasons we should do things which will result in the advancement of less successful entities.


----------



## paperview

I don't suspect we'll be getting an answer from LibocalypseNow.


----------



## Agnapostate

AllieBaba said:


> Private property for an elite few. They confiscated the property of those who didn't toe the line, and dispersed it amongst themselves.



What part of _"freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from"_ was incomprehensible to you?


----------



## Polk

Contumacious said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing gets through your head, does it? Apart from the fact that th*e Third Reich placed tremendous emphasis on the sustainment of private property*,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Statists are parasitic in nature , so Hitler was smart enough to know that no bureaucrat could effectively manage , for example, The family business, known as Friedrich Krupp AG Hoesch-Krupp. So private industry is tolerated , of course under massive government control.
> 
> Some corrupt businessmen like fascism  because they usually get to form coercive monopolies.
Click to expand...


1. Family business? The name says otherwise.
2. The important factor is determining if the system is socialist or not is who gets the returns of production. If it goes to the state, then it's socialism. If it goes to the owners of the firm, it's not.


----------



## Polk

paperview said:


> I don't suspect we'll be getting an answer from LibocalypseNow.



Has he answered any question in this thread?


----------



## AllieBaba

Agnapostate said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private property for an elite few. They confiscated the property of those who didn't toe the line, and dispersed it amongst themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of _"freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from"_ was incomprehensible to you?
Click to expand...


Lovely. Just what we need, a Nazi pedophile.


----------



## elvis

Yukon said:


> Adolph Hitler was one of the greatest men the world has ever known. Unfortunately he was unable to finish the job but his dream lives on.



Since he's your hero and all, do you like women to piss on your face like he did?


----------



## AllieBaba

Well of course he does, dummy!


----------



## elvis

AllieBaba said:


> Well of course he does, dummy!



Hitler had his niece do it.  I had to leave that part out.


----------



## Contumacious

Polk said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing gets through your head, does it? Apart from the fact that th*e Third Reich placed tremendous emphasis on the sustainment of private property*,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Statists are parasitic in nature , so Hitler was smart enough to know that no bureaucrat could effectively manage , for example, The family business, known as Friedrich Krupp AG Hoesch-Krupp. So private industry is tolerated , of course under massive government control.
> 
> Some corrupt businessmen like fascism  because they usually get to form coercive monopolies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Family business? The name says otherwise.
> 2. *The important factor is determining if the system is socialist or not is who gets the returns of production. If it goes to the state, then it's socialism. If it goes to the owners of the firm, it's not.*
Click to expand...


Again, it is understood that the Nazi's were fascists notwithstanding their party's name.

The fascist state obtains its revenue typically through a heavy graduated income taxes.

The 5th Plank of the Communist Manifesto calls for a *heavy graduated income tax*during the transition period from a free economy to a communist system.


.


----------



## Richard-H

The only thing that can accurately describes the Nazis is that they were extreme militant Nationalist hell bent on avenging WWI and willing to say ANYTHING in order to get the support of the German people. They had no real ideology - just mass propaganda.

It's my belief that what was truly at the root of Naziism is an entire generation that suffered from EXTREME post traumatic stress after 5 years of hell in the trenches.

They were as cruel and destructive to their own people and country, especially the German soldiers, as they were to everyone else.

In short, they were PLAIN FUCKING NUTS.

It is therefore obvious that they had an awful lot in common with modern day Americans Conservatives!


----------



## jillian

Agnapostate said:


> So there's no advocacy of the destruction of humans that you can refer to? That doesn't surprise me. Rightists' typical claims that the animal rights movement seeks to equate humans and animals are idiotic enough; yet, you've gone a step beyond that.



I'm all for being kind to animals...I love animals.

But any normal person understands that human life and animal life are not equal... 

and PETA has it's priorities all skewed.


----------



## AllieBaba

Richard-H said:


> The only thing that can accurately describes the Nazis is that they were extreme militant Nationalist hell bent on avenging WWI and willing to say ANYTHING in order to get the support of the German people. They had no real ideology - just mass propaganda.
> 
> It's my belief that what was truly at the root of Naziism is an entire generation that suffered from EXTREME post traumatic stress after 5 years of hell in the trenches.
> 
> They were as cruel and destructive to their own people and country, especially the German soldiers, as they were to everyone else.
> 
> In short, they were PLAIN FUCKING NUTS.
> 
> It is therefore obvious that they had an awful lot in common with modern day Americans Conservatives!



Actually, their methodology has far more in common with the dems. Erode rights, hobnob with criminals, use fear to marginalize the opposition and to make it more palatable when you attempt to take them out of the picture.


----------



## paperview

Polk said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't suspect we'll be getting an answer from LibocalypseNow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has he answered any question in this thread?
Click to expand...

Not yet.

Not what I can see.


----------



## Agnapostate

AllieBaba said:


> Lovely. Just what we need, a Nazi pedophile.



I hope this post inspires rightists to support UHC, because it's becoming more and more apparent to me that mental illness and prescription drug abuse are far more rampant than cursory analysis would indicate. 

After all, you having seen what I look like and having seen that I'm a _fucking Native American_ just *must* plant the thought of me wanting to preserve the purity of the _Volk_ in your mind, right? 



jillian said:


> I'm all for being kind to animals...I love animals.
> 
> But any normal person understands that human life and animal life are not equal...
> 
> and PETA has it's priorities all skewed.



I'm not familiar with any claim on PETA's part that human and nonhuman animal lives are equal. Nor can that be inferred from the ethical reasoning that forms the foundation of the animal rights movement, which has primarily been supplied by Tom Regan and Peter Singer.


----------



## jillian

Agnapostate said:


> I'm not familiar with any claim on PETA's part that human and nonhuman animal lives are equal. Nor can that be inferred from the ethical reasoning that forms the foundation of the animal rights movement, which has primarily been supplied by Tom Regan and Peter Singer.



yet you use PETA's "human and non-human animal" rhetoric. That is another aspect of PETA's efforts to make humans and animals the same.

If you don't know of those claims, however, you don't know anything about PETA or Ingrid Newkirk. PETA's entire philosophy is based on "a rat is a fish is a dog is a boy".... 

Peter Singer is a liar and a loon. If you read his book "Animal Liberation", you will see that he states that it doesn't matter what lies you tell in furtherance of the cause. Someone who advocates that type of lying has no ethics.

I actually once heard Cleveland Amory (that misogynist creep) say that if he had a child, he would let it die before he alowed a baboon heart to be transplanted into it to save the child's life.....


----------



## Agnapostate

jillian said:


> yet you use PETA's "human and non-human animal" rhetoric. That is another aspect of PETA's efforts to make humans and animals the same.



There's a difference between advocating equality of consideration and equality of treatment. PETA's non-speciesist ideology doesn't translate into a failure to consider the typically different capacities and interests of humans and nonhuman animals; it simply considers those different capacities and interests to be the basis for discrimination rather than mere species differences. They likely wouldn't draw an ethical distinction between a human fetus and a nonhuman animal with a similar level of awareness and related capacities, for example, and I think that's an ethically sound stance.



jillian said:


> If you don't know of those claims, however, you don't know anything about PETA or Ingrid Newkirk. PETA's entire philosophy is based on "a fish is a dog is a pig is a boy"....



Truthfully, I don't know that much about PETA, but since I'm aware of rightists' propensity to misrepresent facts, I went to peruse their website after AllieBabble started her usual yammering. As far as I can discern, they support the same equality of consideration criteria that Singer does, and don't support equal treatment of humans and other animals. Newkirk's comment is probably based on that.  



jillian said:


> Peter Singer is a liar and a loon. If you read his book "Animal Liberation", you will see that he states that it doesn't matter what lies you tell in furtherance of the cause. Someone who advocates that type of lying has no ethics.



Since he's a consequentialist and a utilitarian, that could potentially be an ethically consistent position if he expects lies to produce greater good than the truth would. On the subject of Nazis, lying about the location of people the SS was hunting, for example, would produce better consequences than telling the truth.



jillian said:


> I actually once heard Cleveland Amory (that misogynist creep) say that if he had a child, he would let it die before he alowed a baboon heart to be transplanted into it to save the child's life.....



I don't see what relevance that has to the more pertinent topic of PETA's ideology, or if that could be ethically justified on the basis of that ideology.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK Vern, Let's dissect the Nazi Platform:
> 
> *7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
> 
> *
> 
> Aren't the zombified persecuting Our Mexican Alien Friends; Aren't the Know Nothings demanding that aliens be excluded from Obama's Hellcare. Didn't President Hoover  expatriate Hispanics of Mexican Descent even if they were US Citizens?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had to go all the way back to Hoover?
> 
> Lets just nip this in the bud here.
> 
> Just because certain parts of Hitler's, the Nazi,'s Stalin's, the Communist's (fill in the blank with your favorite hated regime in history) platform happens to be pretty analogous to certain parts of a modern American political party's platform does not mean that the modern American political party is comparable to all that those regimes stood for. If the Nazi's declared that water is indeed wet, does that then make it evil that H2O tends to actually be a bit moist? If the Nazi's wanted a strong military, does wanting a strong military make one a Nazi? If the communists did not want religion in the government, does that make wanting a non-religious government communistic?
> 
> It's intellectually dishonest. And those that purvey this view are either a) knowingly intellectually dishonest themselves b) trolls or c) just plain stupid.
> 
> Multiple choice. Take yer pick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so the fact that the US  has a huge welfare/warfare state  apparatus is a mere coinkidink ?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Post went over your level of comprehension, and you went with option C, huh?


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had to go all the way back to Hoover?
> 
> Lets just nip this in the bud here.
> 
> Just because certain parts of Hitler's, the Nazi,'s Stalin's, the Communist's (fill in the blank with your favorite hated regime in history) platform happens to be pretty analogous to certain parts of a modern American political party's platform does not mean that the modern American political party is comparable to all that those regimes stood for. If the Nazi's declared that water is indeed wet, does that then make it evil that H2O tends to actually be a bit moist? If the Nazi's wanted a strong military, does wanting a strong military make one a Nazi? If the communists did not want religion in the government, does that make wanting a non-religious government communistic?
> 
> It's intellectually dishonest. And those that purvey this view are either a) knowingly intellectually dishonest themselves b) trolls or c) just plain stupid.
> 
> Multiple choice. Take yer pick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so the fact that the US  has a huge welfare/warfare state  apparatus is a mere coinkidink ?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post went over your level of comprehension, and you went with option C, huh?
Click to expand...


Actually , it was you who chose option C.

Had you bothered to do some research before posting you would have found out that the SCOTUS declared FDR's welfare state programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL, see for example: 	
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

Madman FDR subsequently tried to abolish the SCOTUS.  In order to avoid a constitutional crisis ' the Supreme Court eventually caved in and approved the massive fascistic welfare state regulations.


Hitler and Franklin Roosevelt

In fact, there is a remarkable similarity between the economic policies that Hitler implemented and those that Franklin Roosevelt enacted. Keep in mind, first of all, that the German National Socialists were strong believers in Social Security, which Roosevelt introduced to the United States as part of his New Deal. Keep in mind also that the Nazis were strong believers in such other socialist schemes as public (i.e., government) schooling and national health care. In fact, my hunch is that very few Americans realize that Social Security, public schooling, Medicare, and Medicaid have their ideological roots in German socialism. 


.


----------



## Agnapostate

I've already explained the fallacious nature of describing capitalist state programs as "socialist" in nature and you've not replied. Try again.


----------



## Polk

Contumacious said:


> Madman FDR subsequently tried to abolish the SCOTUS.



He did no such thing.


----------



## Contumacious

Polk said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madman FDR subsequently tried to abolish the SCOTUS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did no such thing.
Click to expand...


March 9, 1937

We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. *We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.*

In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years.* In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. *Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. *But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.* 

 What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.

That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy. 

Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present. 

Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt


----------



## jillian

Agnapostate said:


> There's a difference between advocating equality of consideration and equality of treatment. PETA's non-speciesist ideology doesn't translate into a failure to consider the typically different capacities and interests of humans and nonhuman animals; it simply considers those different capacities and interests to be the basis for discrimination rather than mere species differences. They likely wouldn't draw an ethical distinction between a human fetus and a nonhuman animal with a similar level of awareness and related capacities, for example, and I think that's an ethically sound stance.



In effect, PETA DOES advocate equality of treatment if they advocate equality of consideration. I'm not sure how you separate the two

I'm afraid I also don't believe one can "discriminate against" animals.

Your paradigm, and PETA's, is faulty... and not worth addressing. If you don't see a difference between humans and animals, regardless of ability, then there's not a lot to discuss.

BTW, that's not to say that there aren't animals who have intellectua capacities which are extraordinary. But nature exists as a hierarchy. There is a food chain. And if a human being is sick, then I have no problem with using animals to find a cure. (Though I don't see any reason to use them for cosmetics research)



> Truthfully, I don't know that much about PETA, but since I'm aware of rightists' propensity to misrepresent facts, I went to peruse their website after AllieBabble started her usual yammering. As far as I can discern, they support the same equality of consideration criteria that Singer does, and don't support equal treatment of humans and other animals. Newkirk's comment is probably based on that.



Newkirk's response is based on what she believes.... which is that all life forms are equal.



> Since he's a consequentialist and a utilitarian, that could potentially be an ethically consistent position if he expects lies to produce greater good than the truth would. On the subject of Nazis, lying about the location of people the SS was hunting, for example, would produce better consequences than telling the truth.



Except that isn't what he's talking about. Terrible analogy, actually.

What Singer meant and means is "by all means necessary"... he advocates lying about the conditions in which the animals live. he advocates lying about PETA's true agenda. I find those types of lies unacceptable. Same as I find the anti-choicers' lies about D&E unacceptable.



> I don't see what relevance that has to the more pertinent topic of PETA's ideology, or if that could be ethically justified on the basis of that ideology.



oh,... perhaps I didn't mention...he was speaking at an "animal rights" rally... one of PETA's..... he was one of their "celebrity spokespersons".

That's its relevance to to the topic of PETA's ideology.


----------



## rightwinger

Contumacious said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madman FDR subsequently tried to abolish the SCOTUS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> March 9, 1937
> 
> We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. *We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.*
> 
> In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years.* In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. *Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. *But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.*
> 
> What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.
> 
> That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.
> 
> Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.
> 
> Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt
Click to expand...



How, in your mind, does advocating a retirement age equal "abolishing the Supreme Court"???


----------



## Zoomie1980

pal_of_poor said:


> In fact, he went after them before he started exterminating Jews.  So, who hates communism, socialism, and homosexuals more, democrats, or republicans.  Here is an excerpt from a book, you know, a good, historical account, rather than a right-wing idiot paid to mislead you, so you can get all irritated about something that isn't even true, and look like a dummy.
> 
> Begin excerpt:
> 
> Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word Nazi, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to Sozi.  _Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of or an outgrowth from, Socialism.  True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital.  Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be the socialism of fools.  But from the very beginning Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the November traitors who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies._
> The National Socialists wanted to unite the two political camps of the left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation.  The basis for this was to be the idea of race.  This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism.  Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity.  The idea of party, suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity.  In speeches and propagandas however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of National Socialist movement, just as the Social Democrats had talked of workers movement or, come to that, the feminists of the womens movement and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of youth movement.  The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics.  By presenting itself as a movement, National Socialism, like the labor movement, advertised is opposition to conventional politics and is intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.
> 
> By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology.  The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Partys official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in the mid-1920s: the field was bright red, the color of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white, and red, the colors of the official flag of the Bismarckian rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new,  Pan-German racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.
> 
> _The Coming of the Third Reich_, by Richard J. Evans  pp. 173-74
> 
> I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany.  Nazis were "National Socialists."  They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people.  They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
> 
> I would say I'm surprised that people can be so uninformed, but with FOX, Limbaugh, and the host of other misinformation sites out there, I understand it perfectly.  They are willing to fine a quick flash of Janet Jackson's nipple, but they allow corporate media to flood the airwaves with lies, and misinformation, without penalty.  No wonder?



The reporting, editorial, and managerial staff of Fox News is 52% registered DEMOCRAT.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so the fact that the US  has a huge welfare/warfare state  apparatus is a mere coinkidink ?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post went over your level of comprehension, and you went with option C, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually , it was you who chose option C.
> 
> Had you bothered to do some research before posting you would have found out that the SCOTUS declared FDR's welfare state programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL, see for example:
> United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).
> 
> Madman FDR subsequently tried to abolish the SCOTUS.  In order to avoid a constitutional crisis ' the Supreme Court eventually caved in and approved the massive fascistic welfare state regulations.
> 
> 
> Hitler and Franklin Roosevelt
> 
> In fact, there is a remarkable similarity between the economic policies that Hitler implemented and those that Franklin Roosevelt enacted. Keep in mind, first of all, that the German National Socialists were strong believers in Social Security, which Roosevelt introduced to the United States as part of his New Deal. Keep in mind also that the Nazis were strong believers in such other socialist schemes as public (i.e., government) schooling and national health care. In fact, my hunch is that very few Americans realize that Social Security, public schooling, Medicare, and Medicaid have their ideological roots in German socialism.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Still stuck on C, huh? Your post has absolutely zero to do with what I posted. So you instead you decide to divert, project and obfuscate to cover your inadequacies. 

Unsurprisingly I must add.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madman FDR subsequently tried to abolish the SCOTUS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> March 9, 1937
> 
> We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. *We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.*
> 
> In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years.* In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. *Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. *But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.*
> 
> What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.
> 
> That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.
> 
> Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.
> 
> Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt
Click to expand...


So you admit Polk was right?

I mean, everything you just posted didn't support your position and all...


----------



## RadiomanATL

rightwinger said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> March 9, 1937
> 
> We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. *We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.*
> 
> In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years.* In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. *Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. *But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.*
> 
> What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.
> 
> That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.
> 
> Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.
> 
> Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How, in your mind, does advocating a retirement age equal "abolishing the Supreme Court"???
Click to expand...


It doesn't.

But try telling that to a lunatic who has blinders on.


----------



## Contumacious

rightwinger said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> March 9, 1937
> 
> We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. *We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.*
> 
> In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years.* In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. *Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. *But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.*
> 
> What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.
> 
> That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.
> 
> Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.
> 
> Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How, in your mind, does advocating a retirement age equal "abolishing the Supreme Court"???
Click to expand...


