Is obama a socilist, or a fascist?

[Bfgrn]

Come on Franco, The SA was socialist and the Nazis were socialist, but the main point, is was Hitler differnet than Stalin?

No, they were both social Darwinists, just like today's right wing 'Marketists'.

Darwinism was critically important, not only in supporting the development and rise of Nazism and communism (and in producing the Nazi and communist holocausts), but also in the rise of the many ruthless robber baron capitalists that flourished in the late 1800s and early 1900s.1 As Julian Huxley and H.B.D. Kittlewell concluded, social Darwinism has led to many evils, including ‘the glorification of free enterprise, laissez faire economics2 and war, to an unscientific eugenics and racism, and eventually to Hitler and Nazi ideology’. A major aspect of this form of capitalism was the Darwinian belief which concluded that it is natural and proper to exploit without limits both ‘weaker’ persons and weaker businesses.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al:
The Role of Darwinian Evolution in Their Lives

The whole Hitlerian idea of the “master race” of “supermen” was based on the Darwinian principle of “survival of the fittest” which Hitler proposed to speed up by various policies. Jews and Blacks were singled out as retards on the evolutionary scale who must not be allowed to contaminate the more evolved, i.e., the more advanced “aryan master race”.

Dr. Bergman’s conclusion: “The evidence is very clear that Darwinian ideas had a tremendous impact on German thought and practice.... In fact, Darwinian ideas had a tremendous influence on causing WWII, the loss of 40 million lives, and the waste of about 6 trillion 1945 dollars. Firmly convinced that evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern savior of mankind.... By breeding a superior race, the world would look upon him as the man who pulled humanity up to a higher level of evolution.”

Deep dyed evolutionists who embrace Communism and Socialism and Humanism, on the other hand, tend to officially promote atheism, seek to get rid of nationalism and install globalism, and ostensibly denounce capitalism while using it for their own ends in an otherwise government run economy. The “fall” of Soviet Communism, by-the-way, effected nothing as far as the evolutionary underpinning of these non-Fascist isms is concerned. Everybody just became Socialist-Humanists, which sounds a lot better, and the march away from nationalism toward globalism has now gone to afterburners.

NIKOLAI LENIN: (b. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov,1870; d. 1924.) Lenin, the first murderous communist dictator of the USSR said: “Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another, except by chance, and that they were created by God , and hence immutable.” (The heart of this statement is: “Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species..were created by God....”)

Lenin was “...a confirmed atheist, dedicated to the destruction of...all religious worship...he regarded Christ with undisguised hatred.”

On his desk Lenin had a statue displayed in a “prominent position for all to see...its vivid presence dominated the room.” (What kind of statue?)

It was a “...bronze statue of an ape gazing at an oversized human skull.” This symbolized the evolutionary core of Lenin’s atheism. It further symbolized the core of Marx’s Communism which Lenin set about imposing on Russia and much of the rest of the world. When Lenin died in 1924, control of the Soviet Union passed to Joseph Stalin.

Let’s glance at the role evolutionism played in Stalin’s mind (a mind, all agree, which conceived and carried out the calculated murder of at least ten--and more likely--twenty to thirty million people, mostly Christians):

JOSEPH V. STALIN: (b. IOSIF VISSARIONOVICH DZHUGASHVILI, b.1879; d. 1953; Following Lenin, Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with an iron fist for thirty years. From Landmarks in the Life of Stalin we read:

“At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.”

G. Gludjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s relates: “I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence said: ‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God....’”

Gludjidze reported: “I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before. How can you say such things, Soso?” he asked Stalin, who replied:

“I will lend you a book to read: it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense.”

“What book is that?” his friend inquired.

“Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me.”

HAHA I dont think the right believes in eugenics my friend. Sorry that's a "progressive" idea. And that would be another reason Hitler was a lefty. Sorry man but you lose.

Ah, parroting irrelevant right wing talking points again? Sorry, that won't cut it. Hey, why don't you try READING instead of emoting.

Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism.

Sound like anything from the left Poly?

 

[buckeye45_73]

No, they were both social Darwinists, just like today's right wing 'Marketists'.

