It's Over-- We've Lost

[Traveler]

Hitler was not a socialist.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/germanyandprussia/fl/Was-Adolf-Hitler-a-Socialist-Debunking-a-Historical-Myth.htm

 

A web site does not a truth make.  The claim, even by the site is that Hitler used socialist organizations and reshaped their basic functions.  The plain fact is that the programs Hitler designed for citizens were entirely socialistic.  The problem was not in the Nazi definition of socialism but their definition of a citizen.  What the web site also fails is to recognize that under the rule of Hitler the German economy was based on state control, under the guise of a socialistic workers party - not private ownership.

 

I can accept the fact that no government is truly socialistic, capitalistic or even democratic.  There are always elements that pollute the purity of whatever label a government gives itself.  But one thing for sure - Hitler sold his programs to the German populous as socialism and the people at the time that embraced Hitler thought they were getting socialism.

 

The great lie of the left is that socialism protects the individual and their rights.  When the central state has the power they never distribute it - they keep it.  The basic difference between the right and left is the left wants to centralize power and sacrifice individual rights for efficiency and the right want to distribute the power whenever possible to provenances, cites, communities and individuals sacrificing efficiency for individual rights.   All other claims and efforts are intended misdirection and lies intended gain wealth, power and influence of some over others.

[Blackmarch]

Hitler did not start with the intention of a world wide war. If he had he would not have had chosen allies.

Obama has yet to wage war on his own country. Bungling many things is not the same as dedicated eradication and destruction of a race or nation. Enslavement is not the same as war either (tho oft the two are close on each other's heels).

Assisting the poor and needy is a christian value. it's worth the risk.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Blackmarch

[Traveler]

Yes, I listened to the commentary and read the transcript.

 

It is silly to think that Obama is deliberately attacking the US by giving asylum to Syrian Refugees and Latino children.  Is it misguided?  Yes, I don't agree with these decisions.  I would rather that we have a strong foreign presence so that we can make Syria safe for Syrians and South America safe for South Americans instead of making them safe by bringing them to America.

 

But to say that "he is trying to wipe out the white man, the culture, and the language of America" is crazy talk.  America is a country of immigrants.  America never said - "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free... unless they're latinos or arabs, then we don't want them because they'll wipe out the white man".

 

There's a reason the Founders of the Constitution doesn't have a law dictating what the national language is...

 

What is silly in my mind are those that believe that planned, calculated and intended "change" (ie - hope and change) is not in any way an attack on what currently is in place.

 

BTW - it is my view that the reason that the Constitution does not have a law dictating a national language is because (as stated) that right was left to individual states to declare a language for their state if they so desired without the federal government dictating such things to the states.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Traveler

[Guest]

 

Yes, I listened to the commentary and read the transcript.

 

It is silly to think that Obama is deliberately attacking the US by giving asylum to Syrian Refugees and Latino children.  Is it misguided?

 

The Syrian refugees and the open border with Mexico are two very different issues.  

 

1. The "Syrian" refugees are not all Syrian, but come from several underdeveloped countries in the area.  Read the statistics in the link in my last post.  Others are simply taking advantage of the chaos.

2. It's a very long story, but the Syrian refugee situation is based on Obama's incompetence, not just with Syria, but, more importantly, with the chaos in Libya and his insane war with Gadaffi.

 

 

  Yes, I don't agree with these decisions.  I would rather that we have a strong foreign presence so that we can make Syria safe for Syrians and South America safe for South Americans instead of making them safe by bringing them to America.

 

But to say that "he is trying to wipe out the white man, the culture, and the language of America" is crazy talk.  America is a country of immigrants.  America never said - "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free... unless they're latinos or arabs, then we don't want them because they'll wipe out the white man".

 

The issue is not the national and racial makeup of immigration, but controlling access to our border and  making common sense decisions on those individuals who are admitted into this country.  I have no problem with Arabs, Hispanics, etc, but I do have a problem allowing rapists, murderers, etc into the country which is happening right now.

 

Without secure borders, this country will eventually descend into chaos.  

 

As Savage points out, this is "reverse invasion" worthy of any of our enemies who wish to do us harm.  Anyone can enter the country, and anyone is.

 

 

 

 

There it is.  This is nothing but an idiotic foreign policy and immigration policy from an ultra leftist, "I'm going to build a utopian America where the seas will not rise and the temperature will not climb", ideologist.  This is not a person intent on waging war against America.

 

So yes, we can shake our heads at his foreign policy and immigration decisions.  But this is far... WAAAAAAAYYY far... from the psyche of Hitler.

[Vort]

I type in "Company" "Society" "Corporation" into the translator and I get the same word "societa".  (sorry, I don't have any accent buttons).  But I saw a glitch the previous time I did it and it gave me a different spelling in Italian.  So, I guess there is no "one letter" difference.