His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution - came after the the Court was declaring his FASCISTIC programs UN-FUCKING-CONSTITUTIONAL.


So are you fucking telling me that if the Supreme Court declares Obama's Hellcare unconstitutional that he has a right to nominate 5 avowed fascists to the court. That he has a right to nominate a Judge every year until he gets a super majority. Bull fucking shit. No he does not.

He does not have a right to a SCOTUS which complements his political views, No Sir .


.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution -
> 
> .




One does not equal the other.

But HEY!!, thanks for playing. Consolation prize off to the right now....


----------



## rightwinger

Contumacious said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> March 9, 1937
> 
> We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. *We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.*
> 
> In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years.* In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. *Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. *But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.*
> 
> What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.
> 
> That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.
> 
> Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.
> 
> Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How, in your mind, does advocating a retirement age equal "abolishing the Supreme Court"???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution - came after the the Court was declaring his FASCISTIC programs UN-FUCKING-CONSTITUTIONAL.
> 
> 
> So are you fucking telling me that if the Supreme Court declares Obama's Hellcare unconstitutional that he has a right to nominate 5 avowed fascists to the court. That he has a right to nominate a Judge every year until he gets a super majority. Bull fucking shit. No he does not.
> 
> He does not have a right to a SCOTUS which complements his political views, No Sir .
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


wow!
Quite a leap in logic

But I guess thats what you do


----------



## jillian

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution -
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One does not equal the other.
> 
> But HEY!!, thanks for playing. Consolation prize off to the right now....
Click to expand...


He also never did pack the Court. So i'm not certain how a threat could "abolish" the court anyway.


----------



## RadiomanATL

jillian said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution -
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One does not equal the other.
> 
> But HEY!!, thanks for playing. Consolation prize off to the right now....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He also never did pack the Court. So i'm not certain how a threat could "abolish" the court anyway.
Click to expand...


I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. That he made the "decision" to pack the court even if he was never to able to actually do so.


----------



## jillian

RadiomanATL said:


> I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. That he made the "decision" to pack the court even if he was never to able to actually do so.



I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to follow C's argument...


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution -
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One does not equal the other.
> 
> But HEY!!, thanks for playing. Consolation prize off to the right now....
Click to expand...


Only because you are his intellectual heir - who the fuck is going to take the Court seriously once it is shown that the court is nothing more than an extension of the President's cabinet.


BTW, you are still a dumb ass extraordinaire.


.


----------



## RadiomanATL

jillian said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. That he made the "decision" to pack the court even if he was never to able to actually do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to follow C's argument...
Click to expand...


I'm not.

The US government are modern day Nazi's. Pretty simple argument (for a pretty simple mind). 

It's also pretty simple to shred apart too, no matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power, as long as the shredder is intellectually honest and not caught up in all the (R's or D's) are NAAAAAAZZZIIII'SSSSS!!!


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. That he made the "decision" to pack the court even if he was never to able to actually do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to follow C's argument...
Click to expand...


Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. *Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943) *


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution -
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One does not equal the other.
> 
> But HEY!!, thanks for playing. Consolation prize off to the right now....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because you are his intellectual heir - who the fuck is going to take the Court seriously once it is shown that the court is nothing more than an extension of the President's cabinet.
> 
> 
> BTW, you are still a dumb ass extraordinaire.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So you've gone from claiming that FDR wanted to abolish SCOTUS, to claiming that FDR wanted to place an age limit, to claiming that FDR wanted to pack the court (something that every POTUS has wanted to do).

And after being shown that each one of these positions is absolutely historically inaccurate, you call ME a dumbass?

LOL.

You don't even merit a consolation prize. Just go home. You've embarrassed yourself enough for one night.


----------



## Polk

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> March 9, 1937
> 
> We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. *We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.*
> 
> In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years.* In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. *Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. *But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.*
> 
> What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.
> 
> That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.
> 
> Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.
> 
> Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit Polk was right?
> 
> I mean, everything you just posted didn't support your position and all...
Click to expand...


It's not like I'm going to argue the court-packing plan was a good idea, but changing the rules of selection is not the same as abolishing.


----------



## Polk

RadiomanATL said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> One does not equal the other.
> 
> But HEY!!, thanks for playing. Consolation prize off to the right now....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He also never did pack the Court. So i'm not certain how a threat could "abolish" the court anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. That he made the "decision" to pack the court even if he was never to able to actually do so.
Click to expand...


I'm willing to assume he made the "decision", but saying it's unethical (which I would argue it surely was) is quite a different thing from saying it's unconstitutional. If he had the votes to pass such an amendment, there really isn't anything from a constitutional standpoint that prevented them from doing so.


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. That he made the "decision" to pack the court even if he was never to able to actually do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to follow C's argument...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> The US government are modern day Nazi's. Pretty simple argument (for a pretty simple mind).
> 
> It's also pretty simple to shred apart too, no matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power, as long as the shredder is intellectually honest and not caught up in all the (R's or D's) are NAAAAAAZZZIIII'SSSSS!!!
Click to expand...


Mr. Radioman is not having difficulty following C's argument because as a zombie his mind is enslaved. He is unable to stand on his own two feet - as a parasite he thinks he has a right to receive federal largesse. He has a right to have a federal bureacrat by his side guiding his every step of the way i

His Battle Cry is:

"Feed Me Seymour"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.


----------



## veritas

Gunny:



> Newsflash for ya: this about as "current" an event as the Carter Presidency.




Older even.


----------



## jillian

RadiomanATL said:


> I'm not.
> 
> The US government are modern day Nazi's. Pretty simple argument (for a pretty simple mind).
> 
> It's also pretty simple to shred apart too, no matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power, as long as the shredder is intellectually honest and not caught up in all the (R's or D's) are NAAAAAAZZZIIII'SSSSS!!!



Is THAT what he's arguing?

Damn.... 

I know I've said it a million times...

but Nazi's were Nazi's... comparing them to unrelated and non-analogous things just diminishes the meaning of the word.


----------



## Contumacious

Polk said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> March 9, 1937
> 
> We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. *We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.*
> 
> In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years.* In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. *Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. *But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.*
> 
> What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.
> 
> That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.
> 
> Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.
> 
> Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit Polk was right?
> 
> I mean, everything you just posted didn't support your position and all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not like I'm going to argue the court-packing plan was a good idea, but changing the rules of selection is not the same as abolishing.
Click to expand...


So once SCOTUS declares one of Obama's program unconstitutional he has a right to increase the number of Justices to ....15......20.......


.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to follow C's argument...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> The US government are modern day Nazi's. Pretty simple argument (for a pretty simple mind).
> 
> It's also pretty simple to shred apart too, no matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power, as long as the shredder is intellectually honest and not caught up in all the (R's or D's) are NAAAAAAZZZIIII'SSSSS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Radioman is not having difficulty following C's argument because as a zombie his mind is enslaved. He is unable to stand on his own two feet - as a parasite he thinks he has a right to receive federal largesse. He has a right to have a federal bureacrat by his side guiding his every step of the way i
> 
> His Battle Cry is:
> 
> "Feed Me Seymour"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So after having all of your arguments cut out from under you...you claim that one of the cutters has no leg to stand on?

Puh-leese. Classic case of projection.

And just for yer info, I'm a conservative, not a hand-out seeking or advocating liberal. I realize that this usually puts me on opposite sides of the fence as Jillian and Polk, but not in this case. See, there is nothing I can stand worse than having some idiot so-called conservative (in their mind) giving the rest of us a bad name. I would much rather have a discussion with a thinking liberal than a shit-spewing conservative. Hones my own skills. 

You are an embarrassment, stupid, and have no critical thinking skills.


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> The US government are modern day Nazi's. Pretty simple argument (for a pretty simple mind).
> 
> It's also pretty simple to shred apart too, no matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power, as long as the shredder is intellectually honest and not caught up in all the (R's or D's) are NAAAAAAZZZIIII'SSSSS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is THAT what he's arguing?
> 
> Damn....
> 
> I know I've said it a million times...
> 
> but Nazi's were Nazi's... comparing them to unrelated and non-analogous things just diminishes the meaning of the word.
Click to expand...


I get your drift....the only reason Hitler was bad is because he spoke German and wore a funny looking mustache. 

Otherwise his policies were cool......


----------



## Polk

Contumacious said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit Polk was right?
> 
> I mean, everything you just posted didn't support your position and all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like I'm going to argue the court-packing plan was a good idea, but changing the rules of selection is not the same as abolishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once SCOTUS declares one of Obama's program unconstitutional he has a right to increase the number of Justices to ....15......20.......
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If he's got the votes.


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> I get your drift....the only reason Hitler was bad is because he spoke German and wore a funny looking mustache.
> 
> Otherwise his policies were cool......



I think now it's your turn to miss *my* point. 

Nothing compares to what Hitler did... and diminishing what he did by calling anything in this country "nazi" is absurd.


----------



## RadiomanATL

jillian said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> The US government are modern day Nazi's. Pretty simple argument (for a pretty simple mind).
> 
> It's also pretty simple to shred apart too, no matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power, as long as the shredder is intellectually honest and not caught up in all the (R's or D's) are NAAAAAAZZZIIII'SSSSS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is THAT what he's arguing?
> 
> Damn....
> 
> I know I've said it a million times...
> 
> but Nazi's were Nazi's... comparing them to unrelated and non-analogous things just diminishes the meaning of the word.
Click to expand...


I'll let you judge for yourself.

Start with post 84 and go from there:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1468441-post84.html

My response in post 87

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1468465-post87.html

His in 88

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1468479-post88.html

And lastly mine in 90

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1468485-post90.html

You can get his pattern of deflection and obfuscation from those.


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> The US government are modern day Nazi's. Pretty simple argument (for a pretty simple mind).
> 
> It's also pretty simple to shred apart too, no matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power, as long as the shredder is intellectually honest and not caught up in all the (R's or D's) are NAAAAAAZZZIIII'SSSSS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Radioman is not having difficulty following C's argument because as a zombie his mind is enslaved. He is unable to stand on his own two feet - as a parasite he thinks he has a right to receive federal largesse. He has a right to have a federal bureacrat by his side guiding his every step of the way i
> 
> His Battle Cry is:
> 
> "Feed Me Seymour"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So after having all of your arguments cut out from under you...you claim that one of the cutters has no leg to stand on?
> 
> Puh-leese. Classic case of projection.
> 
> And just for yer info, I'm a conservative, not a hand-out seeking or advocating liberal. I realize that this usually puts me on opposite sides of the fence as Jillian and Polk, but not in this case. See, there is nothing I can stand worse than having some idiot so-called conservative (in their mind) giving the rest of us a bad name. I would much rather have a discussion with a thinking liberal than a shit-spewing conservative. Hones my own skills.
> 
> You are an embarrassment, stupid, and have no critical thinking skills.
Click to expand...



Mr. Dumb Ass Sir:


I am NOT a "conservative"


The reason we are in a predicament is because  after 1935 the "conservatives"  lost their testicular fortitude. They decided to support the new fascistic programs because it was politically expedient.

Don't try to tell me that you are not a fucking parasite - only those who benefit from federal largesse sing the praises of the welfare state.

.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Polk said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like I'm going to argue the court-packing plan was a good idea, but changing the rules of selection is not the same as abolishing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So once SCOTUS declares one of Obama's program unconstitutional he has a right to increase the number of Justices to ....15......20.......
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he's got the votes.
Click to expand...


I get the needling of C in your post, but realistically Obama (nor any other president in our lifetimes i'll wager) will ever have those votes.


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> So once SCOTUS declares one of Obama's program unconstitutional he has a right to increase the number of Justices to ....15......20.......



one... it wasn't legal then either.

two...no law has issued which would make it legal.


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get your drift....the only reason Hitler was bad is because he spoke German and wore a funny looking mustache.
> 
> Otherwise his policies were cool......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think now it's your turn to miss *my* point.
> 
> Nothing compares to what Hitler did... and diminishing what he did by calling anything in this country "nazi" is absurd.
Click to expand...


I have posted the Nazi Party Platform on numerous times ----please identify the difference.


.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> Mr. Dumb Ass Sir:
> 
> 
> I am NOT a "conservative"
> 
> .




I know. We've already established that you're a stark raving lunatic.

Anything else?


----------



## Polk

RadiomanATL said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> So once SCOTUS declares one of Obama's program unconstitutional he has a right to increase the number of Justices to ....15......20.......
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he's got the votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get the needling of C in your post, but realistically Obama (nor any other president in our lifetimes i'll wager) will ever have those votes.
Click to expand...


Absolutely. I'm not saying it's likely to occur, just that there is nothing that really prevents it.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get your drift....the only reason Hitler was bad is because he spoke German and wore a funny looking mustache.
> 
> Otherwise his policies were cool......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think now it's your turn to miss *my* point.
> 
> Nothing compares to what Hitler did... and diminishing what he did by calling anything in this country "nazi" is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have posted the Nazi Party Platform on numerous times ----please identify the difference.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I did. You ignored it.

Probably because you have no response....but you've reopened this can 'o worms, not me.


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> So once SCOTUS declares one of Obama's program unconstitutional he has a right to increase the number of Justices to ....15......20.......
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he's got the votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get the needling of C in your post, but realistically Obama (nor any other president in our lifetimes i'll wager) will ever have those votes.
Click to expand...


After SCOTUS declared that Ape Lincoln could not suspend the Habeas Corpus the scumbag issued a warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice Taney. So the precedent is there.


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Dumb Ass Sir:
> 
> 
> I am NOT a "conservative"
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. We've already established that you're a stark raving lunatic.
> 
> Anything else?
Click to expand...


Au contraire, we have determined that you are a totally zombified marxist.

You are dismissed, go forth and sin no more.


.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he's got the votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get the needling of C in your post, but realistically Obama (nor any other president in our lifetimes i'll wager) will ever have those votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After SCOTUS declared that Ape Lincoln could not suspend the Habeas Corpus the scumbag issued a warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice Taney. So the precedent is there.
Click to expand...


And once again your post is a strawman...

We were discussing increasing the size of the court, not arresting a justice.

Seriously, are you done embarrassing yourself yet?


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think now it's your turn to miss *my* point.
> 
> Nothing compares to what Hitler did... and diminishing what he did by calling anything in this country "nazi" is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted the Nazi Party Platform on numerous times ----please identify the difference.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. You ignored it.
> 
> Probably because you have no response....but you've reopened this can 'o worms, not me.
Click to expand...


Come on dude, admit that a good marxist your have swore to continue to perpetrate the fraud.


.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Dumb Ass Sir:
> 
> 
> I am NOT a "conservative"
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. We've already established that you're a stark raving lunatic.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Au contraire, we have determined that you are a totally zombified marxist.
> 
> You are dismissed, go forth and sin no more.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Show of hands everyone. Who here thinks that I am a Marxist?

C, we know your vote. But your complete ignorance of history, reality, and basic logic negates yours.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted the Nazi Party Platform on numerous times ----please identify the difference.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did. You ignored it.
> 
> Probably because you have no response....but you've reopened this can 'o worms, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on dude, admit that a good marxist your have swore to continue to perpetrate the fraud.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Hush while more intelligence people are talking.


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get the needling of C in your post, but realistically Obama (nor any other president in our lifetimes i'll wager) will ever have those votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After SCOTUS declared that Ape Lincoln could not suspend the Habeas Corpus the scumbag issued a warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice Taney. So the precedent is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again your post is a strawman...
> 
> We were discussing increasing the size of the court, not arresting a justice.
> 
> Seriously, are you done embarrassing yourself yet?
Click to expand...


Oooooooooops, my bad. I totally forgot that arresting the Chief Justice is not an attempt to destroy the court.


.


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> I have posted the Nazi Party Platform on numerous times ----please identify the difference.
> 
> 
> .



Did the Nazi's in germany do what their platform stated....

or did they have a few little extra gifties that made them what they were?

you know... like that whole concentration camp thing.


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. We've already established that you're a stark raving lunatic.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire, we have determined that you are a totally zombified marxist.
> 
> You are dismissed, go forth and sin no more.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show of hands everyone. Who here thinks that I am a Marxist?
> 
> C, we know your vote. But your complete ignorance of history, reality, and basic logic negates yours.
Click to expand...


You can't handle the truth.


.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> After SCOTUS declared that Ape Lincoln could not suspend the Habeas Corpus the scumbag issued a warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice Taney. So the precedent is there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again your post is a strawman...
> 
> We were discussing increasing the size of the court, not arresting a justice.
> 
> Seriously, are you done embarrassing yourself yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooooooooops, my bad. I totally forgot that arresting the Chief Justice is not an attempt to destroy the court.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yer right. Your bad, since its not.

Unless you think that elevating someone to SCOTUS makes them immune from the law. No matter if the charges are warranted or not, simply accusing a justice is NOT the same as destroying the court. SCOTUS is an ideal, a justice is nothing more than a person. And every person can be held accountable to the rule of law. Correctly or incorrectly accusing a person does not destroy the ideal of the court.

Now, really, show us some more stupidity. Please.


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted the Nazi Party Platform on numerous times ----please identify the difference.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the Nazi's in germany do what their platform stated....
> 
> or did they have a few little extra gifties that made them what they were?
> 
> you know... like that whole concentration camp thing.
Click to expand...


Excuse me Jillian, but you are not forgetting that Radioman's idol - FDR - sent our Japanese friends to concentration camps.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire, we have determined that you are a totally zombified marxist.
> 
> You are dismissed, go forth and sin no more.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show of hands everyone. Who here thinks that I am a Marxist?
> 
> C, we know your vote. But your complete ignorance of history, reality, and basic logic negates yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't handle the truth.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Left with no rhetorical leg to stand on, yer reduced to quoting old Jack Nicholson movies, huh?


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted the Nazi Party Platform on numerous times ----please identify the difference.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the Nazi's in germany do what their platform stated....
> 
> or did they have a few little extra gifties that made them what they were?
> 
> you know... like that whole concentration camp thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me Jillian, but you are not forgetting that Radioman's idol - FDR - sent our Japanese friends to concentration camps.
Click to expand...


Lying now, huh?

FDR is not my idol. But ya knew that already.

And ironically, yer whining to a liberal, Jillian, whose idol might really be FDR.