Darwinism was critically important, not only in supporting the development and rise of Nazism and communism (and in producing the Nazi and communist holocausts), but also in the rise of the many ruthless robber baron capitalists that flourished in the late 1800s and early 1900s.1 As Julian Huxley and H.B.D. Kittlewell concluded, social Darwinism has led to many evils, including ‘the glorification of free enterprise, laissez faire economics2 and war, to an unscientific eugenics and racism, and eventually to Hitler and Nazi ideology’. A major aspect of this form of capitalism was the Darwinian belief which concluded that it is natural and proper to exploit without limits both ‘weaker’ persons and weaker businesses.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al:
The Role of Darwinian Evolution in Their Lives

The whole Hitlerian idea of the “master race” of “supermen” was based on the Darwinian principle of “survival of the fittest” which Hitler proposed to speed up by various policies. Jews and Blacks were singled out as retards on the evolutionary scale who must not be allowed to contaminate the more evolved, i.e., the more advanced “aryan master race”.

Dr. Bergman’s conclusion: “The evidence is very clear that Darwinian ideas had a tremendous impact on German thought and practice.... In fact, Darwinian ideas had a tremendous influence on causing WWII, the loss of 40 million lives, and the waste of about 6 trillion 1945 dollars. Firmly convinced that evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern savior of mankind.... By breeding a superior race, the world would look upon him as the man who pulled humanity up to a higher level of evolution.”

Deep dyed evolutionists who embrace Communism and Socialism and Humanism, on the other hand, tend to officially promote atheism, seek to get rid of nationalism and install globalism, and ostensibly denounce capitalism while using it for their own ends in an otherwise government run economy. The “fall” of Soviet Communism, by-the-way, effected nothing as far as the evolutionary underpinning of these non-Fascist isms is concerned. Everybody just became Socialist-Humanists, which sounds a lot better, and the march away from nationalism toward globalism has now gone to afterburners.

NIKOLAI LENIN: (b. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov,1870; d. 1924.) Lenin, the first murderous communist dictator of the USSR said: “Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another, except by chance, and that they were created by God , and hence immutable.” (The heart of this statement is: “Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species..were created by God....&#8221

Lenin was “...a confirmed atheist, dedicated to the destruction of...all religious worship...he regarded Christ with undisguised hatred.”

On his desk Lenin had a statue displayed in a “prominent position for all to see...its vivid presence dominated the room.” (What kind of statue?)

It was a “...bronze statue of an ape gazing at an oversized human skull.” This symbolized the evolutionary core of Lenin’s atheism. It further symbolized the core of Marx’s Communism which Lenin set about imposing on Russia and much of the rest of the world. When Lenin died in 1924, control of the Soviet Union passed to Joseph Stalin.

Let’s glance at the role evolutionism played in Stalin’s mind (a mind, all agree, which conceived and carried out the calculated murder of at least ten--and more likely--twenty to thirty million people, mostly Christians):

JOSEPH V. STALIN: (b. IOSIF VISSARIONOVICH DZHUGASHVILI, b.1879; d. 1953; Following Lenin, Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with an iron fist for thirty years. From Landmarks in the Life of Stalin we read:

“At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.”

G. Gludjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s relates: “I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence said: ‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God....’”

Gludjidze reported: “I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before. How can you say such things, Soso?” he asked Stalin, who replied:

“I will lend you a book to read: it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense.”

“What book is that?” his friend inquired.

“Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me.”

HAHA I dont think the right believes in eugenics my friend. Sorry that's a "progressive" idea. And that would be another reason Hitler was a lefty. Sorry man but you lose.

Ah, parroting irrelevant right wing talking points again? Sorry, that won't cut it. Hey, why don't you try READING instead of emoting.

Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism.

Sound like anything from the left Poly?

but the ideology has also motivated ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[4] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[5][6]

Opponents of evolution theory have often maintained that social Darwinism is a logical entailment of a belief in evolutionary theory, while biologists and historians maintain that it is rather a perversion of Charles Darwin's ideas.

Eugenics:
Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.[15] The "interventions" advocated and practiced by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups — such as the Roma and Jews — as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.[16]
The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[18] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[19][20] At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by a wide variety of prominent people, including Winston Churchill,[21] Margaret Sanger,[22][23] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling[24] and Sidney Webb.[25][26][27] Many members of the American Progressive Movement supported eugenics, seduced by its scientific trappings and its promise of a quick end to social ills. Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was, however, Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.[28

Yeah it does, the left was huge and still is in eugenics. and so were Nazis, hey how about that. Margaret Sanger and hitler...OMG....who would have known?
And not many right wing christians in the social darwinsim movement but lots and lots of progressives, sorry man. Nice try though.

 

[P@triot]

.

Here we go...

And in your answer, please include how the 39.6% top marginal tax rate he wants would constitute "socialism" or "fascism". Thanks.

.

And what does tax rate have to do with his poltical ideology? He's a fascist because he believes in sliencing opposition, propaganda to further his agenda, and complete power & control over others (ie Obamacare - ie you WILL purchase health insurance against your will).