 

But the word that Mussolini used was "corporativismo" when he gave the definition of fascism.  That is translated as "corporation" most commonly.  However, it is not a corporation that we think of (i.e. "corp" or "inc." or big business).  It was a set of state sponsored or organized groups that made up sectors of the economy.  The way M. defined them, and expected them to run, it wouldn't be too far to say a better translation was what Ayn Rand referred to as "the collective".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism (aka Corporativism)

[Guest Godless]

For the sake of clarity:

 

"nationalism definition. The strong belief that the interests of a particular nation-state are of primary importance. Also, the belief that a people who share a common language, history, and culture should constitute an independent nation, free of foreign domination."

 

Don't sit there and pretend that HItler's nationalist ambitions came from a liberal/socialist school of thought. That's the peculiar thing about Nazism, it combined some of the most extreme elements of both right and left political philosophies. Hitler's brand of socialism was fascist and totalitarian. And like it or not, it saved Germany's tumultuous post-WWI economy. Imagine if all the resources spent on genocide and war had instead been spent on Germany's internal infrastructure. I think Hitler's legacy would have been considerably different. Still not entirely positive, but very different.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Godless

[Guest]

Let me interrupt this thrilling thread for a Public Service Announcement.

 

GODLESS!!!  YOU'RE HERE!  HOW ARE YA????

[Guest Godless]

Let me interrupt this thrilling thread for a Public Service Announcement.

 

GODLESS!!!  YOU'RE HERE!  HOW ARE YA????

 

Lol, I'm doing well. Busy with work and fatherhood, which is why I try to be very selective with the hot button topics I allow myself to get sucked into. I bit my tongue on recent gun control and church/state issues, but I couldn't resist this one. 

[Latter Days Guy]

A web site does not a truth make.  The claim, even by the site is that Hitler used socialist organizations and reshaped their basic functions.  The plain fact is that the programs Hitler designed for citizens were entirely socialistic.  The problem was not in the Nazi definition of socialism but their definition of a citizen.  What the web site also fails is to recognize that under the rule of Hitler the German economy was based on state control, under the guise of a socialistic workers party - not private ownership.

 

I can accept the fact that no government is truly socialistic, capitalistic or even democratic.  There are always elements that pollute the purity of whatever label a government gives itself.  But one thing for sure - Hitler sold his programs to the German populous as socialism and the people at the time that embraced Hitler thought they were getting socialism.

 

The great lie of the left is that socialism protects the individual and their rights.  When the central state has the power they never distribute it - they keep it.  The basic difference between the right and left is the left wants to centralize power and sacrifice individual rights for efficiency and the right want to distribute the power whenever possible to provenances, cites, communities and individuals sacrificing efficiency for individual rights.   All other claims and efforts are intended misdirection and lies intended gain wealth, power and influence of some over others.

I never said it did make it true, though it does seem to be a view held only in the US by those of the right that Hitler was a socialist.  A quick google search shows how preposterous such a statement is, and flies in the face of over 70 years of history and quite frankly belittles the memory of those who fought against such tyranny that it is being labelled and portrayed as something it wasn't to ease the conscience of the neo fascists of the republican party. 

[Guest]

Don't sit there and pretend that HItler's nationalist ambitions came from a liberal/socialist school of thought. 

 

Yet that is exactly what LDG's link seemed to be saying while trying to deny it.

 

That's the peculiar thing about Nazism, it combined some of the most extreme elements of both right and left political philosophies. Hitler's brand of socialism was fascist and totalitarian.

 

That is what I was getting at with my 3D globe model.  When you get to the south pole, there is no east or west.  You're just plain south.

 

And like it or not, it saved Germany's tumultuous post-WWI economy. Imagine if all the resources spent on genocide and war had instead been spent on Germany's internal infrastructure. I think Hitler's legacy would have been considerably different. Still not entirely positive, but very different.

 

Imagine if, instead, a free government were instituted that allowed anyone with ability to excel.

 

True or not, I find it distasteful that you want to credit a totalitarian regime for saving a nation.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Guest

[cdowis]

 Hitler's brand of socialism was fascist and totalitarian. And like it or not, it saved Germany's tumultuous post-WWI economy. Imagine if all the resources spent on genocide and war had instead been spent on Germany's internal infrastructure. I think Hitler's legacy would have been considerably different. Still not entirely positive, but very different.

 

The problem was that Germany in the 1930's was under a mountain of debt.  They were required to pay reparations for WWI.  They had enormous unemployment, the currency was inflated, etc.

 

The Germans saw Hitler as the saviour of their nation to get out of these problems.  It is frightening that we have a similar situation today, and where that could lead -- to our own saviour leader.

[Vort]

it is being labelled and portrayed as something it wasn't to ease the conscience of the neo fascists of the republican party. 