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again your post is a strawman...
> 
> We were discussing increasing the size of the court, not arresting a justice.
> 
> Seriously, are you done embarrassing yourself yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooooooops, my bad. I totally forgot that arresting the Chief Justice is not an attempt to destroy the court.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yer right. Your bad, since its not.
> 
> Unless you think that elevating someone to SCOTUS makes them immune from the law. No matter if the charges are warranted or not, simply accusing a justice is NOT the same as destroying the court. SCOTUS is an ideal, a justice is nothing more than a person. And every person can be held accountable to the rule of law. Correctly or incorrectly accusing a person does not destroy the ideal of the court.
> 
> Now, really, show us some more stupidity. Please.
Click to expand...


Mr. Fucktard Sir:


You are confusing Cuba's Constitution with ours.


*YOU CAN NOT ARREST A JUSTICE BECAUSE HE RULED AGAINST YOU.* Now git.



.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooooooops, my bad. I totally forgot that arresting the Chief Justice is not an attempt to destroy the court.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yer right. Your bad, since its not.
> 
> Unless you think that elevating someone to SCOTUS makes them immune from the law. No matter if the charges are warranted or not, simply accusing a justice is NOT the same as destroying the court. SCOTUS is an ideal, a justice is nothing more than a person. And every person can be held accountable to the rule of law. Correctly or incorrectly accusing a person does not destroy the ideal of the court.
> 
> Now, really, show us some more stupidity. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Fucktard Sir:
> 
> 
> You are confusing Cuba's Constitution with ours.
> 
> 
> *YOU CAN NOT ARREST A JUSTICE BECAUSE HE RULED AGAINST YOU.* Now git.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Never claimed that you could.

Do you even know what the definition of a strawman is? Do you know how much of an idiot you are looking like right now?


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the Nazi's in germany do what their platform stated....
> 
> or did they have a few little extra gifties that made them what they were?
> 
> you know... like that whole concentration camp thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me Jillian, but you are not forgetting that Radioman's idol - FDR - sent our Japanese friends to concentration camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying now, huh?
> 
> FDR is not my idol. But ya knew that already.
> 
> And ironically, yer whining to a liberal, Jillian, whose idol might really be FDR.
Click to expand...


So you have found out tonight that YOU ARE REALLY THE "LIBERAL".


.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me Jillian, but you are not forgetting that Radioman's idol - FDR - sent our Japanese friends to concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying now, huh?
> 
> FDR is not my idol. But ya knew that already.
> 
> And ironically, yer whining to a liberal, Jillian, whose idol might really be FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have found out tonight that YOU ARE REALLY THE "LIBERAL".
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You liked to munch on lead paint chips as a kid, didn't ya?


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yer right. Your bad, since its not.
> 
> Unless you think that elevating someone to SCOTUS makes them immune from the law. No matter if the charges are warranted or not, simply accusing a justice is NOT the same as destroying the court. SCOTUS is an ideal, a justice is nothing more than a person. And every person can be held accountable to the rule of law. Correctly or incorrectly accusing a person does not destroy the ideal of the court.
> 
> Now, really, show us some more stupidity. Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Fucktard Sir:
> 
> 
> You are confusing Cuba's Constitution with ours.
> 
> 
> *YOU CAN NOT ARREST A JUSTICE BECAUSE HE RULED AGAINST YOU.* Now git.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never claimed that you could.
> 
> Do you even know what the definition of a strawman is? Do you know how much of an idiot you are looking like right now?
Click to expand...


Yes, I certainly do and your name is prominently displayed in the definition.

Now get the fuck out of the way and quit stalking me.


/


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying now, huh?
> 
> FDR is not my idol. But ya knew that already.
> 
> And ironically, yer whining to a liberal, Jillian, whose idol might really be FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have found out tonight that YOU ARE REALLY THE "LIBERAL".
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You liked to munch on lead paint chips as a kid, didn't ya?
Click to expand...


Yes, I did. Consequently , I am tough as nails.

'nuff said.

.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Fucktard Sir:
> 
> 
> You are confusing Cuba's Constitution with ours.
> 
> 
> *YOU CAN NOT ARREST A JUSTICE BECAUSE HE RULED AGAINST YOU.* Now git.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never claimed that you could.
> 
> Do you even know what the definition of a strawman is? Do you know how much of an idiot you are looking like right now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I certainly do and your name is prominently displayed in the definition.
> 
> Now get the fuck out of the way and quit stalking me.
> 
> 
> /
Click to expand...


Most of us grew out of the "I know you are, but what am I" stage years ago.

Most of us, I guess, except you.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liked to munch on lead paint chips as a kid, didn't ya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



LOL...

Yes. 'nuff said.




Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liked to munch on lead paint chips as a kid, didn't ya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> Excuse me Jillian, but you are not forgetting that Radioman's idol - FDR - sent our Japanese friends to concentration camps.



just so you know... I actually think that was one of our darker days. and i think it was one of the worst supreme court decisions ... along with Dred Scott.. and Plessy v Ferguson...

oh... and Bush v Gore.

All embarrassments.

But last I heard, no one made lamp shades out of the skin of the Japanese internees. (not that that justified interning them).


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me Jillian, but you are not forgetting that Radioman's idol - FDR - sent our Japanese friends to concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just so you know... I actually think that was one of our darker days. and i think it was one of the worst supreme court decisions ... along with Dred Scott.. and Plessy v Ferguson...
> 
> oh... and Bush v Gore.
> 
> All embarrassments.
> 
> But last I heard, no one made lamp shades out of the skin of the Japanese internees. (not that that justified interning them).
Click to expand...


The US could not take the moral high ground when it itself was sending people to concentration camps nor when it refused to accept over 900 Jews who FDR knew would be shipped back to Nazi Germany where they were going to make lamp shades out of their skins.


.


----------



## elvis

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me Jillian, but you are not forgetting that Radioman's idol - FDR - sent our Japanese friends to concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just so you know... I actually think that was one of our darker days. and i think it was one of the worst supreme court decisions ... along with Dred Scott.. and Plessy v Ferguson...
> 
> oh... and Bush v Gore.
> 
> All embarrassments.
> 
> But last I heard, no one made lamp shades out of the skin of the Japanese internees. (not that that justified interning them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US could not take the moral high ground when it itself was sending people to concentration camps nor when it refused to accept over 900 Jews who FDR knew would be shipped back to Nazi Germany where they were going to make lamp shades out of their skins.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 Japanese citizens were treated unfairly, but they were treated much better than Soviet POWs and European Jews, by the Germans, right?


----------



## Polk

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me Jillian, but you are not forgetting that Radioman's idol - FDR - sent our Japanese friends to concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just so you know... I actually think that was one of our darker days. and i think it was one of the worst supreme court decisions ... along with Dred Scott.. and Plessy v Ferguson...
> 
> oh... and Bush v Gore.
> 
> All embarrassments.
> 
> But last I heard, no one made lamp shades out of the skin of the Japanese internees. (not that that justified interning them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US could not take the moral high ground when it itself was sending people to concentration camps nor when it refused to accept over 900 Jews who FDR knew would be shipped back to Nazi Germany where they were going to make lamp shades out of their skins.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


For all the immorality of internment camps, it's in no way comparable to gassing them.


----------



## Contumacious

elvis3577 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> just so you know... I actually think that was one of our darker days. and i think it was one of the worst supreme court decisions ... along with Dred Scott.. and Plessy v Ferguson...
> 
> oh... and Bush v Gore.
> 
> All embarrassments.
> 
> But last I heard, no one made lamp shades out of the skin of the Japanese internees. (not that that justified interning them).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US could not take the moral high ground when it itself was sending people to concentration camps nor when it refused to accept over 900 Jews who FDR knew would be shipped back to Nazi Germany where they were going to make lamp shades out of their skins.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japanese citizens were treated unfairly, but they were treated much better than Soviet POWs and European Jews, by the Germans, right?
Click to expand...


Read:









when you get a chance.

The powers-that-be knew that the internees - 2nd and 3rd generation Americans were not a danger - they needed a pretext to steal their valuable properties in LA and SF.


.


----------



## elvis

Contumacious said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US could not take the moral high ground when it itself was sending people to concentration camps nor when it refused to accept over 900 Jews who FDR knew would be shipped back to Nazi Germany where they were going to make lamp shades out of their skins.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese citizens were treated unfairly, but they were treated much better than Soviet POWs and European Jews, by the Germans, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when you get a chance.
> 
> The powers-that-be knew that the internees - 2nd and 3rd generation Americans were not a danger - they needed a pretext to steal their valuable properties in LA and SF.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


can you give me a short summary as to why they would need to steal those valuable properties?


----------



## RadiomanATL

elvis3577 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese citizens were treated unfairly, but they were treated much better than Soviet POWs and European Jews, by the Germans, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when you get a chance.
> 
> The powers-that-be knew that the internees - 2nd and 3rd generation Americans were not a danger - they needed a pretext to steal their valuable properties in LA and SF.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you give me a short summary as to why they would need to steal those valuable properties?
Click to expand...


While yer at it, ask how robbing someone is the same as killing them.


----------



## Contumacious

elvis3577 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese citizens were treated unfairly, but they were treated much better than Soviet POWs and European Jews, by the Germans, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when you get a chance.
> 
> The powers-that-be knew that the internees - 2nd and 3rd generation Americans were not a danger - they needed a pretext to steal their valuable properties in LA and SF.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you give me a short summary as to why they would need to steal those valuable properties?
Click to expand...


asked and answered


----------



## AllieBaba

Guess what? Democratic pres.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews



So do liberals...what's your point?


----------



## elvis

RadiomanATL said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when you get a chance.
> 
> The powers-that-be knew that the internees - 2nd and 3rd generation Americans were not a danger - they needed a pretext to steal their valuable properties in LA and SF.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you give me a short summary as to why they would need to steal those valuable properties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While yer at it, ask how robbing someone is the same as killing them.
Click to expand...


Yes, I suppose that is the question, isn't it?  

Comparing Bush, or FDR or any other president   to Hitler is just plain......

insane.


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> The US could not take the moral high ground when it itself was sending people to concentration camps nor when it refused to accept over 900 Jews who FDR knew would be shipped back to Nazi Germany where they were going to make lamp shades out of their skins.



I'm not going to defend the refusal to accept 900 jews or the internment of the japanese...

but i will say that one can't compare that to the systematic destruction of 11 million people, including the genocide of 6 million jews.

i think you're stretching it because you want to draw that analogy.

but again, i think that this country, like every other, has it's dark times....

what i've always liked about this one is it's ability to hit the re-set button. (i actually borrowed that from peggy noonan because when i heard her say it, i agreed with her).


----------



## jillian

PatekPhilippe said:


> Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do liberals...what's your point?
Click to expand...


do you purposely say stupid things? seriously... aren't you wingnuts always accusing liberals of being commie, socialist, gay lovers?

get your insults straight.


----------



## RadiomanATL

elvis3577 said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> can you give me a short summary as to why they would need to steal those valuable properties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While yer at it, ask how robbing someone is the same as killing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I suppose that is the question, isn't it?
> 
> Comparing Bush, or FDR or any other president   to Hitler is just plain......
> 
> insane.
Click to expand...


Yup. Been pointing that out for a few posts now on this thread.


----------



## elvis

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me Jillian, but you are not forgetting that Radioman's idol - FDR - sent our Japanese friends to concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just so you know... I actually think that was one of our darker days. and i think it was one of the worst supreme court decisions ... along with Dred Scott.. and Plessy v Ferguson...
> 
> oh... and Bush v Gore.
> 
> All embarrassments.
> 
> But last I heard, no one made lamp shades out of the skin of the Japanese internees. (not that that justified interning them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US could not take the moral high ground when it itself was sending people to concentration camps nor when it refused to accept over 900 Jews who FDR knew would be shipped back to Nazi Germany where they were going to make lamp shades out of their skins.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

what year were these 900 Jews refused entry?


----------



## AllieBaba

Actually, dems hate capitalism, Christianity and children.


----------



## RadiomanATL

elvis3577 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> just so you know... I actually think that was one of our darker days. and i think it was one of the worst supreme court decisions ... along with Dred Scott.. and Plessy v Ferguson...
> 
> oh... and Bush v Gore.
> 
> All embarrassments.
> 
> But last I heard, no one made lamp shades out of the skin of the Japanese internees. (not that that justified interning them).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US could not take the moral high ground when it itself was sending people to concentration camps nor when it refused to accept over 900 Jews who FDR knew would be shipped back to Nazi Germany where they were going to make lamp shades out of their skins.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what year were these 900 Jews refused entry?
Click to expand...


June of 1939.

To the US at least. May of '39 to Cuba.

But most were given refuge in other countries once they were refused entrance into the US. Some of those countries were soon over-run by the Nazi's...but they were independent at the time of accepting the refugees.


----------



## RadiomanATL

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, dems hate capitalism, Christianity and children.



Oh, just shut your mouth.


----------



## elvis

RadiomanATL said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US could not take the moral high ground when it itself was sending people to concentration camps nor when it refused to accept over 900 Jews who FDR knew would be shipped back to Nazi Germany where they were going to make lamp shades out of their skins.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> what year were these 900 Jews refused entry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> June of 1939.
> 
> To the US at least. May of '39 to Cuba.
> 
> But most were given refuge in other countries once they were refused entrance into the US. Some of those countries were soon over-run by the Nazi's...but they were independent at the time of accepting the refugees.
Click to expand...


How much was known about the treatment of the Jews in Germany and Austria in 1939?  Poland was yet to be invaded.


----------



## RadiomanATL

elvis3577 said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what year were these 900 Jews refused entry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> June of 1939.
> 
> To the US at least. May of '39 to Cuba.
> 
> But most were given refuge in other countries once they were refused entrance into the US. Some of those countries were soon over-run by the Nazi's...but they were independent at the time of accepting the refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much was known about the treatment of the Jews in Germany and Austria in 1939?  Poland was yet to be invaded.
Click to expand...


Not much.

I'm not defending the whacko's premise. I'm just injecting historical fact into the discussion.


----------



## elvis

RadiomanATL said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> June of 1939.
> 
> To the US at least. May of '39 to Cuba.
> 
> But most were given refuge in other countries once they were refused entrance into the US. Some of those countries were soon over-run by the Nazi's...but they were independent at the time of accepting the refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much was known about the treatment of the Jews in Germany and Austria in 1939?  Poland was yet to be invaded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not much.
> 
> I'm not defending the whacko's premise. I'm just injecting historical fact into the discussion.
Click to expand...


Oh I know you're not.  I am just asking questions.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

jillian said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do liberals...what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you purposely say stupid things? seriously... aren't you wingnuts always accusing liberals of being commie, socialist, gay lovers?
> 
> get your insults straight.
Click to expand...


You must be as stupid as your ava ditz.....
How many fricken times have we seen anti Jew threads from you sick fucks...how many times have we seen anti communist threads from you ass wipes...how many times have we seen you liberals insulting gays and using homosexuality in your insults to others....

Now pull your head out of your FAT rear end and wake up.


----------



## AllieBaba

"During the first several months of the war in Europe, the American press provided sporadic information about the plight of the Jews in Poland. The Yiddish press and the JTA were among the only sources providing daily accounts of Jewish suffering. Not all of the news was accurate or complete. Fragmentary and exaggerated dispatches made it difficult at times to determine the extent of the devastation. Yet the Contemporary Jewish Record (CJR), a bimonthly publication of the American Jewish Committee, stated in its November/December 1939 issue that "despite the paucity of reliable news from the invaded Polish areas, it is now possible to obtain a fairly accurate but general picture of the fate suffered by Polish Jewry during the first two months of the war." (1)

First reports from Poland told of Nazi air raids on Polish cities where the Jewish sections were intentionally targeted. Mendel Mozes, chief of the Warsaw Bureau of the JTA, visited a number of these areas and found that many Jews had been killed and wounded with extensive damage to Jewish institutions. His eyewitness account of the destruction was broadcast throughout the United States. (2)"

What did they know? American Jews and the Shoah

And this is interesting...apparently the NYT hasn't changed much:

"The (ny) Times generally relegated the news concerning Jews to the inside or back pages of the paper."


----------



## elvis

PatekPhilippe said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do liberals...what's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you purposely say stupid things? seriously... aren't you wingnuts always accusing liberals of being commie, socialist, gay lovers?
> 
> get your insults straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be as stupid as your ava ditz.....
> How many fricken times have we seen anti Jew threads from you sick fucks...how many times have we seen anti communist threads from you ass wipes...how many times have we seen you liberals insulting gays and using homosexuality in your insults to others....
> 
> Now pull your head out of your FAT rear end and wake up.
Click to expand...


you are one stupid bastard, aren't you?  Were you dropped on your head as a child or something?


----------



## RadiomanATL

AllieBaba said:


> "During the first several months of the war in Europe, the American press provided sporadic information about the plight of the Jews in Poland. The Yiddish press and the JTA were among the only sources providing daily accounts of Jewish suffering. Not all of the news was accurate or complete. Fragmentary and exaggerated dispatches made it difficult at times to determine the extent of the devastation. Yet the Contemporary Jewish Record (CJR), a bimonthly publication of the American Jewish Committee, stated in its November/December 1939 issue that "despite the paucity of reliable news from the invaded Polish areas, it is now possible to obtain a fairly accurate but general picture of the fate suffered by Polish Jewry during the first two months of the war." (1)
> 
> First reports from Poland told of Nazi air raids on Polish cities where the Jewish sections were intentionally targeted. Mendel Mozes, chief of the Warsaw Bureau of the JTA, visited a number of these areas and found that many Jews had been killed and wounded with extensive damage to Jewish institutions. His eyewitness account of the destruction was broadcast throughout the United States. (2)"
> 
> What did they know? American Jews and the Shoah
> 
> And this is interesting...apparently the NYT hasn't changed much:
> 
> "The (ny) Times generally relegated the news concerning Jews to the inside or back pages of the paper."



What month did the war start again?