Why do you guys feel the need to redirect the conversation to something that has nothing to do with the issue? Why can't you just have an honest discussion about the facts?

 

[buckeye45_73]

.

Here we go...

And in your answer, please include how the 39.6% top marginal tax rate he wants would constitute "socialism" or "fascism". Thanks.

.

And what does tax rate have to do with his poltical ideology? He's a fascist because he believes in sliencing opposition, propaganda to further his agenda, and complete power & control over others (ie Obamacare - ie you WILL purchase health insurance against your will).

Why do you guys feel the need to redirect the conversation to something that has nothing to do with the issue? Why can't you just have an honest discussion about the facts?

I love it when they discuss all the "minute" details they learned from an exhippie in college about the differences in fascism and communism and say one is better than the other. LOL

 

[P@triot]

I will link the rest of the article in a while, but I'd like to see discussion on this much of it, before I attribute it.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.

Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous -- something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.

Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies.

The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.

One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.

He's 50% Marxist, 50% Fascist and 100% asshole to his core...

 

[Bfgrn]

HAHA I dont think the right believes in eugenics my friend. Sorry that's a "progressive" idea. And that would be another reason Hitler was a lefty. Sorry man but you lose.

Ah, parroting irrelevant right wing talking points again? Sorry, that won't cut it. Hey, why don't you try READING instead of emoting.

Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism.

Sound like anything from the left Poly?

but the ideology has also motivated ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[4] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[5][6]

Opponents of evolution theory have often maintained that social Darwinism is a logical entailment of a belief in evolutionary theory, while biologists and historians maintain that it is rather a perversion of Charles Darwin's ideas.

Eugenics:
Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.[15] The "interventions" advocated and practiced by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups — such as the Roma and Jews — as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.[16]
The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[18] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[19][20] At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by a wide variety of prominent people, including Winston Churchill,[21] Margaret Sanger,[22][23] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling[24] and Sidney Webb.[25][26][27] Many members of the American Progressive Movement supported eugenics, seduced by its scientific trappings and its promise of a quick end to social ills. Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was, however, Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.[28

Yeah it does, the left was huge and still is in eugenics. and so were Nazis, hey how about that. Margaret Sanger and hitler...OMG....who would have known?
And not many right wing christians in the social darwinsim movement but lots and lots of progressives, sorry man. Nice try though.

The "interventions" advocated and practiced by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups.

Name ONE current 'leftist' who professes eugenics? Just ONE will do. Ironic, those are all groups the left defends against right wing social Darwinist policy interventions, like drug testing people on unemployment and welfare, cutting vital social programs, gay bashing and anti- same sex marriage. Control of a woman's uterus.

You right wingers LOVE government intervention when it can crush the poor, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Ah, parroting irrelevant right wing talking points again? Sorry, that won't cut it. Hey, why don't you try READING instead of emoting.

Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism.

Sound like anything from the left Poly?

but the ideology has also motivated ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[4] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[5][6]

Opponents of evolution theory have often maintained that social Darwinism is a logical entailment of a belief in evolutionary theory, while biologists and historians maintain that it is rather a perversion of Charles Darwin's ideas.

Eugenics:
Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.[15] The "interventions" advocated and practiced by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups — such as the Roma and Jews — as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.[16]
The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[18] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[19][20] At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by a wide variety of prominent people, including Winston Churchill,[21] Margaret Sanger,[22][23] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling[24] and Sidney Webb.[25][26][27] Many members of the American Progressive Movement supported eugenics, seduced by its scientific trappings and its promise of a quick end to social ills. Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was, however, Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.[28

Yeah it does, the left was huge and still is in eugenics. and so were Nazis, hey how about that. Margaret Sanger and hitler...OMG....who would have known?
And not many right wing christians in the social darwinsim movement but lots and lots of progressives, sorry man. Nice try though.

The "interventions" advocated and practiced by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups.

Name ONE current 'leftist' who professes eugenics? Just ONE will do. Ironic, those are all groups the left defends against right wing social Darwinist policy interventions, like drug testing people on unemployment and welfare, cutting vital social programs, gay bashing and anti- same sex marriage. Control of a woman's uterus.

You right wingers LOVE government intervention when it can crush the poor, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups.

Hey dumbass, progressive used to kill homos, in the name of eugnics, and black people, ect. Notice Roosevelt ("progressive republican") is on there but Taft ("convservative republican") is not. Christians dont believe in eugenics.
And stopping abortion has zero to do with eugenics, even Margaret Sanger said it was horrible, THINK About that, she supported eugenics but NOT abortion. OWNED!!!!!!!!