 

That is an unkind and uncharitable (and false) assessment of things. I understand that this is the view that is fed to you from pretty much all European media, so I can't really blame you for having the general idea that Republicans are a bunch of fascists -- though I would hope that exposure to American friends here and elsewhere might blunt that perception a bit. But it seems beyond the pale to throw such accusations around in this environment.

 

I was in Europe while Reagan was the President, and the Italians hated him and acted shocked if they ever found out I supported him. (Which only happened maybe twice, when I was directly asked; otherwise, I kept my politics strictly to myself.) Now, Europe is engaged in an ongoing love-fest with possibly the most corrupt and inept, and certainly the most divisive, President of my lifetime. So the opinions of European media are highly suspect, and you might do well not to accept the consensus views that you find in your news outlets.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Vort

[Latter Days Guy]

That is an unkind and uncharitable (and false) assessment of things. I understand that this is the view that is fed to you from pretty much all European media, so I can't really blame you for having the general idea that Republicans are a bunch of fascists -- though I would hope that exposure to American friends here and elsewhere might blunt that perception a bit. But it seems beyond the pale to throw such accusations around in this environment.

 

I was in Europe while Reagan was the President, and the Italians hated him and acted shocked if they ever found out I supported him. (Which only happened maybe twice, when I was directly asked; otherwise, I kept my politics strictly to myself.) Now, Europe is engaged in an ongoing love-fest with possibly the most corrupt and inept, and certainly the most divisive, President of my lifetime. So the opinions of European media are highly suspect, and you might do well not to accept the consensus views that you find in your news outlets.

 

Not all republicans, just the nutjobs like those in the tea party. As for the European media, its quite the opposite, they are often very pro-republican, especially now with the swing to the right that europe is taking politically.  Neo-fascism is once again on the rise in Europe which is a sorry state of affairs after such a short period of history since fascism was defeated in WW2. 

[Guest]

Not all republicans, just the nutjobs like those in the tea party. 

 

Thanks...

 

If wanting lower taxes and Constitutionally limited government are your criteria for labeling someone a "nutjob", I see why you would support socialism.  I wonder why you would be against nazism.

[Latter Days Guy]

Thanks...

 

If wanting lower taxes and Constitutionally limited government are your criteria for labeling someone a "nutjob", I see why you would support socialism.  I wonder why you would be against nazism.

 

Why would I be against nazism/fascism?  Because they are inherently evil right wing ideologies, that caused the deaths of untold millions of people including many of my family.

[Guest]

Look down the road from where we are.

 

If a "nutjob" is one who wants constitutionally limited government, then it would stand to reason that you want more centralized power in government without constitutional restraints.  This by definition would by an autocracy.  Nazism is what you eventually get.

 

If you don't want Nazism, then you would ask for constitutional restraints on government.  But instead you call those who support that idea "nutjobs".

 

Do you even know what the Tea Party stands for or has done?

[Blackmarch]

The problem was that Germany in the 1930's was under a mountain of debt.  They were required to pay reparations for WWI.  They had enormous unemployment, the currency was inflated, etc.

 

The Germans saw Hitler as the saviour of their nation to get out of these problems.  It is frightening that we have a similar situation today, and where that could lead -- to our own saviour leader.

well getting there. it's not so bad that cash is more efficiently used as fire starters than actual money....... yet.

[Vort]

Not all republicans, just the nutjobs like those in the tea party. As for the European media, its quite the opposite, they are often very pro-republican, especially now with the swing to the right that europe is taking politically.  Neo-fascism is once again on the rise in Europe which is a sorry state of affairs after such a short period of history since fascism was defeated in WW2. 

 

LDG, you're not helping your case.

[Guest MormonGator]

Not all republicans, just the nutjobs like those in the tea party. ]

 As a nutjob Tea Partier guy, when we save the country I'll be accepting your apology.   

 

 And for the record, my brother is a big Bernie Sanders fan! 

[Latter Days Guy]

Look down the road from where we are.

 

If a "nutjob" is one who wants constitutionally limited government, then it would stand to reason that you want more centralized power in government without constitutional restraints.  This by definition would by an autocracy.  Nazism is what you eventually get.

 

If you don't want Nazism, then you would ask for constitutional restraints on government.  But instead you call those who support that idea "nutjobs".

 

Do you even know what the Tea Party stands for or has done?

 

Not at all, I think on the whole, the UK is doing quite well the way it is.  No I call people nutjobs because they come out with nutty things, just google tea party and nutty ideas and you will see what I mean!

[Latter Days Guy]

 As a nutjob Tea Partier guy, when we save the country I'll be accepting your apology. 

 

 And for the record, my brother is a big Bernie Sanders fan! 

 

The only thing that can save the country is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and as for Bernie Sanders, I've no idea who he is!