----------



## elvis

RadiomanATL said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> "During the first several months of the war in Europe, the American press provided sporadic information about the plight of the Jews in Poland. The Yiddish press and the JTA were among the only sources providing daily accounts of Jewish suffering. Not all of the news was accurate or complete. Fragmentary and exaggerated dispatches made it difficult at times to determine the extent of the devastation. Yet the Contemporary Jewish Record (CJR), a bimonthly publication of the American Jewish Committee, stated in its November/December 1939 issue that "despite the paucity of reliable news from the invaded Polish areas, it is now possible to obtain a fairly accurate but general picture of the fate suffered by Polish Jewry during the first two months of the war." (1)
> 
> First reports from Poland told of Nazi air raids on Polish cities where the Jewish sections were intentionally targeted. Mendel Mozes, chief of the Warsaw Bureau of the JTA, visited a number of these areas and found that many Jews had been killed and wounded with extensive damage to Jewish institutions. His eyewitness account of the destruction was broadcast throughout the United States. (2)"
> 
> What did they know? American Jews and the Shoah
> 
> And this is interesting...apparently the NYT hasn't changed much:
> 
> "The (ny) Times generally relegated the news concerning Jews to the inside or back pages of the paper."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What month did the war start again?
Click to expand...


September 1, 1939.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> How much was known about the treatment of the Jews in Germany and Austria in 1939?



Quite a bit actually.  All one has to do is visit the Holocaust Museum and read the pre war Nazi documents or do some research on the net.  Usually the first thing that comes up is Kristallnacht.


----------



## jillian

PatekPhilippe said:


> You must be as stupid as your ava ditz.....
> How many fricken times have we seen anti Jew threads from you sick fucks...how many times have we seen anti communist threads from you ass wipes...how many times have we seen you liberals insulting gays and using homosexuality in your insults to others....
> 
> Now pull your head out of your FAT rear end and wake up.



actually, i'm neither a ditz nor fat... but interesting that a loser like you would think saying those things to someone whom you've never seen on a messageboard would be somehow insulting.

and if you weren't such an ignorant moron and had read anything i've posted instead of showing up on this board like who on earth you think you are... 

you'd know that no one has ever seen an anti-jew thread from me .....i tend not to insult myself, dimbulb.

it's the rigntwingnuts like you who have the homophobic streak a mile wide... 

again... get your insults strainght... and figure out who you're talking to before you open your ignorant yap.

and don't let the door of your double-wide hit you in the butt...


----------



## RadiomanATL

elvis3577 said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> "During the first several months of the war in Europe, the American press provided sporadic information about the plight of the Jews in Poland. The Yiddish press and the JTA were among the only sources providing daily accounts of Jewish suffering. Not all of the news was accurate or complete. Fragmentary and exaggerated dispatches made it difficult at times to determine the extent of the devastation. Yet the Contemporary Jewish Record (CJR), a bimonthly publication of the American Jewish Committee, stated in its November/December 1939 issue that "despite the paucity of reliable news from the invaded Polish areas, it is now possible to obtain a fairly accurate but general picture of the fate suffered by Polish Jewry during the first two months of the war." (1)
> 
> First reports from Poland told of Nazi air raids on Polish cities where the Jewish sections were intentionally targeted. Mendel Mozes, chief of the Warsaw Bureau of the JTA, visited a number of these areas and found that many Jews had been killed and wounded with extensive damage to Jewish institutions. His eyewitness account of the destruction was broadcast throughout the United States. (2)"
> 
> What did they know? American Jews and the Shoah
> 
> And this is interesting...apparently the NYT hasn't changed much:
> 
> "The (ny) Times generally relegated the news concerning Jews to the inside or back pages of the paper."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What month did the war start again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> September 1, 1939.
Click to expand...


Yes.

And Allie's cut 'n paste about "The first several months of the war in Europe" has what to do with May of '39?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

elvis3577 said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you purposely say stupid things? seriously... aren't you wingnuts always accusing liberals of being commie, socialist, gay lovers?
> 
> get your insults straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be as stupid as your ava ditz.....
> How many fricken times have we seen anti Jew threads from you sick fucks...how many times have we seen anti communist threads from you ass wipes...how many times have we seen you liberals insulting gays and using homosexuality in your insults to others....
> 
> Now pull your head out of your FAT rear end and wake up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are one stupid bastard, aren't you? * Were you dropped on your head as a child or something?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Apparently you must have been.....you can't even figure out what happened to the Jews in Austria and Germany prior to 1939.
Click to expand...


----------



## elvis

PatekPhilippe said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be as stupid as your ava ditz.....
> How many fricken times have we seen anti Jew threads from you sick fucks...how many times have we seen anti communist threads from you ass wipes...how many times have we seen you liberals insulting gays and using homosexuality in your insults to others....
> 
> Now pull your head out of your FAT rear end and wake up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are one stupid bastard, aren't you? * Were you dropped on your head as a child or something?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Apparently you must have been.....you can't even figure out what happened to the Jews in Austria and Germany prior to 19389.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that's not what I said you dumbfuck.  I said how much WAS KNOWN.  As in how much did FDR/ US intelligence know about the treatment of them.
Click to expand...


----------



## Contumacious

elvis3577 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> just so you know... I actually think that was one of our darker days. and i think it was one of the worst supreme court decisions ... along with Dred Scott.. and Plessy v Ferguson...
> 
> oh... and Bush v Gore.
> 
> All embarrassments.
> 
> But last I heard, no one made lamp shades out of the skin of the Japanese internees. (not that that justified interning them).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US could not take the moral high ground when it itself was sending people to concentration camps nor when it refused to accept over 900 Jews who FDR knew would be shipped back to Nazi Germany where they were going to make lamp shades out of their skins.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what year were these 900 Jews refused entry?
Click to expand...


"......Franklin Roosevelts response to the Holocaust was epitomized by his June 1939 decision to refuse political asylum to more than 900 passengers aboard the German ocean liner St. Louis. The passengers, nearly all of them Jewish refugees, had the lights of Miami in sight when the United States government refused them permission to disembark. Roosevelt did not respond to pleas for help. The ship returned to Europe, and the Holocaust claimed more than a third of those who returned to the Continent."


----------



## AllieBaba

RadiomanATL said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What month did the war start again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> September 1, 1939.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> And Allie's cut 'n paste about "The first several months of the war in Europe" has what to do with May of '39?
Click to expand...


I was referring to this:

"How much was known about the treatment of the Jews in Germany and Austria in 1939? Poland was yet to be invaded."

My cut & paste is about how much was known in 1939.


----------



## RadiomanATL

PatekPhilippe said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be as stupid as your ava ditz.....
> How many fricken times have we seen anti Jew threads from you sick fucks...how many times have we seen anti communist threads from you ass wipes...how many times have we seen you liberals insulting gays and using homosexuality in your insults to others....
> 
> Now pull your head out of your FAT rear end and wake up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are one stupid bastard, aren't you? * Were you dropped on your head as a child or something?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Apparently you must have been.....you can't even figure out what happened to the Jews in Austria and Germany prior to 1939.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> He never said that they weren't persecuted. He said _how much was known_ [outside of Germany and Austria] prior to the invasion of Poland.
> 
> And the answer still remains, not much, at least not to the extent to which it what actually happening. Kristallnacht happened in November of '38. The 900 fled in May of '39. 6 months later. Considering the restrictions on non-official communication and the clampdown the Nazi's had on propaganda, this was barely enough time for the higher ups in the allies to even begin to suspect what had happened. Let alone for the US (a neutral country at the time) to deal with a refugee issue of ostensibly German citizens.
Click to expand...


----------



## RadiomanATL

AllieBaba said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> September 1, 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> And Allie's cut 'n paste about "The first several months of the war in Europe" has what to do with May of '39?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to this:
> 
> "How much was known about the treatment of the Jews in Germany and Austria in 1939? Poland was yet to be invaded."
> 
> My cut & paste is about how much was known in 1939.
Click to expand...


Fail.

The question was how much was known in May of '39.

Your post deals with September of '39 into early '40.

Take a peak at a calendar next time.


----------



## AllieBaba

Peek.

Ok, I'll try again. When someone says "1939" I look at "1939".


----------



## RadiomanATL

AllieBaba said:


> Peek.
> 
> Ok, I'll try again. When someone says "1939" I look at "1939".



Damn context will bite you in the ass every time.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Out.

G'night.


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are one stupid bastard, aren't you? * Were you dropped on your head as a child or something?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Apparently you must have been.....you can't even figure out what happened to the Jews in Austria and Germany prior to 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> He never said that they weren't persecuted. He said _how much was known_ [outside of Germany and Austria] prior to the invasion of Poland.
> 
> And the answer still remains, not much, at least not to the extent to which it what actually happening. Kristallnacht happened in November of '38. The 900 fled in May of '39. 6 months later. Considering the restrictions on non-official communication and the clampdown the Nazi's had on propaganda, this was barely enough time for the higher ups in the allies to even begin to suspect what had happened. *Let alone for the US (a neutral country at the time) to deal with a refugee issue of ostensibly German citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shirley, you jest.
> 
> Although it is true that OFFICIALLY the US was Neutral in reality Roosevelt wiped his ass with the statute.
> 
> The motherfucker was involved against the Japanese in Indochina, was selling war ships to Churchill and froze Japan's assets in the US PRIOR to Pearl Harbor.
> 
> The only time the bastard relied on the neutrality issue was when he refused to let the Jews disembark in Miami.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## elvis

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> He never said that they weren't persecuted. He said _how much was known_ [outside of Germany and Austria] prior to the invasion of Poland.
> 
> And the answer still remains, not much, at least not to the extent to which it what actually happening. Kristallnacht happened in November of '38. The 900 fled in May of '39. 6 months later. Considering the restrictions on non-official communication and the clampdown the Nazi's had on propaganda, this was barely enough time for the higher ups in the allies to even begin to suspect what had happened. *Let alone for the US (a neutral country at the time) to deal with a refugee issue of ostensibly German citizens.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shirley, you jest.
> 
> Although it is true that OFFICIALLY the US was Neutral in reality Roosevelt wiped his ass with the statute.
> 
> The motherfucker was involved against the Japanese in Indochina, was selling war ships to Churchill and froze Japan's assets in the US PRIOR to Pearl Harbor.
> 
> The only time the bastard relied on the neutrality issue was when he refused to let the Jews disembark in Miami.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct about neutrality or lack thereof.  But he's not Hitler.
Click to expand...


----------



## Contumacious

elvis3577 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shirley, you jest.
> 
> Although it is true that OFFICIALLY the US was Neutral in reality Roosevelt wiped his ass with the statute.
> 
> The motherfucker was involved against the Japanese in Indochina, was selling war ships to Churchill and froze Japan's assets in the US PRIOR to Pearl Harbor.
> 
> The only time the bastard relied on the neutrality issue was when he refused to let the Jews disembark in Miami.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct about neutrality or lack thereof.  But he's not Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, BOTH Mussolini and Adolf thought highly of him ....birds of a feather.....
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## elvis

Contumacious said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct about neutrality or lack thereof.  But he's not Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, BOTH Mussolini and Adolf thought highly of him ....birds of a feather.....
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't work.
Click to expand...


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> He never said that they weren't persecuted. He said _how much was known_ [outside of Germany and Austria] prior to the invasion of Poland.
> 
> And the answer still remains, not much, at least not to the extent to which it what actually happening. Kristallnacht happened in November of '38. The 900 fled in May of '39. 6 months later. Considering the restrictions on non-official communication and the clampdown the Nazi's had on propaganda, this was barely enough time for the higher ups in the allies to even begin to suspect what had happened. *Let alone for the US (a neutral country at the time) to deal with a refugee issue of ostensibly German citizens.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shirley, you jest.
> 
> Although it is true that OFFICIALLY the US was Neutral in reality Roosevelt wiped his ass with the statute.
> 
> The motherfucker was involved against the Japanese in Indochina, was selling war ships to Churchill and froze Japan's assets in the US PRIOR to Pearl Harbor.
> 
> The only time the bastard relied on the neutrality issue was when he refused to let the Jews disembark in Miami.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of history is noted. Carry on making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...


----------



## RadiomanATL

elvis3577 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shirley, you jest.
> 
> Although it is true that OFFICIALLY the US was Neutral in reality Roosevelt wiped his ass with the statute.
> 
> The motherfucker was involved against the Japanese in Indochina, was selling war ships to Churchill and froze Japan's assets in the US PRIOR to Pearl Harbor.
> 
> The only time the bastard relied on the neutrality issue was when he refused to let the Jews disembark in Miami.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct about neutrality or lack thereof.  But he's not Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to backdoor many things in order to prepare the US for war. However, as usual, C misses the most important line in my post. _They were German citizens._ To ignore this would step the US over a big bad line we were not prepared to cross at that point, and would have helped to suck us in to the war in Europe before we were ready.
Click to expand...


----------



## L.K.Eder

RadiomanATL said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> "During the first several months of the war in Europe, the American press provided sporadic information about the plight of the Jews in Poland. The Yiddish press and the JTA were among the only sources providing daily accounts of Jewish suffering. Not all of the news was accurate or complete. Fragmentary and exaggerated dispatches made it difficult at times to determine the extent of the devastation. Yet the Contemporary Jewish Record (CJR), a bimonthly publication of the American Jewish Committee, stated in its November/December 1939 issue that "despite the paucity of reliable news from the invaded Polish areas, it is now possible to obtain a fairly accurate but general picture of the fate suffered by Polish Jewry during the first two months of the war." (1)
> 
> First reports from Poland told of Nazi air raids on Polish cities where the Jewish sections were intentionally targeted. Mendel Mozes, chief of the Warsaw Bureau of the JTA, visited a number of these areas and found that many Jews had been killed and wounded with extensive damage to Jewish institutions. His eyewitness account of the destruction was broadcast throughout the United States. (2)"
> 
> What did they know? American Jews and the Shoah
> 
> And this is interesting...apparently the NYT hasn't changed much:
> 
> "The (ny) Times generally relegated the news concerning Jews to the inside or back pages of the paper."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What month did the war start again?
Click to expand...


almost exactly 70 years ago.


----------



## Contumacious

RadiomanATL said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct about neutrality or lack thereof.  But he's not Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to backdoor many things in order to prepare the US for war. However, as usual, C misses the most important line in my post. _They were German citizens._ To ignore this would step the US over a big bad line we were not prepared to cross at that point, and would have helped to suck us in to the war in Europe before we were ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish refugees aboard the SS Quanza arrive in Norfolk, Va., on Sept. 11, 1940, in this photo from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum released Friday by Indiana University Press. The photo appears in the new book Refugees and Rescue
> 
> Jews and Immigration
> *
> A few days after the elections came Kristallnacht in Germany. Roosevelt spoke out publicly, expressing his dismay and horror.* He sent a protest to Germany and brought his ambassador to Germany home for consultations. The American Legion endorsed Roosevelt's statement, as did the CIO labor organization. Prominent movie stars -- Fred Astaire, Claudette Colbert and Bette Davis -- spoke out against the brutalities, Bette Davis suggesting that the U.S. sever all economic ties with Hitler's Germany. Support among U.S. citizens for the appeasement policy of Britain's prime minister, Chamberlain, diminished. In a Gallup poll that month, 94 percent expressed disapproval of "Nazi treatment of Jews.
> *
> For Hitler, the case of the S.S. St. Louis marked a stunning victory. It proved that, in spite of the protestations of the Allied leaders to the contrary, they didnt want Jews in their countries any more than he wanted them in his. In fact, when a Canadian official was asked how many Jews fleeing from Nazi Europe could be admitted to Canada, he responded: None is too many. This eventually became the title of a book, describing Canadas draconian refugee policies.*
Click to expand...


----------



## rdean

Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews 

Come on Republcians.  Be honest.  You don't share these views?  Seriously?


----------



## jillian

rdean said:


> Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews
> 
> Come on Republcians.  Be honest.  You don't share these views?  Seriously?



ummm.... but for the most extreme right winger stormfront types, and the ron paul types.... repubs are actually better on some jewish issues.

the problem is the social issues.... and the whole southern strategy thing. that alienates everyone who isn't white, christian and mostly male.

but no... there isn't as much anti semitism on the right as there is in the far reaches of the left. They just think Jews need to be... how did Coultergeist say it.. oh yeah... perfected.


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> hitler hated communism, socialist, homosexuals, and jews
> 
> come on republcians.  Be honest.  You don't share these views?  Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm.... But for the most extreme right winger stormfront types, *and the ron paul types..*.. Repubs are actually better on some jewish issues.
> 
> :
Click to expand...


huh?


----------



## Polk

jillian said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews
> 
> Come on Republcians.  Be honest.  You don't share these views?  Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm.... but for the most extreme right winger stormfront types, and the ron paul types.... repubs are actually better on some jewish issues.
> 
> the problem is the social issues.... and the whole southern strategy thing. that alienates everyone who isn't white, christian and mostly male.
> 
> but no... there isn't as much anti semitism on the right as there is in the far reaches of the left. They just think Jews need to be... how did Coultergeist say it.. oh yeah... perfected.
Click to expand...


The John Birch Society is mainstream right and has a long history of antisemitism.
Also, I'd question the value of any "support" when they're supporting me going somewhere to get blown up.


----------



## AllieBaba

We are the party of abolition, remember. We've no problem with Jews.


----------



## jillian

Polk said:


> The John Birch Society is mainstream right and has a long history of antisemitism.
> Also, I'd question the value of any "support" when they're supporting me going somewhere to get blown up.



john birchers are not mainstream.

and if you're referring to Iraq, that was actually against Israeli interests It was more in Israel's interest for there to be a power balancing Iran's....

But your response is EXACTLY the type of thing I was talking about.


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> hitler hated communism, socialist, homosexuals, and jews
> 
> come on republcians.  Be honest.  You don't share these views?  Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm.... But for the most extreme right winger stormfront types, *and the ron paul types..*.. Repubs are actually better on some jewish issues.
> 
> :
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> huh?
Click to expand...


huh what?

ron paul types aren't mainstream repub and stormfronters aren't.

what is causing you confusion?


----------



## paperview

AllieBaba said:


> We are the party of abolition, remember. We've no problem with Jews.


Of course the party doesn't. Now.

Israel is God's landing strip.


----------



## Yukon

Israel belongs to the Palistinian people and they will never allow the hook-noses to keep the land.


----------



## jillian

paperview said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are the party of abolition, remember. We've no problem with Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the party doesn't. Now.
> 
> Israel is God's landing strip.
Click to expand...


do you think she actually believes that the repubican party would be in favor of abolition if it came up today?

RAFLMAO!


----------



## paperview

jillian said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are the party of abolition, remember. We've no problem with Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the party doesn't. Now.
> 
> Israel is God's landing strip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you think she actually believes that the repubican party would be in favor of abolition if it came up today?
> 
> RAFLMAO!
Click to expand...

I'll take "short letters that end in O' for $200 on that one.


