RightWing Conference Tells Activists to Get Their Guns Ready for Bloody Battle with Obama the Nazi

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by johnny2127
Why does it always seen to be the left that claims to be champions of tolerance, yet are the least tolerant of other opinions?

Its not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of historical fact.

You claimed that Hitler and the Nazis were a leftist party, clearly to push your own political agenda. You were wrong, and some posters attempted to show you that. You refuted them, and continued your anti-left wing tirade.

If you mistakenly believed the nazis were a left wing party when you entered this thread, then that is a sign of an honest mistake.

If you still believe that the nazis were a left wing party after reading the numerous, well thought out, and informative posts to the contrary, then that is a sign of pure ignorance.

We are not here to promote ignorance.

Look your obviously didn't read the other posts. Go back and look at the various articles and people that place Totalitarianism and Hitler on the left side of the political spectrum.

At best it is an unsettled thing, not FACT as you claim.

But I'll repost just for you. May be a blow to your leftist ego that other intellectuals think differently that you, and for that I am sorry:

The spectrum follows from left to right – the extreme left is absolute control by the state and the extreme right is absolutely no law or government. Totalitarianism is as extreme left as government gets and anarchy is as extreme right. All other governments fall between those two.

Political Spectrum

And here is another that places Hitler in the upper left side of the political spectrum:



In my opinion, I think wrapping the Nazi's into one package of left or right is actually over simplistic. Most historians argue that they either had characteristics of both, or were both extreme left and right. Regardless, you assertions that your beliefs are FACTS is both arrogant and incorrect.


[edit on 29-9-2009 by johnny2127]

Originally posted by HotDogNoBun
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

You must be kidding. Capitalism is going to naturally support individualism far more than any other financial system. If you take socialism/communism to the extreme then what you have is a system where everyone is the same, regardless of their contribution to the world.

Negative things can come from extreme capitalism also, just like you see now. It brings to mind the term "Capitalism gone amok".

Any system has it's evils. It just depends on how far it's taken and whose running the show.

Besides, who gets to decide what is a valuable contribution to the world? Does a stay at home mom not make the same contribution to society that a working mother makes?

Does a CEO who had a million dollar idea make a more meaningful contribution to society than a volunteer worker who helps the homeless? Everyone has their contributions. Whose to say which is more meaningful. In a capitalistic society, it's all about the money and it shouldn't be.

Originally posted by johnny2127

The spectrum follows from left to right – the extreme left is absolute control by the state and the extreme right is absolutely no law or government. Totalitarianism is as extreme left as government gets and anarchy is as extreme right. All other governments fall between those two.

That is absolute garbage.

Extreme right is extreme authoritarianism. How can it be 'no government' when the left/right tag IS government. 'No government' would really be free of the left/right division, but traditionally Anarchists sided with the left, more so before Marx. The right is traditionally associated with Nazis, Fascists, the National Front, the British National Party, Skinheads.
Your own Homeland Security defines 'right wing extremism' as hate groups who target racial ethnic or religious minorities.

Must have been written by a fool, or an American. If you want to find things on the internet you shouldn't focus on stuff that tells you what you want to hear without knowing if it's really true or not.

[edit on 9/29/2009 by ANOK]

Originally posted by johnny2127


You misunderstood. I never said the Nazi govt took over and owned the businesses. I said they controlled them. Such as the companies remaining privately owned, but taking their marching orders from the govt.

maybe you got this wrong?!

Yes they took control over the few Jewish Industries that's correct!

But the German companies taking marching orders from the Government were the military industries and companies belonging to the military industrial complex and which later expanded to include several other civil companies because of the war effort before and during 1942-1945 under the command of Albert Speer the minister of production - but that didn't matter since the owners of all those industries were the same industrial Junta and Cabal who appointed and financed Hitler - heck! some of those owners in the Junta even had minister posts in the Nazi Government - so in reality they gave the orders to themselves with the taxpayers money to their own companies through proxies! - does that sound familiar?