[Guest Godless]

 

That is what I was getting at with my 3D globe model.  When you get to the south pole, there is no east or west.  You're just plain south.

 

 

Then it appears we agree on one thing.

 

Imagine if, instead, a free government were instituted that allowed anyone with ability to excel.

 

 

Obviously that would be ideal. Would it have worked in post-WWI Germany? Sadly, we'll never know. I would, however, argue that it's working in today's economy under Obama. Like it or not, he's turned our economy around. And he did it without eradicating or suppressing his opposition, an opposition that threatened to shut down the government on more than one occasion (and even succeeded once). Congress has tied his hands numerous times throughout his time in office, it's a wonder he's been able to accomplish anything at all. And yet I'm supposed to believe that he's a fascist dictator?

 

 

True or not, I find it distasteful that you want to credit a totalitarian regime for saving a nation.

 

 

Distasteful, yes, but history is full of distasteful facts, like the fact that ISIS probably wouldn't exist if Saddam Hussein hadn't been removed from power. Like I said, it would have been far more ideal for Germany to be under the rule of a more democratic leader who didn't have nationalist/genocidal ambitions. Unfortunately, chaos is far more likely to breed dictatorships than democracies. 

 

The problem was that Germany in the 1930's was under a mountain of debt.  They were required to pay reparations for WWI.  They had enormous unemployment, the currency was inflated, etc.

 

The Germans saw Hitler as the saviour of their nation to get out of these problems.  It is frightening that we have a similar situation today, and where that could lead -- to our own saviour leader.

 

Except that we're nowhere near seeing that happen in the US. The beautiful thing for those that hate Obama is that in a little over a year, he's going to step down from power. No fuss, no power play. He's going to leave the White House and let someone else take over. Doesn't sound like a ruthless dictatorship to me.

[Vort]

Not at all, I think on the whole, the UK is doing quite well the way it is.  No I call people nutjobs because they come out with nutty things, just google tea party and nutty ideas and you will see what I mean!

 

Google mormon and nutty ideas, or brits and nutty ideas, or white folks and nutty ideas, or europeans and nutty ideas, and I bet you'll get a lot of weird results, too. When you intentionally bias your search, don't be surprised when you find what you're looking for. But that doesn't make you right in your assessment.

[Guest MormonGator]

The only thing that can save the country is the gospel of Jesus Christ

 On that, you and I agree 100% 

[Guest]

Not at all, I think on the whole, the UK is doing quite well the way it is.  No I call people nutjobs because they come out with nutty things, just google tea party and nutty ideas and you will see what I mean!

 

I just did... googled Tea Party Nutty Ideas and the first thing that came up was The 14 Craziest Things Tea Party Candidates Believe.

 

And the first was Christine O'Donnell's abstinence from masturbation quote.

 

Now, first off... Masturbation is not a Party Platform of any political party, Democrat or Republican.  The Tea Party is even a much smaller platform than the Republican party platform (TEA in tea party stands for Taxed Enough Already, the platform of the tea party is simply reducing the size of government to lower the cost of governing, thereby lowering the taxes).  Tea Party doesn't have a platform on governing Masturbation either.  That's just idiotic.  So, obviously, O'Donnell's belief that Masturbation is sinful is a personal conviction.

 

Now, as a personal conviction, if you think a belief that claims Masturbation is a sin is a nutty idea then... you shouldn't be called Latter-Day Saint...

 

The next nutty idea out of the 14 is Michelle Bachman's quote on Gay Marriage and how she doesn't understand how Gay Marriage is the biggest campaign issue of the Democrat Party when only a very minute percentage of the population are Gay and even a smaller percentage are Gays who desire to be married to a same sex partner.

 

If that's nutty, then I guess I'm nutty too because I'm wondering the same thing...  Although, as usual this is not a Tea Party platform, this is a Republican platform of which the Tea Party is a part of.  So, this is a Republican thing.

 

The next nutty idea is Chuck Devore's declaration that our next enemy is not Afghanistan but China.

 

That is actually a very insightful statement about the geopolitical landscape.  We are dealing with Afghanistan.  It's not an enemy anymore (unless you want to call Bush's foreign policy in Afghanistan a failure - which Democrats love to do).  Looking to China as a threat is not a nutty idea, although it is shaping up that Russia is first in line.  But, it is quite within the realm of high probability that once Russia has shaken up the world stage, China is poised and ready to make a sweep.  But, once again, this is not a Tea Party platform, nor is it a Republican platform.  This is simply one politician's belief.  You can probably pull up a Democrat saying we have won against the War on Terrorism - there are no terrorists anymore so we don't have any enemies as we've vanquished them... now that is nutty.

 

 

I didn't go through the rest of the nutty ideas.  They are all pointing to the same thing - they have no clue what the TEA PARTY is.