----------



## Polk

paperview said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the party doesn't. Now.
> 
> Israel is God's landing strip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you think she actually believes that the repubican party would be in favor of abolition if it came up today?
> 
> RAFLMAO!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll take "short letters that end in O' for $200 on that one.
Click to expand...



"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? * The sobering answer is Yes &#8211; the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.*


[...]

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence." 

- William F. Buckley


----------



## paperview

Polk said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you think she actually believes that the repubican party would be in favor of abolition if it came up today?
> 
> RAFLMAO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take "short letters that end in O' for $200 on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? * The sobering answer is Yes &#8211; the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.*
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence."
> 
> - William F. Buckley
Click to expand...

Wow.  I never read Buckley like that....

Interesting.  Thanks for that Polk.


----------



## Karateka

Before you start throwing the word "Fascisim" around, I suggest you at least look up what it means, and how that definition affects EVERYTHING, not the least of which will be how all of us live should even a fraction of his agenda go through.  As the old saying goes, there will be no point in closing the barn door once the horse is out.  

Like it or not, *Obama IS a fascist*, and he's already proven it with his handling of the banks and the auto industries and now he's after insurance and health care.  Privately owned, but government-controlled.  Don't take my word for it - find it out for yourself.

As for your statement that: "You've got to have someone to hate in Fascism, it seems," you're quite right.  Examine the ethnocentric church Obama attended for 20 years:



> From Newsmax.com, 1/7/08:  We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian, says the Trinity United Church of Christs website in Chicago. We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.
> 
> Thats just the beginning. The church has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa, according to its website, and its pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. subscribes to what is called the Black Value System.
> 
> While the Black Value System includes such items as commitment to God, education, and self-discipline, it refers to our racist competitive society and includes the disavowal of the pursuit of middle-classness and a pledge of allegiance to all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System. It defines middle-classness as a way for American society to snare blacks rather than killing them off directly or placing them in concentration camps, just as the country structures an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
> 
> In sermons and interviews, Dr. Wright has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. On the Sunday after 9/11, Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for Americas racism.
> 
> In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01, Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.
> 
> In one of his sermons, Wright said, Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.
> 
> As for Israel, The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now, Wright has said. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.
> 
> Obama says he found religion and Jesus Christ through Wright, whom he met in the mid-1980s. He has been attending Wrights church regularly since 1988.



As for the "flooding of corporate media," like it or not, it's freedom of speech.  If you don't like what you're hearing, turn it off.  You seem to be operating under the notion that someone's rights are being stepped on because you don't like or believe what's being said.  The veracity or lack thereof is not your problem.  You have the choice to turn it off.  Likewise, if they do not like or believe what you might say, given equal time on the same type of forum, their choice would be the same - they could simply turn you off.  I would think someone as intelligent as you clearly are would understand that nothing is more important than maintaining the constitutional right to freedom of speech, regardless of whether what is being said is pleasing or viewed as honest by anyone with an opposing viewpoint?


----------



## paperview

Karateka said:


> Before you start throwing the word "Fascisim" around, I suggest you at least look up what it means, and how that definition affects EVERYTHING, not the least of which will be how all of us live should even a fraction of his agenda go through.  As the old saying goes, there will be no point in closing the barn door once the horse is out.
> 
> Like it or not, *Obama IS a fascist*, and he's already proven it with his handling of the banks and the auto industries and now he's after insurance and health care.  Privately owned, but government-controlled.  Don't take my word for it - find it out for yourself.
> 
> As for your statement that: "You've got to have someone to hate in Fascism, it seems," you're quite right.  Examine the ethnocentric church Obama attended for 20 years:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Newsmax.com, 1/7/08:  We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian, says the Trinity United Church of Christs website in Chicago. We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.
> 
> Thats just the beginning. The church has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa, according to its website, and its pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. subscribes to what is called the Black Value System.
> 
> While the Black Value System includes such items as commitment to God, education, and self-discipline, it refers to our racist competitive society and includes the disavowal of the pursuit of middle-classness and a pledge of allegiance to all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System. It defines middle-classness as a way for American society to snare blacks rather than killing them off directly or placing them in concentration camps, just as the country structures an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
> 
> In sermons and interviews, Dr. Wright has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. On the Sunday after 9/11, Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for Americas racism.
> 
> In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01, Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.
> 
> In one of his sermons, Wright said, Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.
> 
> As for Israel, The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now, Wright has said. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.
> 
> Obama says he found religion and Jesus Christ through Wright, whom he met in the mid-1980s. He has been attending Wrights church regularly since 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the "flooding of corporate media," like it or not, it's freedom of speech.  If you don't like what you're hearing, turn it off.  You seem to be operating under the notion that someone's rights are being stepped on because you don't like or believe what's being said.  The veracity or lack thereof is not your problem.  You have the choice to turn it off.  Likewise, if they do not like or believe what you might say, given equal time on the same type of forum, their choice would be the same - they could simply turn you off.  I would think someone as intelligent as you clearly are would understand that nothing is more important than maintaining the constitutional right to freedom of speech, regardless of whether what is being said is pleasing or viewed as honest by anyone with an opposing viewpoint?
Click to expand...



And cons wonder why no one takes them seriously.


----------



## Karateka

> And cons wonder why no one takes them seriously.



Oh dear, I'm so sorry, but I'm not a "con"!!!!!  OMG!  There's not a *label* you can slap on me!  You can't put me in "my place" now!  I'm educated, I believe in equal rights, I defend the constitution, I'm in favor of gay marriage, and I'm pro choice!  I think for myself, I examine things from all sides, and I don't let other people make my decisions for me, or create my biases!  Gasp!  What kind of a world has it become, when you have to deal with someone who isn't afraid to look at things the way they *are* instead of the way you just really, really *want* them to be?


----------



## jillian

Karateka said:


> Before you start throwing the word "Fascisim" around, I suggest you at least look up what it means, and how that definition affects EVERYTHING, not the least of which will be how all of us live should even a fraction of his agenda go through.  As the old saying goes, there will be no point in closing the barn door once the horse is out.
> 
> Like it or not, *Obama IS a fascist*, and he's already proven it with his handling of the banks and the auto industries and now he's after insurance and health care.  Privately owned, but government-controlled.  Don't take my word for it - find it out for yourself.
> 
> As for your statement that: "You've got to have someone to hate in Fascism, it seems," you're quite right.  Examine the ethnocentric church Obama attended for 20 years:
> 
> As for the "flooding of corporate media," like it or not, it's freedom of speech.  If you don't like what you're hearing, turn it off.  You seem to be operating under the notion that someone's rights are being stepped on because you don't like or believe what's being said.  The veracity or lack thereof is not your problem.  You have the choice to turn it off.  Likewise, if they do not like or believe what you might say, given equal time on the same type of forum, their choice would be the same - they could simply turn you off.  I would think someone as intelligent as you clearly are would understand that nothing is more important than maintaining the constitutional right to freedom of speech, regardless of whether what is being said is pleasing or viewed as honest by anyone with an opposing viewpoint?



First... don't look to newsmax for anything... not even a definition...

THIS is what facism means:



> Fascism comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

And I'm not particularly interested in your BS about Wright... because it's irrelevant to any definition of facism or the discussion here.

However, if you look at the ACTUAL definition of facism, you'll see that it is far more closely alligned with right wing, corporatist policies than "liberal" policies.

In fact... another definition of facism:



> a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)



http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fascism

Our rules limited the number of media outlets that could be held by one corporate entity... 

well, until those rules were loosened by Bush's FCC....

*oops*... guess who benefitted from that one? The administration... because if they were anti-Bush, they didn't get to buy or sell media outlets. because the FCC wouldn't approve them.

Newscorp got LOTS... 

quelle surprise.

Media is a corporate trust... and there is more at stake than just "turn it off"... at least in that regard.

Now if you're talking about Howard Stern, then I agree with you.. if you don't like him... turn him off.


----------



## paperview

Karateka said:


> And cons wonder why no one takes them seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, I'm so sorry, but I'm not a "con"!!!!!  OMG!  There's not a *label* you can slap on me!  You can't put me in "my place" now!  I'm educated, I believe in equal rights, I defend the constitution, I'm in favor of gay marriage, and I'm pro choice!  I think for myself, I examine things from all sides, and I don't let other people make my decisions for me, or create my biases!  Gasp!  What kind of a world has it become, when you have to deal with someone who isn't afraid to look at things the way they *are* instead of the way you just really, really *want* them to be?
Click to expand...

This coming from the poster who just called Obama a fascist. "like it or not."


----------



## jillian

paperview said:


> This coming from the poster who just called Obama a fascist. "like it or not."



and who used "newsmax" to define the term.

*shakes head*


----------



## LibocalypseNow

"We are Socialists,we are enemies of today's Capitalistic economic System for the exploitation of the economically weak,with its unfair salaries,with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance,and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." 

Though those words could have easily been spoken by Barack Obama,Nancy Pelosi,and just about all Leftists in this country,they were actually words spoken by Adolf Hitler. Hitler was a loyal Socialist right up til the end and this is just fact. Today's American Socialists do have eerie similarities with the Nazi Socialists. Their words seem to echo Adolf Hitler's own words more and more each day. It's actually pretty frightening.

Our Founding Fathers really were true geniuses all those years ago. They got it right back then. Socialism/Communism sound pretty good in the beginning but always end badly. Socialism/Communism simply open the door to Government oppression and Dictatorship. You can't even get to Fascism or Dictatorship without first going the Socialist/Communist route. Our Founding Fathers really did have it right back then. The further we move away from our Constitution the closer we get to Socialism,Communism,Fascism,and ultimately Dictatorship. Right now we are rapidly moving away from our Constitution and that should frighten all Americans.


----------



## jillian

you're not supposed to spam threads with the same garbage....


----------



## Karateka

> Fascism comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.



Very good.  So when the government dictates political ideology _and_ corporate economic ideology, you get fascism.  But you're telling me you don't see any of that happening now, though, right?  Not with the takeover of the banks or the micro-management and/or takeover of the auto industry - privately owned industries?  Or interference in a person's choice of health care?  You don't see ANY of that happening AT ALL?  The government telling privately owned businesses how they WILL or WILL NOT be run?  Private citizens being told what they WILL or WILL NOT be allowed to have for health care?  And please tell me you are not going for the "you can keep the healthcare you have" BS when part of the language in the bill states that all the people who DON'T get it will be penalized and charged $200 Billion by the IRS over a period of about 10 years -

As for my "BS" about Rev. Wright, you're the one who said: "You've got to have someone to hate in Fascism, it seems."  I was simply responding to the statement.  The quotations were not mine.  I don't have a dog in that fight one way or the other; I don't go to that church or any other.  But since the title of your thread seems to cover at least, in part, the subject of hate ...  my bad.

Do not waste my time talking about who gained what with the FCC; I know for a fact, and other posters on this board could tell you that MSN shut its chat boards down once it became known that ANY _statements made that were unfavorable to President Obama's healthcare initiatives were not appreciated_.  In other words MSN towed the party line and shut down a free speech forum (albeit in writing).  If that is not 



> a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)



then I don't know what is.  Talk while you still can.


----------



## Karateka

> This coming from the poster who just called Obama a fascist. "like it or not."



I'll make it easy for you.  A fascist is someone who follows the tenets of fascism.  Deal with it.  Now, what have I said, aside from the fact that Obama is what he is, that's breaking your little world apart and turning me into a "con"?  I don't vote con, I don't think con, I don't have a tat that says "God, Guns, and W" on my creamy white ass, so what's got you in such a twist?  Is it because I think Obama is a fascist?  Right then.  I think the sky is blue with big white fluffy clouds - does that make me a meteorologist?  Jeez - the logic of you!


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Yes unfortunately NBC,Washington Post,and Newsweak which are all owned by GE,have been in bed with this current administration since day one. The Washington Post was even busted a couple of months ago for selling access to Hopey Changey's White House lackeys. GE is simply a part of this administration so any Media outlets owned by them should be taken with a grain of salt at this point. Just more sad Chris Matthews "Thrill up my Leg" stuff in the end.


----------



## jillian

Karateka said:


> Very good.  So when the government dictates political ideology _and_ corporate economic ideology, you get fascism.  But you're telling me you don't see any of that happening now, though, right?  Not with the takeover of the banks or the micro-management and/or takeover of the auto industry - privately owned industries?  Or interference in a person's choice of health care?  You don't see ANY of that happening AT ALL?



The banks were given LOANS while Bush was president. Most of the TARP funds have been paid back. We do not own the banks.

As for the auto industry... when the prior administration runs the country into a ditch and we're in danger of losing 2.5 million jobs, there isn't a lot of choice, but it isn't facism. 

If you want to know what facism is, you might want to take a look at this article:

Fascism Anyone?

I think you'll find that Lawrence Britt was fairly specific and not flailing all over the place like you are.

And who on earth is disrupting your choice by controlling what choices you have in healthcare if we close the insurance company loopholes and improve health care in this country? You know....given that 50% of our bankruptcies are caused by unanticipated medical expenses.



> The government telling privately owned businesses how they WILL or WILL NOT be run?



And? Businesses get regulated... as they should. Your point?



> Private citizens being told what they WILL or WILL NOT be allowed to have for health care?  And please tell me you are not going for the "you can keep the healthcare you have" BS when part of the language in the bill states that all the people who DON'T get it will be penalized and charged $200 Billion by the IRS over a period of about 10 years -



I don't think you've read the bill, because that isn't what it says... It's what the insurance lobbies SAY it says.



> As for my "BS" about Rev. Wright, you're the one who said: "You've got to have someone to hate in Fascism, it seems."



That wasn't me. And again... it was a non-sequitur.



> I was simply responding to the statement.  The quotations were not mine.  I don't have a dog in that fight one way or the other; I don't go to that church or any other.  But since the title of your thread seems to cover at least, in part, the subject of hate ...  my bad.



Insofar as it wasn't my thread... ok. yes, your bad. 



> Do not waste my time talking about who gained what with the FCC; I know for a fact, and other posters on this board could tell you that MSN shut its chat boards down once it became known that ANY _statements made that were unfavorable to President Obama's healthcare initiatives were not appreciated_.  In other words MSN towed the party line and shut down a free speech forum (albeit in writing).  If that is not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya what... don't waste MY time by talking about the MSN board... cause boards close for a lot of different reasons. (I used to moderate on one that got overrun by insane spammers during the 2004 election).
> 
> And if you're not interested in talking about the realities of what happened at the FCC over the last 8 years...well, then you're not interested in discussing the issue. That's fine.
> 
> [then I don't know what is.  Talk while you still can.
Click to expand...


No... you don't know what it is... 

I don't think we're in any danger of not being able to talk... 

at least not anymore.

Though you might have a look at the warrantless wiretaps of the FISA laws if you have concerns. (And yes, I know there were dems who voted for it, too... they shouldn't have).


----------



## AllieBaba

Obama's admin is making one of the biggest power grabs we've seen ever, anywhere...except in countries where fascists take over.

Like his buddy Che.

He's taken over the auto industry, the banks, he's struggling to control the health industry and will also go after the oil industry.

That's fascism.


----------



## paperview

Karateka said:


> This coming from the poster who just called Obama a fascist. "like it or not."
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make it easy for you.  A fascist is someone who follows the tenets of fascism.  Deal with it.  Now, what have I said, aside from the fact that Obama is what he is, that's breaking your little world apart and turning me into a "con"?  I don't vote con, I don't think con, I don't have a tat that says "God, Guns, and W" on my creamy white ass, so what's got you in such a twist?  Is it because I think Obama is a fascist?  Right then.*  I think the sky is blue with big white fluffy clouds - does that make me a meteorologist? * Jeez - the logic of you!
Click to expand...

No, it makes you simplistic. 

Which is the way most cons think.  Whatever your political ideology is, it's weak on depth and a basic understading of history, philosophies and definitions.


----------



## paperview

Karateka said:


> <...>
> Do not waste my time talking about who gained what with the FCC; I know for a fact, and other posters on this board could tell you that MSN shut its chat boards down once it became known that ANY _statements made that were unfavorable to President Obama's healthcare initiatives were not appreciated_.  In other words MSN towed the party line and shut down a free speech forum (albeit in writing).  If that is not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
> 
> 
> 
> then I don't know what is.  Talk while you still can.
Click to expand...


This may come as a surprise to you, but MSNBC is not the government.


----------



## paperview

You don't have "free speech" on someone else's dollar Kara.


----------



## paperview

> Quote: Originally Posted by Karateka View Post
> <...>
> Do not waste my time talking about who gained what with the FCC; I know for a fact, and other posters on this board could tell you that MSN shut its chat boards down once it became known that ANY statements made that were unfavorable to President Obama's healthcare initiatives were not appreciated. In other words MSN towed the party line and shut down a free speech forum (albeit in writing).



Oh, and Miss "Know it for a Fact" - Ahem:

Dear Valued msnbc.com Message Board Member,

Please know that the msnbc.com Message Boards have recently been closed down.  We are migrating the conversation over to Newsvine.com, which is our new Community Portal.  Over at Newsvine you'll find a tremendously wide breadth and depth of topics being discussed by people from around the world.  Registration only takes a moment.

Msnbc.com offers the Fuller Spectrum of News - Newsvine.com is the best place on the web to discuss the news.  We value your longstanding participation and hope that you will continue to enjoy msnbc.com's community offerings.

Discuss the News at Newsvine.com

Cheers,

Calvin
Newsvine/Msnbc.com"



Aww.  "Facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan


----------



## L.K.Eder

LibocalypseNow said:


> "We are Socialists,we are enemies of today's Capitalistic economic System for the exploitation of the economically weak,with its unfair salaries,with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance,and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
> 
> Though those words could have easily been spoken by Barack Obama,Nancy Pelosi,and just about all Leftists in this country,*they were actually words spoken by Adolf Hitler.* Hitler was a loyal Socialist right up til the end and this is just fact. Today's American Socialists do have eerie similarities with the Nazi Socialists. Their words seem to echo Adolf Hitler's own words more and more each day. It's actually pretty frightening.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers really were true geniuses all those years ago. They got it right back then. Socialism/Communism sound pretty good in the beginning but always end badly. Socialism/Communism simply open the door to Government oppression and Dictatorship. You can't even get to Fascism or Dictatorship without first going the Socialist/Communist route. Our Founding Fathers really did have it right back then. The further we move away from our Constitution the closer we get to Socialism,Communism,Fascism,and ultimately Dictatorship. Right now we are rapidly moving away from our Constitution and that should frighten all Americans.



link me to the source or tell me in which book it is cited that adolf hitler spoke those words.

i already answered your question who it was. it was not hitler.