Todays believers:

After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide. - Slate Magazine
Again going back to government policies, welfare is not even in this dicussion, I mean people who get government handouts because they're poor shouldnt be buying drugs, do you disagree with that? really?
but when you got nothing come up with something I guess.

I love it when a post comes together! Hanibal Smith!

 

[oreo]

We have a CEO that happens to be a democrat and strong supporter of Harry Reid that says Barack Obama is a socialist.

"I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, progress and job creation in my lifetime. A lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, 'Oh God, don't be attacking Obama.' Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America."

"The guy [Obama] keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe 'we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or hold too much money.' We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists."

"Business is being hammered. The business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States. Until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs."

Steve Wynn's Anti-Obama Rant - Is He Right? - CBS News

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't fall for ANYTHING he said LOL

obama? I agree but why did you fall for everything obaitler said?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, but it bothers me that you do.

WOW a troll comment.
You'll never be good enough to have an American vote sheep fucker.

"Sheep fucker"?
Haha!!
Come on you can do better than that!

It's easy to be an American, I just have to land in Acupulco and take a bus north.

Stop fucking with the sheep and I might, but grump is the kangaroo fucker.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good to see this inane thread is decomposing nicely.

He started it

No, you’re doing fine. This thread is the perfect venue for such an exchange.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's the Global Village baby!

and you still don't have a vested interest in American Politics

Oh, yes we do...every time Obama farts, the world notices...

This place is infested with god damn kangaroo and sheep fucking dumb ass foreigners

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is something missing here? Goldberg races from Wilson to Roosevelt to Kennedy and on to Bill Clinton with barely a glance at what happened in between. The reason is simple: for Goldberg, fascism is strictly a Democratic disease. This allows him to dispose of the politics of the 1920s in a single sentence. “After the Great War,” he writes, “the country slowly regained its sanity.” What Goldberg may not know — or is afraid to tell us — is that the 1920s were anything but sane. This was the decade, after all, that contained the largest state-sponsored social experiment in the nation’s history — Prohibition — and it lasted through three Republican administrations before Franklin Roosevelt ended it in 1933. The 1920s also saw the explosive spread of the Ku Klux Klan in the Republican Midwest, a virtual halt to legal immigration under the repressive National Origins Act and an angry grass-roots backlash against the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Goldberg briefly enters the Eisenhower 1950s to tease liberals for whining about the supposedly trivial impact of McCarthyism. “A few Hollywood writers who’d supported Stalin and then lied about it lost their jobs,” he says. What’s the big deal? For the Reagan 1980s there is near-silence — hardly a word. I had entertained the slim hope that Goldberg might consider the “fascist” cult of personality surrounding Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” hokum (“Prouder, Stronger, Better”). But, alas, such scrutiny is reserved only for the Clinton presidential campaign of 1992, with its “Riefenstahlesque film of a teenage Bill Clinton shaking hands with President Kennedy.” Indeed, even George W. Bush’s spectacularly staged landing on an aircraft carrier in full battle regalia to declare “mission accomplished” in Iraq escapes notice here. It doesn’t take a village for Goldberg to play the fascist card; a single Democrat will do.
The final chapters of “Liberal Fascism” are a rant, often deliciously amusing, against America’s numerous liberal-fascist elites. In unexciting times, when there are no calamities to be addressed, liberals push a more robust social agenda, Goldberg claims, using the state and the friendly news media to tar opponents of, say, affirmative action or same-sex marriage as bigots, fanatics and fools. The task facing conservatives, he adds, is to hold liberals accountable for these jackboot tactics. “For at some point,” Goldberg writes, “it is necessary to throw down the gauntlet, to draw a line in the sand, to set a boundary, to cry at long last, ‘Enough is enough.’”
These are familiar words, eerily reminiscent of the “adrelaline-soaked” clichés of John F. Kennedy as he railed against Soviet expansion around the globe. But I dare not call them fascist. That would be unfair.
David Oshinsky, who holds the Jack S. Blanton chair in history at the University of Texas, is the author of “A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html

or the Economist: "Absolute drivel."

There are those on this very board who have championed McCarthy...

Joe McCarthy was right. Now that I've grabbed your attention, let me tell you why.

For fifty years I trust there isn't an educator in either the academy or high schools who hasn't failed to castigate Joe McCarthy as a hate-monger, liar, destroyer of careers, and someone who routinely accused innocent people of wrong doing.