----------



## paperview

L.K.Eder said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We are Socialists,we are enemies of today's Capitalistic economic System for the exploitation of the economically weak,with its unfair salaries,with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance,and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
> 
> Though those words could have easily been spoken by Barack Obama,Nancy Pelosi,and just about all Leftists in this country,*they were actually words spoken by Adolf Hitler.* Hitler was a loyal Socialist right up til the end and this is just fact. Today's American Socialists do have eerie similarities with the Nazi Socialists. Their words seem to echo Adolf Hitler's own words more and more each day. It's actually pretty frightening.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers really were true geniuses all those years ago. They got it right back then. Socialism/Communism sound pretty good in the beginning but always end badly. Socialism/Communism simply open the door to Government oppression and Dictatorship. You can't even get to Fascism or Dictatorship without first going the Socialist/Communist route. Our Founding Fathers really did have it right back then. The further we move away from our Constitution the closer we get to Socialism,Communism,Fascism,and ultimately Dictatorship. Right now we are rapidly moving away from our Constitution and that should frighten all Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link me to the source or tell me in which book it is cited that adolf hitler spoke those words.
> 
> i already answered your question who it was. it was not hitler.
Click to expand...

He doesn't answer questions.

He spams the same stuff over and over again.  He is a bot.


----------



## L.K.Eder

paperview said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We are Socialists,we are enemies of today's Capitalistic economic System for the exploitation of the economically weak,with its unfair salaries,with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance,and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
> 
> Though those words could have easily been spoken by Barack Obama,Nancy Pelosi,and just about all Leftists in this country,*they were actually words spoken by Adolf Hitler.* Hitler was a loyal Socialist right up til the end and this is just fact. Today's American Socialists do have eerie similarities with the Nazi Socialists. Their words seem to echo Adolf Hitler's own words more and more each day. It's actually pretty frightening.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers really were true geniuses all those years ago. They got it right back then. Socialism/Communism sound pretty good in the beginning but always end badly. Socialism/Communism simply open the door to Government oppression and Dictatorship. You can't even get to Fascism or Dictatorship without first going the Socialist/Communist route. Our Founding Fathers really did have it right back then. The further we move away from our Constitution the closer we get to Socialism,Communism,Fascism,and ultimately Dictatorship. Right now we are rapidly moving away from our Constitution and that should frighten all Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link me to the source or tell me in which book it is cited that adolf hitler spoke those words.
> 
> i already answered your question who it was. it was not hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't answer questions.
> 
> He spams the same stuff over and over again.  He is a bot.
Click to expand...


yeah, i told him his stuff will be true after the 129645th repetition or some such number. looks like he really believes that.


----------



## paperview

I will say, it is said to be quoted in Toland's biography of Hitler.

I thought I had the book in my library, but I can't find it.  I was looking to verify.  It's supposedly quoted on page 306.


----------



## paperview

Althoughhhhhhhhhhhh...Jonah Goldberg states it was Gregor Strasser who said it.

This is a quandary.  Who to believe. Who to believe.

:lol


----------



## L.K.Eder

paperview said:


> I will say, it is said to be quoted in Toland's biography of Hitler.
> 
> I thought I had the book in my library, but I can't find it.  I was looking to verify.  It's supposedly quoted on page 306.



i saw that on wikipedia.  i did not find a way to get my hands on the "nationalsozialistische briefe". what all sources seem to say that it was said or written in *1927*. 3 years before kicking the socialists out of the NSDAP.


----------



## paperview

L.K.Eder said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> link me to the source or tell me in which book it is cited that adolf hitler spoke those words.
> 
> i already answered your question who it was. it was not hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't answer questions.
> 
> He spams the same stuff over and over again.  He is a bot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, i told him his stuff will be true after the 129645th repetition or some such number. looks like he really believes that.
Click to expand...

Repeat the big lie often enough...


----------



## L.K.Eder

paperview said:


> Althoughhhhhhhhhhhh...Jonah Goldberg states it was Gregor Strasser who said it.
> 
> This is a quandary.  Who to believe. Who to believe.
> 
> :lol



maybe jonah goldberg got something right. i am searching in german, no jonah goldberg in sight to cite.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to backdoor many things in order to prepare the US for war. However, as usual, C misses the most important line in my post. _They were German citizens._ To ignore this would step the US over a big bad line we were not prepared to cross at that point, and would have helped to suck us in to the war in Europe before we were ready.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish refugees aboard the SS Quanza arrive in Norfolk, Va., on Sept. 11, 1940, in this photo from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum released Friday by Indiana University Press. The photo appears in the new book Refugees and Rescue
> 
> Jews and Immigration
> *
> A few days after the elections came Kristallnacht in Germany. Roosevelt spoke out publicly, expressing his dismay and horror.* He sent a protest to Germany and brought his ambassador to Germany home for consultations. The American Legion endorsed Roosevelt's statement, as did the CIO labor organization. Prominent movie stars -- Fred Astaire, Claudette Colbert and Bette Davis -- spoke out against the brutalities, Bette Davis suggesting that the U.S. sever all economic ties with Hitler's Germany. Support among U.S. citizens for the appeasement policy of Britain's prime minister, Chamberlain, diminished. In a Gallup poll that month, 94 percent expressed disapproval of "Nazi treatment of Jews.
> *
> For Hitler, the case of the S.S. St. Louis marked a stunning victory. It proved that, in spite of the protestations of the Allied leaders to the contrary, they didnt want Jews in their countries any more than he wanted them in his. In fact, when a Canadian official was asked how many Jews fleeing from Nazi Europe could be admitted to Canada, he responded: None is too many. This eventually became the title of a book, describing Canadas draconian refugee policies.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Nothing you have said refutes what I have said.
Click to expand...


----------



## RadiomanATL

LibocalypseNow said:


> Hitler was a loyal Socialist right up til the end and this is just fact.



Ummmm....



No.


----------



## RadiomanATL

paperview said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't answer questions.
> 
> He spams the same stuff over and over again.  He is a bot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, i told him his stuff will be true after the 129645th repetition or some such number. looks like he really believes that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeat the big lie often enough...
Click to expand...


Inadvertently, you've hit the nail on the head. I realize that you were referring to the previous poster's statements, but your post also illustrates how Hitler operated vis-à-vis Socialism.

Who were the main opponents of Hitler and the Nazi's? Socialists. Socialists were also pretty popular with the general population. So in order to fool, persuade and get the populace behind him, he first put the word "Socialist" right there in his party's name. Then he spouted some rhetoric about Socialism which made it look like he supported it. However, one only has to look at his actions to realize that they were anything but Socialist. No wonder that soon he completely consolidated power and kicked off the big war that he pretty much dropped the rhetoric. No reason to even give a passing nod to it anymore.

Heck, if anyone needs more proof, all they have to do is look at the first group of people that he went after and murdered in order to consolidate his power. Socialists. Reichstag fire anyone?

So while might have mouthed some Socialist ideologies, his actions were anything but. Risking the wrath of Godwin, it's pretty much like Bush who spouted conservative ideology, and then proceeded to become a big-government liberal. He just didn't persue the current liberal agenda's (thats pretty much the textbook definition of a neo-conservative). 

And that, as they say, is that.


----------



## Contumacious

paperview said:


> Karateka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you start throwing the word "Fascisim" around, I suggest you at least look up what it means, and how that definition affects EVERYTHING, not the least of which will be how all of us live should even a fraction of his agenda go through.  As the old saying goes, there will be no point in closing the barn door once the horse is out.
> 
> Like it or not, *Obama IS a fascist*, and he's already proven it with his handling of the banks and the auto industries and now he's after insurance and health care.  Privately owned, but government-controlled.  Don't take my word for it - find it out for yourself.
> 
> As for your statement that: "You've got to have someone to hate in Fascism, it seems," you're quite right.  Examine the ethnocentric church Obama attended for 20 years:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Newsmax.com, 1/7/08:  We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian, says the Trinity United Church of Christs website in Chicago. We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.
> 
> Thats just the beginning. The church has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa, according to its website, and its pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. subscribes to what is called the Black Value System.
> 
> While the Black Value System includes such items as commitment to God, education, and self-discipline, it refers to our racist competitive society and includes the disavowal of the pursuit of middle-classness and a pledge of allegiance to all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System. It defines middle-classness as a way for American society to snare blacks rather than killing them off directly or placing them in concentration camps, just as the country structures an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
> 
> In sermons and interviews, Dr. Wright has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. On the Sunday after 9/11, Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for Americas racism.
> 
> In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01, Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.
> 
> In one of his sermons, Wright said, Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.
> 
> As for Israel, The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now, Wright has said. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.
> 
> Obama says he found religion and Jesus Christ through Wright, whom he met in the mid-1980s. He has been attending Wrights church regularly since 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the "flooding of corporate media," like it or not, it's freedom of speech.  If you don't like what you're hearing, turn it off.  You seem to be operating under the notion that someone's rights are being stepped on because you don't like or believe what's being said.  The veracity or lack thereof is not your problem.  You have the choice to turn it off.  Likewise, if they do not like or believe what you might say, given equal time on the same type of forum, their choice would be the same - they could simply turn you off.  I would think someone as intelligent as you clearly are would understand that nothing is more important than maintaining the constitutional right to freedom of speech, regardless of whether what is being said is pleasing or viewed as honest by anyone with an opposing viewpoint?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And cons wonder why no one takes them seriously.
Click to expand...


Is it because you are cognitively challenged?!?


.


----------



## Contumacious

paperview said:


> Karateka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And cons wonder why no one takes them seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, I'm so sorry, but I'm not a "con"!!!!!  OMG!  There's not a *label* you can slap on me!  You can't put me in "my place" now!  I'm educated, I believe in equal rights, I defend the constitution, I'm in favor of gay marriage, and I'm pro choice!  I think for myself, I examine things from all sides, and I don't let other people make my decisions for me, or create my biases!  Gasp!  What kind of a world has it become, when you have to deal with someone who isn't afraid to look at things the way they *are* instead of the way you just really, really *want* them to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This coming from the poster who just called Obama a fascist. "like it or not."
Click to expand...


Is Obama using the state to effectuate change?

Yes, you said?


So he is a fascist.


Why are you  having so much difficulty grasping the concept?


.


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> Is Obama using the state to effectuate change?
> 
> Yes, you said?
> 
> 
> So he is a fascist.
> 
> 
> Why are you  having so much difficulty grasping the concept?



whatever gave you the idea that using the state to effectuate change has anything whatsoever to do with fascism?


----------



## paperview

Contumacious said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karateka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, I'm so sorry, but I'm not a "con"!!!!!  OMG!  There's not a *label* you can slap on me!  You can't put me in "my place" now!  I'm educated, I believe in equal rights, I defend the constitution, I'm in favor of gay marriage, and I'm pro choice!  I think for myself, I examine things from all sides, and I don't let other people make my decisions for me, or create my biases!  Gasp!  What kind of a world has it become, when you have to deal with someone who isn't afraid to look at things the way they *are* instead of the way you just really, really *want* them to be?
> 
> 
> 
> This coming from the poster who just called Obama a fascist. "like it or not."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is Obama using the state to effectuate change?
> 
> Yes, you said?
> 
> 
> So he is a fascist.
> 
> 
> Why are you  having so much difficulty grasping the concept?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Speaking of cognitively challenged.

Good God.


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> Karateka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good.  So when the government dictates political ideology _and_ corporate economic ideology, you get fascism.  But you're telling me you don't see any of that happening now, though, right?  Not with the takeover of the banks or the micro-management and/or takeover of the auto industry - privately owned industries?  Or interference in a person's choice of health care?  You don't see ANY of that happening AT ALL?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The banks were given LOANS while Bush was president.* Most of the TARP funds have been paid back*.
Click to expand...


Really?


And you KNOW that HOW?


.


----------



## EriktheRed

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Obama using the state to effectuate change?
> 
> Yes, you said?
> 
> 
> So he is a fascist.
> 
> 
> Why are you  having so much difficulty grasping the concept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whatever gave you the idea that using the state to effectuate change has anything whatsoever to do with fascism?
Click to expand...


Because some people don't realize that *all *governments - not just those they don't like - engage in what is usually derisively termed "social engineering".


----------



## EriktheRed

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karateka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good.  So when the government dictates political ideology _and_ corporate economic ideology, you get fascism.  But you're telling me you don't see any of that happening now, though, right?  Not with the takeover of the banks or the micro-management and/or takeover of the auto industry - privately owned industries?  Or interference in a person's choice of health care?  You don't see ANY of that happening AT ALL?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The banks were given LOANS while Bush was president.* Most of the TARP funds have been paid back*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> And you KNOW that HOW?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Don't know about "most", but...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIezubwp9xFE&refer=home

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01bank.html


http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-CreditCrisis/idUSTRE5580IF20090609


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Obama using the state to effectuate change?
> 
> Yes, you said?
> 
> 
> So he is a fascist.
> 
> 
> Why are you  having so much difficulty grasping the concept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whatever gave you the idea that using the state to effectuate change has anything whatsoever to do with fascism?
Click to expand...


"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... 


*Benito Mussolini*


.


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Obama using the state to effectuate change?
> 
> Yes, you said?
> 
> 
> So he is a fascist.
> 
> 
> Why are you  having so much difficulty grasping the concept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whatever gave you the idea that using the state to effectuate change has anything whatsoever to do with fascism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
> 
> 
> *Benito Mussolini*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



and when the religious right tries to use the state to effectuate change?

btw, one comment by mussolini does not facism make...

you're pretty loose with the definitions ... because what you're claiming doesn't fit any definition I've ever heard.


----------



## Contumacious

EriktheRed said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Obama using the state to effectuate change?
> 
> Yes, you said?
> 
> 
> So he is a fascist.
> 
> 
> Why are you  having so much difficulty grasping the concept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whatever gave you the idea that using the state to effectuate change has anything whatsoever to do with fascism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because some people don't realize that *all *governments - not just those they don't like - engage in what is usually derisively termed "social engineering".
Click to expand...



I am certain that you meant to say: "Because some people don't realize that *all FASCIST * governments - not just those they don't like - engage in what is usually derisively termed "social engineering".


.


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever gave you the idea that using the state to effectuate change has anything whatsoever to do with fascism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
> 
> 
> *Benito Mussolini*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and when the religious right tries to use the state to effectuate change?
> 
> btw, one comment by mussolini does not facism make...
> 
> you're pretty loose with the definitions ... *because what you're claiming doesn't fit any definition I've ever heard.*
Click to expand...


You attended a government owned and operated school , right?


,


----------



## EriktheRed

Contumacious said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever gave you the idea that using the state to effectuate change has anything whatsoever to do with fascism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because some people don't realize that *all *governments - not just those they don't like - engage in what is usually derisively termed "social engineering".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am certain that you meant to say: "Because some people don't realize that *all FASCIST * governments - not just those they don't like - engage in what is usually derisively termed "social engineering".
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No, I was right the first time, actually. 

Jill's right, too:



> and when the religious right tries to use the state to effectuate change?
> 
> btw, one comment by mussolini does not facism make...
> 
> you're pretty loose with the definitions ... because what you're claiming doesn't fit any definition I've ever heard


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever gave you the idea that using the state to effectuate change has anything whatsoever to do with fascism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
> 
> 
> *Benito Mussolini*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and when the religious right tries to use the state to effectuate change?
Click to expand...


Fascism - by golly , you gottit.

If ANY entity uses the power of government to forcefully effectuate change that the government is being fascistic.

.


----------



## paperview

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
> 
> 
> *Benito Mussolini*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and when the religious right tries to use the state to effectuate change?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascism - by golly , you gottit.
> 
> If ANY entity uses the power of government to forcefully effectuate change that the government is being fascistic.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

So I guess we could call the Founding Fathers fascists then, by your definition.


----------



## EriktheRed

paperview said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and when the religious right tries to use the state to effectuate change?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism - by golly , you gottit.
> 
> If ANY entity uses the power of government to forcefully effectuate change that the government is being fascistic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess we could call the Founding Fathers fascists then, by your definition.
Click to expand...


Or we could say the guys in the last admin were, too, for trying to create an "ownership society".


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> Fascism - by golly , you gottit.
> 
> If ANY entity uses the power of government to forcefully effectuate change that the government is being fascistic.



ummmm....

wrong answer.... 

government always changes. to think otherwise is simply silly. it changes based on the person for whom we vote. it changes based on changing times.

your definition is silly.

words have meaning. making it up as you go along like you are ....

not so much.


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> You attended a government owned and operated school , right?



at which level of my education? undergraduate or post graduate?

do you really think you can ignore accepted definitions and spew because you want to?

you're really funny.


----------



## Contumacious

EriktheRed said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because some people don't realize that *all *governments - not just those they don't like - engage in what is usually derisively termed "social engineering".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am certain that you meant to say: "Because some people don't realize that *all FASCIST * governments - not just those they don't like - engage in what is usually derisively termed "social engineering".
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I was right the first time, actually.
> 
> Jill's right, too:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and when the religious right tries to use the state to effectuate change?
> 
> btw, one comment by mussolini does not facism make...
> 
> you're pretty loose with the definitions ... because what you're claiming doesn't fit any definition I've ever heard
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No you were profoundly wrong. But I understand why you are confused.  The reason that the democrats call the republicans fascist and vice versa is because THEY ARE BOTH FASCISTS. So the accusations are correct. 


The Federal Reserve Board was created with BIPARTISAN SUPPORT - there has been many Republican administrations since FDR yet not one of them has tried to abolish the welfare/warfare state.


.


----------



## Contumacious

paperview said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and when the religious right tries to use the state to effectuate change?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism - by golly , you gottit.
> 
> If ANY entity uses the power of government to forcefully effectuate change that the government is being fascistic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess we could call the Founding Fathers fascists then, by your definition.
Click to expand...


Identify by article section and clause that Constitutional proviso which authorizes the bastards to bail out banks and/or otherwise manage the economy and operate a healthcare system.

,


----------



## Contumacious

EriktheRed said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism - by golly , you gottit.
> 
> If ANY entity uses the power of government to forcefully effectuate change that the government is being fascistic.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess we could call the Founding Fathers fascists then, by your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we could say the guys in the last admin were, too, for trying to create an "ownership society".
Click to expand...




Yes indeed they were.


----------



## paperview

Contumacious said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism - by golly , you gottit.
> 
> If ANY entity uses the power of government to forcefully effectuate change that the government is being fascistic.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess we could call the Founding Fathers fascists then, by your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Identify by article section and clause that Constitutional proviso which authorizes the bastards to bail out banks and/or otherwise manage the economy and operate a healthcare system.
> 
> ,
Click to expand...

That's a major goalpost move.

You said: "If ANY entity uses the power of government to forcefully effectuate change that the government is being fascistic."

My statement stands.  By your measure, the Founders, and just about every administration since, is fascistic.


----------



## AllieBaba

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever gave you the idea that using the state to effectuate change has anything whatsoever to do with fascism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
> 
> 
> *Benito Mussolini*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and when the religious right tries to use the state to effectuate change?
> 
> btw, one comment by mussolini does not facism make...
> 
> you're pretty loose with the definitions ... because what you're claiming doesn't fit any definition I've ever heard.
Click to expand...



How about an example of that happening? One where the rights of people were permanently removed to facilitate it?


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attended a government owned and operated school , right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at which level of my education? undergraduate or post graduate?
> 
> do you really think you can ignore accepted definitions and spew because you want to?
> 
> you're really funny.
Click to expand...

*
From the New Mercantilism to Economic Fascism*

"We have been on the road towards a planned economy since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s. Convinced by the Great Depression that capitalism had failed, increasing numbers of American intellectuals became attracted to the idea of social engineering. *They swarmed into the halls of power after Roosevelt's inauguration in 1933. Few advocated outright nationalization of private industry. Instead, their model was Mussolini's fascist Italy." *


.


----------



## Contumacious

paperview said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess we could call the Founding Fathers fascists then, by your definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Identify by article section and clause that Constitutional proviso which authorizes the bastards to bail out banks and/or otherwise manage the economy and operate a healthcare system.
> 
> ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a major goalpost move.
> 
> You said: "If ANY entity uses the power of government to forcefully effectuate change that the government is being fascistic."
> 
> My statement stands.  By your measure, the Founders, and just about every administration since, is fascistic.
Click to expand...


HUH?


What kind of convoluted thinking is that?

The purpose of government is to protect the right to life, to property to liberty and to pursue happiness.

If you attempt to deprive me of any of those rights then the government has a duty to act - that is not fascism.


----------



## paperview

Was forced conscription, something we had for some 60 or so years (from our inception to about the mid 1840's) - part of your definition of fascistic?


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> HUH?
> 
> 
> What kind of convoluted thinking is that?
> 
> The purpose of government is to protect the right to life, to property to liberty and to pursue happiness.
> 
> If you attempt to deprive me of any of those rights then the government has a duty to act - that is not fascism.



on what are you making that assessment? the purpose of government differs depending upon the political philosopher you agree with... Hobbes, Locke, DeToqueville... but all of those are just philosophical musings.

Our government has the power to do anything in furtherance of the public good. That's why the Constitution has a very broad general welfare clause


----------



## AllieBaba

No, our government does not have the power to do anything it thinks is for the public good. Our government has the power to defend us and protect our individual rights. Anything beyond that we have the right and the obligation to oppose.

You need to read the constitution again, alleged lawyer.


----------



## Contumacious

paperview said:


> Was forced conscription, something we had for some 60 or so years (from our inception to about the mid 1840's) - part of your definition of fascistic?



Abso-fucking-lutely.

Identify one single Founding Father who supported conscription. Show me where Patrick Henry stated "I do not mind being forced to fight for the federal government"


.


----------



## AllieBaba

"The sole purpose of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our unalienable rights given us by our Creator. When Government grows beyond this scope, it is usurpation, and liberty is compromised."

Constitution Party Platform

"Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; &#8212; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
http://constitutionality.us/USConstitution.html#BOR

I don't see anything in there about doing whatever it chooses to to provide for the "welfare" of the American people. Providing for the general welfare is not taking power from the ppl and determining what is best for them without their consent.


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> 
> What kind of convoluted thinking is that?
> 
> The purpose of government is to protect the right to life, to property to liberty and to pursue happiness.
> 
> If you attempt to deprive me of any of those rights then the government has a duty to act - that is not fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on what are you making that assessment? the purpose of government differs depending upon the political philosopher you agree with... Hobbes, Locke, DeToqueville... but all of those are just philosophical musings.
> 
> *Our government has the power to do anything in furtherance of the public good.* That's why the Constitution has a very broad *general welfare clause*
Click to expand...




Really?


How did the Founding Fathers define "public good? 

The Constitutions grants SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS - NONe of which is to secure the "public good"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


,


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> 
> What kind of convoluted thinking is that?
> 
> The purpose of government is to protect the right to life, to property to liberty and to pursue happiness.
> 
> If you attempt to deprive me of any of those rights then the government has a duty to act - that is not fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on what are you making that assessment? the purpose of government differs depending upon the political philosopher you agree with... Hobbes, Locke, DeToqueville... but all of those are just philosophical musings.
> 
> *Our government has the power to do anything in furtherance of the public good.* That's why the Constitution has a very broad *general welfare clause*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> How did the Founding Fathers define "public good?
> 
> The Constitutions grants SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS - NONe of which is to secure the "public good"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> ,
Click to expand...



They didn't define it... what falls within the general welfare claus is determined by the court if a case is brought before it.

you know, you could be interesting... if you didn't keep pulling stuff out of your butt.


----------



## Contumacious

Conscription

Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Charta to be slaves. *Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? *

*
Daniel Webster (1782-1852),*


----------



## AllieBaba

They did define it. Section 8.


----------



## jillian

AllieBaba said:


> No, our government does not have the power to do anything it thinks is for the public good. Our government has the power to defend us and protect our individual rights. Anything beyond that we have the right and the obligation to oppose.
> 
> You need to read the constitution again, alleged lawyer.



if you weren't so stupid, i might actually give a rat's patoot about what you think.

why do you think there's a general welfare clause, genius?


----------



## AllieBaba

Contumacious said:


> Conscription
> 
> Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Charta to be slaves. *Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? *
> 
> *
> Daniel Webster (1782-1852),*



"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Section 8 again.


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> on what are you making that assessment? the purpose of government differs depending upon the political philosopher you agree with... Hobbes, Locke, DeToqueville... but all of those are just philosophical musings.
> 
> *Our government has the power to do anything in furtherance of the public good.* That's why the Constitution has a very broad *general welfare clause*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> How did the Founding Fathers define "public good?
> 
> The Constitutions grants SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS - NONe of which is to secure the "public good"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't define it... what falls within the general welfare claus is determined by the court if a case is brought before it.
> 
> you know, you could be interesting... if you didn't keep pulling stuff out of your butt.
Click to expand...


I see, so we have no rights until SCOTUS so declared in a 5 to 4 decision........hummmmmm so was that a Vagina Monologue?


.


----------



## paperview

Contumacious said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was forced conscription, something we had for some 60 or so years (from our inception to about the mid 1840's) - part of your definition of fascistic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abso-fucking-lutely.
> 
> Identify one single Founding Father who supported conscription. Show me where Patrick Henry stated "I do not mind being forced to fight for the federal government"
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Er....:[SIZE=+2]Militia Act of 1792[/SIZE], 
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,

The Militia Act of 1792


*I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America*, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia*, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> How did the Founding Fathers define "public good?
> 
> The Constitutions grants SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS - NONe of which is to secure the "public good"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't define it... what falls within the general welfare claus is determined by the court if a case is brought before it.
> 
> you know, you could be interesting... if you didn't keep pulling stuff out of your butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so we have no rights until SCOTUS so declared in a 5 to 4 decision........hummmmmm so was that a Vagina Monologue?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


see... now you just got boring.


----------



## Contumacious

AllieBaba said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conscription
> 
> Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Charta to be slaves. *Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? *
> 
> *
> Daniel Webster (1782-1852),*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution *the foregoing Powers, *and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
> Section 8 again.
Click to expand...



So which "FOREGOING POWER" grants the authority? That was Mr Webster's question.


.


----------



## AllieBaba

The foregoing powers are the ones listed and numbered in section 8, about 1/2 an inch above that statement.


----------



## paperview

Every able bodied man  had to show up for militia duty regularly or face a fine. That ran all the way up to almost 1850. 

Talk about government coercion.


----------



## AllieBaba

And not one of them refers to health care, housing, or a welfare check.


----------



## AllieBaba

paperview said:


> Every able bodied man  had to show up for militia duty regularly or face a fine. That ran all the way up to almost 1850.
> 
> Talk about government coercion.



You have to have a military, or you don't have a country. Period.


----------



## paperview

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't define it... what falls within the general welfare claus is determined by the court if a case is brought before it.
> 
> you know, you could be interesting... if you didn't keep pulling stuff out of your butt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so we have no rights until SCOTUS so declared in a 5 to 4 decision........hummmmmm so was that a Vagina Monologue?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> see... now you just got boring.
Click to expand...


----------



## paperview

AllieBaba said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every able bodied man  had to show up for militia duty regularly or face a fine. That ran all the way up to almost 1850.
> 
> Talk about government coercion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to have a military, or you don't have a country. Period.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with it.

Comatose here though seems to think none of the Founders were in favor of conscription.


----------



## EriktheRed

AllieBaba said:


> And not one of them refers to health care, housing, or a welfare check.



Nor do they expressly prohibit them.


----------



## AllieBaba

EriktheRed said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And not one of them refers to health care, housing, or a welfare check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do they expressly prohibit them.
Click to expand...


The powers of the government are listed and numbered because they are exclusive. Any more and the government is identified as tyrannical.


----------



## paperview

AllieBaba said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And not one of them refers to health care, housing, or a welfare check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do they expressly prohibit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The powers of the government are listed and numbered because they are exclusive. Any more and the government is identified as tyrannical.
Click to expand...

Was the last administration "tyrannical?"


----------



## necritan

paperview said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do they expressly prohibit them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The powers of the government are listed and numbered because they are exclusive. Any more and the government is identified as tyrannical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the last administration "tyrannical?"
Click to expand...


Gettin there......just like this one is gettin there even faster.


----------



## Contumacious

paperview said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was forced conscription, something we had for some 60 or so years (from our inception to about the mid 1840's) - part of your definition of fascistic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abso-fucking-lutely.
> 
> Identify one single Founding Father who supported conscription. Show me where Patrick Henry stated "I do not mind being forced to fight for the federal government"
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Er....:[SIZE=+2]Militia Act of 1792[/SIZE],
> *Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII*
> Passed May 2, 1792,
> 
> The Militia Act of 1792
> 
> 
> *I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America*, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia*, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
Click to expand...



This was an act adopted by the second congress . The concept was opposed by both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson

"
* James Madison,* "The Father of the Constitution," voiced his concern as well:

    A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

    Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
*
Thomas Jefferson* not only included standing armies in the Declaration of Independence as a component of British tyranny, he likewise despairingly described them elsewhere:

    There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.

    Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place.

    Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace.

So the Militia Act of 1792 was an unconstitutional usurpation of power.


----------



## Contumacious

paperview said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every able bodied man  had to show up for militia duty regularly or face a fine. That ran all the way up to almost 1850.
> 
> Talk about government coercion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to have a military, or you don't have a country. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a problem with it.
> 
> Comatose here though seems to think none of the Founders were in favor of conscription.
Click to expand...




Of course you don't - there is nothing more appealing to fascists than sending their young to fight for the Vaterland .

 And of course, as a woman you do not risk leaving your gray matter all over the Fallujah countryside.


----------



## AllieBaba

Providing for a well maintained military is not fascism.


----------



## Contumacious

AllieBaba said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every able bodied man  had to show up for militia duty regularly or face a fine. That ran all the way up to almost 1850.
> 
> Talk about government coercion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to have a military, or you don't have a country. Period.
Click to expand...


And with a standing army you don't have rights, ask the Jews and the Davidians.


----------



## necritan

paperview said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every able bodied man  had to show up for militia duty regularly or face a fine. That ran all the way up to almost 1850.
> 
> Talk about government coercion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to have a military, or you don't have a country. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a problem with it.
> 
> Comatose here though seems to think none of the Founders were in favor of conscription.
Click to expand...


These were Militia's designed to protect from invasion......not to fight War's in rice patties.

When protecting from invasion exclusively....its hard to consider them conscripts.

I'd like to point out these individuals were all supposed to provide their own weapons too.


----------



## AllieBaba

Ask them what they thought about America's standing Army when we brought them freedom.


----------



## AllieBaba

necritan said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to have a military, or you don't have a country. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with it.
> 
> Comatose here though seems to think none of the Founders were in favor of conscription.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These were Militia's designed to protect from invasion......not to fight War's in rice patties.
> 
> When protecting from invasion exclusively....its hard to consider them conscripts.
> 
> I'd like to point out these individuals were all supposed to provide their own weapons too.
Click to expand...



In those days, of course, there was no threat of being obliterated by nuclear weapons being fired from afar, and no jets, either.


----------



## Contumacious

AllieBaba said:


> Providing for a well maintained military is not fascism.



Providing funds for raising an army is not fascist, 

FORCING me to join the army is fascistic.

We firearms all over the house , now that the kids are gone. You don't fucking have to force me to shoot at any invading forces. 

But I will not let my children or grandchildren fight in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan ,  Pakistan nor any military incursion designed to change regimes, steal oil , engage in violations of international law, etc.


----------



## AllieBaba

Not if we need men to protect the country from being obliterated.


----------



## AllieBaba

Luckily, since we aren't a fascist gov't (yet) you're always free to leave if you don't like it.


----------



## Contumacious

AllieBaba said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with it.
> 
> Comatose here though seems to think none of the Founders were in favor of conscription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These were Militia's designed to protect from invasion......not to fight War's in rice patties.
> 
> When protecting from invasion exclusively....its hard to consider them conscripts.
> 
> I'd like to point out these individuals were all supposed to provide their own weapons too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In those days, of course, there was no threat of being obliterated by nuclear weapons being fired from afar, and no jets, either.
Click to expand...


HUH?

And who introduced NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPONS into the battleground?

And HOW will conscription prevent the Russkies and/or AQ from launching an atomic weapon?

.


----------



## paperview

Contumacious said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abso-fucking-lutely.
> 
> Identify one single Founding Father who supported conscription. Show me where Patrick Henry stated "I do not mind being forced to fight for the federal government"
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Er....:[SIZE=+2]Militia Act of 1792[/SIZE],
> *Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII*
> Passed May 2, 1792,
> 
> The Militia Act of 1792
> 
> 
> *I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America*, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia*, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This was an act adopted by the second congress . The concept was opposed by both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "
> * James Madison,* "The Father of the Constitution," voiced his concern as well:
> 
> A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
> 
> Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
> *
> Thomas Jefferson* not only included standing armies in the Declaration of Independence as a component of British tyranny, he likewise despairingly described them elsewhere:
> 
> There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.
> 
> Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place.
> 
> Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace.
> 
> So the Militia Act of 1792 was an unconstitutional usurpation of power.
Click to expand...

FAil.

Again.*A Well-Organized and Armed Militia*

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482  '

*"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important*." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803. 

 "It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies*. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier*; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. 

"_A well-disciplined militia_, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, _I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government_, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." 
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. 

"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of *every man in it able to bear arms*." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.  

"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
 --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334  


*Every Citizen a Member of the Militia*

*"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizen*s, and _make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education_. We can never be safe till this is done." 

--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. 



*"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, *as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."
 --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814. 


​


----------



## Contumacious

AllieBaba said:


> Luckily, since we aren't a fascist gov't (yet) you're always free to leave if you don't like it.



So the Founding Fathers should have moved to Mexico rather that fighting the British. Not a chance , I have swore to defend the Constitution against foreign and DOMESTIC enemies.

.


----------



## paperview

Contumacious said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Providing for a well maintained military is not fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Providing funds for raising an army is not fascist,
> 
> *FORCING me to join the army is fascistic.*
> 
> We firearms all over the house , now that the kids are gone. You don't fucking have to force me to shoot at any invading forces.
> 
> But I will not let my children or grandchildren fight in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan ,  Pakistan nor any military incursion designed to change regimes, steal oil , engage in violations of international law, etc.
Click to expand...

Well there you have it.  Thomas Jefferson was a fascist according to you.


----------



## Contumacious

paperview said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Er....:[SIZE=+2]Militia Act of 1792[/SIZE],
> *Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII*
> Passed May 2, 1792,
> 
> The Militia Act of 1792
> 
> 
> *I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America*, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia*, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was an act adopted by the second congress . The concept was opposed by both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "
> * James Madison,* "The Father of the Constitution," voiced his concern as well:
> 
> A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
> 
> Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
> *
> Thomas Jefferson* not only included standing armies in the Declaration of Independence as a component of British tyranny, he likewise despairingly described them elsewhere:
> 
> There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.
> 
> Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place.
> 
> Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace.
> 
> So the Militia Act of 1792 was an unconstitutional usurpation of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FAil.
> 
> Again.*A Well-Organized and Armed Militia*
> 
> "For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
> --Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482  '
> 
> *"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important*." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803.
> 
> "It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies*. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier*; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
> 
> "_A well-disciplined militia_, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, _I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government_, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
> --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
> 
> "[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of *every man in it able to bear arms*." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.
> 
> "Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
> --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
> 
> 
> *Every Citizen a Member of the Militia*
> 
> *"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizen*s, and _make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education_. We can never be safe till this is done."
> 
> --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
> 
> 
> 
> *"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, *as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."
> --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


I did not see the word conscription therein.

I go to the gun range at least once a month, I buy my own firearms and ammunition - don't need Obama to encourage or force me to do anything.


.


----------



## paperview

May 8, 		1792
*Militia Act establishes conscription under federal law*

  		 On this day in 1792, Congress passes the second portion of the Militia Act, requiring that &#8220;every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years&#8230; be enrolled in the militia.&#8221;

This Day in History 1792: Militia Act establishes conscription under federal law


----------



## Contumacious

paperview said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Providing for a well maintained military is not fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Providing funds for raising an army is not fascist,
> 
> *FORCING me to join the army is fascistic.*
> 
> We firearms all over the house , now that the kids are gone. You don't fucking have to force me to shoot at any invading forces.
> 
> But I will not let my children or grandchildren fight in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan ,  Pakistan nor any military incursion designed to change regimes, steal oil , engage in violations of international law, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there you have it.  Thomas Jefferson was a fascist according to you.
Click to expand...