"McCarthyism" has become the reflexive adjective among those on the American Left when accused of anything of less than patriotic motives or, for that matter, taken to task for questionable behavior. McCarthy was not only right, he's been given a bad rap by history.

For four years, from 1950 until 1954, McCarthy was the only voice in America speaking out against those in government that were Communists, fellow-travelers (liberals who believed in but did not join the Communist Party), Russian sympathizers, and Stalin apologists. His enemies, consistent with the Left today, chose to attack the messenger rather than the message.

Joe McCarthy Was Right

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I answered this post before the one you did a hatchet job on

Would obama want national attention that he was a member of the Chicago New Party when he ran for President? obama would direct all party's to involve to deny he was a member, but they forgot about the paper work or those issues that were saved.

No offense to ya Old top? But WHY are you arguing with someone that has ZERO vested interest In the United States from New Zealand?

It's the Global Village baby!

This is an American discussion board, you can leave your opinion but don't expect it too be respected, with exception to those Americans who are communist socialist would pay any respectable attention to your words.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is not the terms themselves that are in question, but the definitions attached to them that are impotant to know. LWC for instance defines modern American conservatism in very uncomplimentary terms generally dictated by leftwing websites and/or other sources too partisan to be objective about anything. But it is important to know that 'conservatives' in Nazi Germany were a very different thing from modern American conservatives.

The place is a far right extremist journal that wishes to redefine the political and historical terms of Western culture. The above is an excellent example of it. Here is the front plant from its web site.

The Harvard Salient is a fortnightly journal of political thought. Naturally conservative but free from political allegiances, the Salient was founded in 1981 by Harvard students who sought to provide a journalistic alternative to a predominantly liberal campus press. Opportunities abound for writers, artists, photographers, production assistants, and advertising salesmen. The Salient's goal is to return to the Harvard campus, through thoughtful discourse, the ancient principles underpinning Western civilization: tradition, family, property, and respect for ordered liberty.

Harvard Salient

"The Myth" itself is a myth, but that is obvious. What is nice is that Harvard has its own extremist right wing voice. Good. No more carping about a left dominated educational and university universe.

The real point is that German conservatism, as a philosophy, of course adhered to legitimacy and traditional institutions, but the fact remains that conservatives and their parties and the corporations belied all that and supported Hitler.

The real point is that Romney and the mainstream Republican Party rejects the politics and philosophy of the far extremist right of political and cultural America. Our difference with German conservatism is that we won't let extremist reactionary right wing perversion corrupt the party.

Starkey stop bagging on people. You already said Nazis were socialists.....then you make the play that facism is right wing, because it;s conservative? I dont think he was that conservative.
you say leftwing politics has nothing to do with Marxism
you said the French Revolution didnt have communists
and I'm still waiting for your take on the left wing and what and who the "Rational" left are
But you say nothing, because you have nothing

I said Hitler killed the socialists in his party, so stop the typical right wing extremist lie.

Fascism can be both right and left, Hitler's was right wing, and no one cares what you think.

I said the French Revolution was about the monarchy not economics.

You made all the silly statements about the Left without qualifying Who was What. That is your affirmative statement and I have no obligation to pull you out of your swamp.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's true that Hitler's Christianity was a temporay sham propaganda, just like the socialism in his party's name. NOT A SOCIALIST, that's VERY recent PUBCRAPPE for the dupes.

Come on Franco, The SA was socialist and the Nazis were socialist, but the main point, is was Hitler differnet than Stalin?

The SA leadership was socialist and the Nazi party loyalists of Hitler killed them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

i Joe McCarthy was right. . . .

Joe was a right wing extremist demagogue who was punished and taken down by his GOP associates in the Senate: rightfully so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No offense to ya Old top? But WHY are you arguing with someone that has ZERO vested interest In the United States from New Zealand?

It's the Global Village baby!

This is an American discussion board, you can leave your opinion but don't expect it too be respected, with exception to those Americans who are communist socialist would pay any respectable attention to your words.

True Americans do not respect the extremist right wing comments, such as bigreb's.

He does not represent what is good about America.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's the Global Village baby!

This is an American discussion board, you can leave your opinion but don't expect it too be respected, with exception to those Americans who are communist socialist would pay any respectable attention to your words.

True Americans do not respect the extremist right wing comments, such as bigreb's.

He does not represent what is good about America.

only in jakes world of course he supports communism and socialism.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i Joe McCarthy was right. . . .

Joe was a right wing extremist demagogue who was punished and taken down by his GOP associates in the Senate: rightfully so.

I bet you think Stalin was right.