STFU.


*Thomas Jefferson, *in a letter written to John Adams during the War for Independence, *referred to conscription as "the last of all oppressions." If the State can steal you -- not just your labor, but your physical being -- as those controlling it see fit, you have no rights.*


----------



## AllieBaba

Contumacious said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> These were Militia's designed to protect from invasion......not to fight War's in rice patties.
> 
> When protecting from invasion exclusively....its hard to consider them conscripts.
> 
> I'd like to point out these individuals were all supposed to provide their own weapons too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In those days, of course, there was no threat of being obliterated by nuclear weapons being fired from afar, and no jets, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> And who introduced NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPONS into the battleground?
> 
> And HOW will conscription prevent the Russkies and/or AQ from launching an atomic weapon?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Nuclear weapons used to prevent the Japanese from bombing the shit out of us again.

And research the Manhattan Project. A huge percentage of the scientists weren't American.


----------



## necritan

AllieBaba said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> In those days, of course, there was no threat of being obliterated by nuclear weapons being fired from afar, and no jets, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> And who introduced NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPONS into the battleground?
> 
> And HOW will conscription prevent the Russkies and/or AQ from launching an atomic weapon?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear weapons used to prevent the Japanese from bombing the shit out of us again.
> 
> And research the Manhattan Project. A huge percentage of the scientists weren't American.
Click to expand...


Actually.....we dropped the "A" bombs because a land invasion would have meant casualties the likes of which we have never seen.


----------



## necritan

paperview said:


> May 8, 		1792
> *Militia Act establishes conscription under federal law*
> 
> On this day in 1792, Congress passes the second portion of the Militia Act, requiring that every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years be enrolled in the militia.
> 
> This Day in History 1792: Militia Act establishes conscription under federal law



Being "Enrolled" in a Militia is hardly having an international Army like we have now. This was a way to have things organized in the event of an invasion. 

One's life , liberty and pursuit of happiness sure go to shit if we allow an invasion to successfully occur.

And....once again...Id like to point out that no one seemed to have a problem with just about every mother fucker havin a gun back then.


----------



## Yukon

If Hitler had won the war you wouldn't be complaining about a Negro being President.


----------



## elvis

Yukon said:


> If Hitler had won the war you wouldn't be complaining about a Negro being President.



If Hitler had won, you'd be a slave of the German Empire.


----------



## Bfgrn

elvis3577 said:


> pal_of_poor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
> 
> except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are saying that totalitarianism, often mistaken for Marxism, can be reached from both sides, then yea, I agree.  I think the conditions under Marxist Totalitarianism are quite different than under Fascism, as displayed in Germany, and Italy.  And by the way, tyrannical leaders can manifest under any economic system, even ours.  Look at Cheney, Rove, and Rummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cheny, Rove, and Rummy are not Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, or Stalin. Try again.
Click to expand...


Do you pea brains really believe an Adolph Hitler saw HIMSELF as evil?








_"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."_

_"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

*Adolf Hitler*
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872._


"While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives."
*Robert Altmeyer*


----------



## elvis

Ok, I would like to hear Buttfuckgrn's argument about how Bush, Cheney, and Rummy are equivalent to Hitler and stalin.


----------



## Ringel05

Yukon said:


> If Hitler had won the war you wouldn't be complaining about a Negro being President.



Did you forget to take your Thorazine again?


----------



## elvis

Bfgrn said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pal_of_poor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are saying that totalitarianism, often mistaken for Marxism, can be reached from both sides, then yea, I agree.  I think the conditions under Marxist Totalitarianism are quite different than under Fascism, as displayed in Germany, and Italy.  And by the way, tyrannical leaders can manifest under any economic system, even ours.  Look at Cheney, Rove, and Rummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheny, Rove, and Rummy are not Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, or Stalin. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you pea brains really believe an Adolph Hitler saw HIMSELF as evil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."_
> 
> _"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
> 
> *Adolf Hitler*
> The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872._
> 
> 
> "While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives."
> *Robert Altmeyer*
Click to expand...


This post does nothing to prove that  Bush, Cheney, and Rummy being on the same level as hitler and Stalin, you daft ****.


----------



## Ringel05

Bfgrn said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pal_of_poor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are saying that totalitarianism, often mistaken for Marxism, can be reached from both sides, then yea, I agree.  I think the conditions under Marxist Totalitarianism are quite different than under Fascism, as displayed in Germany, and Italy.  And by the way, tyrannical leaders can manifest under any economic system, even ours.  Look at Cheney, Rove, and Rummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheny, Rove, and Rummy are not Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, or Stalin. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you pea brains really believe an Adolph Hitler saw HIMSELF as evil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."_
> 
> _"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
> 
> *Adolf Hitler*
> The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872._
> 
> 
> "While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives."
> *Robert Altmeyer*
Click to expand...


No.  Even Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, et. al.  saw themselves as "saviors and visionaries" towards their people.  But comparing Bush, Obama, etc. to any of them is pure political dogeral.


----------



## paperview

necritan said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> May 8,         1792
> *Militia Act establishes conscription under federal law*
> 
> On this day in 1792, Congress passes the second portion of the Militia Act, requiring that &#8220;every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years&#8230; be enrolled in the militia.&#8221;
> 
> This Day in History 1792: Militia Act establishes conscription under federal law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being "Enrolled" in a Militia is hardly having an international Army like we have now. This was a way to have things organized in the event of an invasion.
> 
> One's life , liberty and pursuit of happiness sure go to shit if we allow an invasion to successfully occur.
> 
> And....once again...Id like to point out that no one seemed to have a problem with just about every mother fucker havin a gun back then.
Click to expand...

My point was it was government coercion.  The gov. forced you to equip yourself at your own expense and show up for duty for training and to parade on a regular basis. 

I don't have a problem with it, as I said, but nonetheless, it was conscription - and it lasted until about the mid 1800's, and in some states even longer. 

"The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[3] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall."


----------



## AllieBaba

Bfgrn said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pal_of_poor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are saying that totalitarianism, often mistaken for Marxism, can be reached from both sides, then yea, I agree.  I think the conditions under Marxist Totalitarianism are quite different than under Fascism, as displayed in Germany, and Italy.  And by the way, tyrannical leaders can manifest under any economic system, even ours.  Look at Cheney, Rove, and Rummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheny, Rove, and Rummy are not Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, or Stalin. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you pea brains really believe an Adolph Hitler saw HIMSELF as evil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."_
> 
> _"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
> 
> *Adolf Hitler*
> The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872._
> 
> 
> "While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives."
> *Robert Altmeyer*
Click to expand...


WTF does that mean? THat he wasn't evil because he didn't see himself as evil?


----------



## Yukon

Hitler was a GREAT man, misunderstood but still a GREAT man.


----------



## Bfgrn

AllieBaba said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheny, Rove, and Rummy are not Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, or Stalin. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you pea brains really believe an Adolph Hitler saw HIMSELF as evil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."_
> 
> _"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
> 
> *Adolf Hitler*
> The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872._
> 
> 
> "While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives."
> *Robert Altmeyer*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF does that mean? THat he wasn't evil because he didn't see himself as evil?
Click to expand...


It MEANS that just like Hitler, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld _believed_ they were doing "God's" work, when in reality, they were really doing the devil's work, just LIKE Hitler...


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
> 
> 
> *Benito Mussolini*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and when the religious right tries to use the state to effectuate change?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascism - by golly , you gottit.
> 
> If ANY entity uses the power of government to forcefully effectuate change that the government is being fascistic.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Words means things and stuff.

You don't get to change the definitions just 'cuz you don't know what they mean, ya know.

Forget government school...did you attend ANY school?!?!?


----------



## RadiomanATL

paperview said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Providing for a well maintained military is not fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Providing funds for raising an army is not fascist,
> 
> *FORCING me to join the army is fascistic.*
> 
> We firearms all over the house , now that the kids are gone. You don't fucking have to force me to shoot at any invading forces.
> 
> But I will not let my children or grandchildren fight in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan ,  Pakistan nor any military incursion designed to change regimes, steal oil , engage in violations of international law, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there you have it.  Thomas Jefferson was a fascist according to you.
Click to expand...


Everyone is a fascist according to Comatoscious.

Fortunately, he doesn't even know what the word means. So it's kinda like being insulted by a 3 year old.


----------



## RadiomanATL

elvis3577 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Hitler had won the war you wouldn't be complaining about a Negro being President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Hitler had won, you'd be a slave of the German Empire.
Click to expand...


If Hitler had won, he would be in a concentration camp.

He didn't exactly have tolerance for homosexuals.


----------



## Contumacious

necritan said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> And who introduced NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPONS into the battleground?
> 
> And HOW will conscription prevent the Russkies and/or AQ from launching an atomic weapon?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear weapons used to prevent the Japanese from bombing the shit out of us again.
> 
> And research the Manhattan Project. A huge percentage of the scientists weren't American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually.....we dropped the "A" bombs because a land invasion would have meant casualties the likes of which we have never seen.
Click to expand...


I see, so if you do something to me I can kill your entire family, right?


.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Contumacious said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear weapons used to prevent the Japanese from bombing the shit out of us again.
> 
> And research the Manhattan Project. A huge percentage of the scientists weren't American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually.....we dropped the "A" bombs because a land invasion would have meant casualties the likes of which we have never seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so if you do something to me I can kill your entire family, right?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


seit 5:45 wird zurück geschossen.

stop abusing german heritage you brain dead morons.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Xenophon said:


> Robert Paxton wrote on Facism:
> 
> a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion
> ========================================
> 
> depending on your political bent you can make facism and nazism swing left or right, but the fact neither Nazis or facists were left or right, they were in their own catigory, and have no real connection to modern politics.



Nonsense... 

Fascism was implemented in several nations around the world in the early 19th Century...

It came to the US in the form of the US Progressives... to Italy as Fascism and to germany as Nazism...   In EVERY ONE of those nations, it was NATIONAL SOCIALISM...  there's nothing "right wing" about socialism... PERIOD!  

That the US culture embraced the Nationalism and in large measure predominately REJECTED the socialism, with Italy to a lessor degree; and German to an even lessor degree... embracing both the Nationalism AND the Socialism... is purely a function of the culture's respective moral foundations.  With the US being moored to the Immutable principles common to the American ethic... and Europeans having long since succumbed to the addle-minded notions of Secular Humanism... it only serves reason that the cultural decay common to Europe, would realize catastrophic effects from Socialism; catastrophe orders of magnitude greater than a culture which by design, rejects dependency upon fools and the government which they organize to strip them of their independence.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Contumacious said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Providing for a well maintained military is not fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Providing funds for raising an army is not fascist,
> 
> FORCING me to join the army is fascistic.
Click to expand...

  is it?  How so?

I can see such being foolish, as such feminized attitudes rarely serve the interests of a viable military... but how such serves socialism is known only to you.

Now you could claim that the nationalist aspect is fascist...  but that would only serve to demonstrate the foolishness of the Left's historical revision of the term...  the Left rarely misses a chance to claim that one of the traits of exemplified through fascism is a bitter hatred of communism...  the second most often trotted out is the Nationalism common to fascism... Yet there are few examples of cultures which were more militaristic in their nationalis than was Mao's Marxist Red-China and the Marxist state of the Soviet Union... and the Marxist North Korean regime, communist Cuba, and any of the DOZENS of socialist African shitholes throughout the 20th century which produced such... 

So I'd LOVE to see your math on that one...



> We firearms all over the house , now that the kids are gone. You don't fucking have to force me to shoot at any invading forces.



Well, then... it sounds to me that using what you project as fascism... the forcible suppression of free-will... your declaration that you're prepared to forcibly suppress the free will of those who just want your TV and some cash... so as to subsidize their needs... tends to indicate that you've a fascist streak in ya.

How do ya feel about that?



> But I will not let my children or grandchildren fight in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan ,  Pakistan nor any military incursion designed to change regimes, steal oil , engage in violations of international law, etc.



Well, that's about all I need to know what ya are... you're just a common anti-American...

What label you chose to plant on yourself is irrelevant...  as you've just stated that you're not prepared to defend your nation from those governments which demonstrate their hostility towards her.

Now the question becomes, are ya just dead weight; or do you proactively support the interests of those enemies... while ya rationalize some high minded defense of your subversive tendencies?


----------



## Contumacious

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Providing for a well maintained military is not fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Providing funds for raising an army is not fascist,
> 
> FORCING me to join the army is fascistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it?  How so?
Click to expand...



Pay attention so I don't have to repeat myself.

The Constitution authorizes congress to "raise armies" not to enslave Americans.

I do not want my children or Grandchildren sent to fight wars in order to enrich members of  the Military Industrial Complex and/or powerful domestic political factions.

Since I am not effeminate I need to smell , taste and fuck pussies on a daily basis.







> We firearms all over the house , now that the kids are gone. You don't fucking have to force me to shoot at any invading forces.





> Well, then... it sounds to me that using what you project as fascism... the forcible suppression of free-will... your declaration that you're prepared to forcibly suppress the free will of those who just want your TV and some cash... so as to subsidize their needs... tends to indicate that you've a fascist streak in ya.




HUH?

Are you and radioman the same person?




> But I will not let my children or grandchildren fight in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan ,  Pakistan nor any military incursion designed to change regimes, steal oil , engage in violations of international law, etc.





> Well, that's about all I need to know what ya are... you're just a common anti-American...




Well from my vantage point I am pro-American and non-interventionist. Thus I am anti  warmonger, anti-jingoist and anti-neocrazy.


----------



## paperview

Contumacious said:


> ....




Geeze.  And I thought there was some crazies on the last board I was on...


----------



## necritan

Yukon said:


> Hitler was a GREAT man, misunderstood but still a GREAT man.



You could do better than that....cmon troll....give it your best.


----------



## Polk

AllieBaba said:


> Nuclear weapons used to prevent the Japanese from bombing the shit out of us again.



By that point in the war, Japanese bombing raids weren't really the concern. I think it was a good decision to use the bomb, but let's get our history straight.


----------



## necritan

Contumacious said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear weapons used to prevent the Japanese from bombing the shit out of us again.
> 
> And research the Manhattan Project. A huge percentage of the scientists weren't American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually.....we dropped the "A" bombs because a land invasion would have meant casualties the likes of which we have never seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so if you do something to me I can kill your entire family, right?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Are you sober....????


Japan was never going to stop....we had to take the fight to them. If we had invaded their main land.....I guarantee you more would have died than in the droppin o both of those bombs.

And yes....if your family sends killers to attack my family....I'll kill your whole fuckin family plus some.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Contumacious said:


> HUH?
> 
> Are you and radioman the same person?



No. 

But when everyone on the board is calling you on your idiocy, I can see how you would get everyone confused.


----------



## mightypeon

As a German, I have to make several corrections:

1: The Nazi Party was backed up by "Big Buisness" most notably IG Farben and Krupp.
2: These Big buisness had to pay a bit of a price in Jews, but they did not mind at all.
3: These Buisnesses got filthy rich by exploiting the conquered areas
4: As a matter of fact, IG Farben Krupp or BASF has more power during the Nazi times than during Weimar. This is quite the proof that they werent "socialist" at all.

P.S. On a funny sidenote, IG Farben had a semiofficial truce with the USA. Their connections with US financial institutions and their industry were enough to prevent "Bombing accidents" on IG Farben installations for a majority of the war. 

In precisly which "socialist dictatorship" does Big Buisness get to make "unofficial peace treaties" during war time?
The fact was so widly known in Germany that people tried to get close to IG Farben in order to be safe from US bombs....

For the record, the more or less socialist elements of the NSDAP were eliminated during the Roehm affair.


----------



## mightypeon

Considering the Bomb, dropping it had much more to do with showing some 300 well lead, experienced and perfectly equiped Russian divisions that they shoudl reconsider the Holiday plans on the Cote Azur.


----------



## elvis

mightypeon said:


> Considering the Bomb, dropping it had much more to do with showing some 300 well lead, experienced and perfectly equiped Russian divisions that they shoudl reconsider the Holiday plans on the Cote Azur.



if you're referring to the Hokkaido landing, you would be correct that it was a benefit.  But it was far secondary to ending the war with Japan, as the top historians agree.


----------



## Richard-H

_*This HAS TO BE THE STUPIEST THREAD IN THE HISTORY OF USMB!!!!!*_

Let's see Hilter had black hair and since some Republicans have black hair Republicans are Nazis!

But wait Hitler was short! Since some Liberals are short therefore they are Nazis!

We are all Nazis!

If anyone or any party has ANYTHING in common in any way with the Nazis that makes them Nazis!

Right?!?!?!

That seems to be the gist of this message board.....


----------



## Sunni Man

The Nazis were just misunderstood


----------



## mightypeon

elvis3577 said:


> mightypeon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the Bomb, dropping it had much more to do with showing some 300 well lead, experienced and perfectly equiped Russian divisions that they shoudl reconsider the Holiday plans on the Cote Azur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you're referring to the Hokkaido landing, you would be correct that it was a benefit.  But it was far secondary to ending the war with Japan, as the top historians agree.
Click to expand...


I am referring to Operation Augst Storm (Soviet Invasion of Manchuria), in which a Japanese force on 1 million soldiers ceased to exist in a matter of roughly 2 weeks.
A US source on the affair:
Leavenworth Papers No. 7 (August Storm: The Soviet 1945 Strategic Offensive in Manchuria)

Also, the Soviets held a clear conventional superiority along the "iron curtain", which actually prompted Churchill to keep captured German units "ready" for a clash with the SU, in direct violation of a number of allied agreements, and in a ridiculous show of bad faith.

Given that August Storm was bound to happen (it was agreed beforehand that the USSR would open a northern front 3 months after Germanys surrender), the Bomb had 2 main goals:
1: Make sure Japan surrender to the US, not to the USSR¨
The Japanese could guess that the western alllies would be a bit pissed concerning Japanese war crimes, however, Japanese crimes against Russian were much more limited, so they could have considered a surrender to the USSR in order to prevent persecution.
2: Show the USSR that their conventional superiority can be countered.


----------



## Yukon

Hitler was a GREAT man.


----------