Now! for the moment I can not spend more time here because I need to take a time out from people that don't wanna listen, which sadly makes my blood boil!

I'm quite sure you're a great guy and I'm sure that if we had met under other circumstances and left this discussion out of the picture, we could surley drink some pints and have a great night out.

But I'll end my part of the disscussion here for another day before I get banned!

Edit: took away stupid text!


[edit on 29-9-2009 by Chevalerous]

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

Why now, why not fight back during the bush era?
It looks bush jr got a lot of freepass to me.

I don't mind if people want to fight back at all. I'm just not sure about their motives or reasonings. Some definitely have legitmate reasons, but again, why now?

I agree with you and can list many issues that I think Bush got a pass on and I can also list some circumstances in which I think he simply became the scapegoat.

Having said that, I think that the time for looking back has passed and if we, as a country, regardless of political affiliation, need to recognize that Barack Obama is the President NOW. The decisions he makes are his own, the choices that he has made are his own -- there is always more than one way to skin a cat -- and it's time that we all hold him responsible for those decisions -- whether we agree with them or not.

I believe yet another campaign mantra was accountability. Which in my book means owning up to what one's done and stop blaming "the other guy".

As for your question as to why now -- no other President has made as many changes on as many fronts as Obama has -- in less than 10 months! Changes of any kind are difficult for a nation to accept -- but changes of these magnitude are downright scary to most of us that were already teetering on panic by the time Bush left. Further, when you run a campaign that is 95% "I can do this for the American people!", we tend to actually expect him to, you know, do something for the ACTUAL AMERICAN PERSON. That is just my short answer. I can list the major points of contention that seem to draw the most ire if you like.

Now children stop fussing.

As for far left = totalitarian etc.

I do not know a single liberal/leftist personally, in power or out who would endorse a totalitarian style of government.

Even the most left members of congress; the late Paul Wellstone...and Bernie Saunders wouldn't even go there.

American liberalism/leftist is far more moderate than European varieties.

Originally posted by Kaploink
The labels would go away if the more extreme part of the Republican party would tone it down a bit. When they are running around with questionable signs, screaming at town meetings about evil socialism, and making statements about armed revolutions, people are going to think they are nuts. They appear to mainstream America just like the guy who screams at everyone on the street corner that they are going to hell.

I respectfully disagree. The media LOOKS FOR the crazy. And let's face it, anywhere in the world you can find a crazy if you want to.

Then, of course there have been several threads regarding "plants" at various meetings whose sole job is to incite extreme reaction -- makes a much better story!

Now, please don't misunderstand what I am saying. I wish I could put duct tape over many a republican mouth these days -- but my point remains that if 25 Republicans say something legit, and one says something "crazy", the only comment reported on and discussed is that of the "crazy one".

Lastly, the armed revolution comment was in regards to a specific question from a reporter that was designed for that exact response. I'm not saying his answer wasn't wrong, I'm saying that when backed into a corner it's a lot harder to scratch your way out and remain unscathed. Of course, I could go on about how politicians should be seasoned enough to do just that, but I digress.....

WOW! What an interesting discussion. I just want to thank those of you for sharing your thoughts and information on this topic. I double-majored in business and psychology and am somewhat lacking in the political science area. So I have found this quite fascinating to learn more about what is left and what is considered right. Definte S&F!

Deal in realities not labels. You cannot surmise thought in two-dimensional graphs. The way in which points are selected indicates an average, a compromise, this makes it meaningless by design. No-one is a caricature of an absolute.



[edit on 29/9/09 by YourForever]

I hate to be the one to point this out, but if you look at the political clock, 12:00 is pure democracy.

6:00 is totalitarianism.

Whether you are a far left dictator at 7:00, or a far right dictator at 5:00, it's STILL a totalitarian dictatorship.

Communism at 9:00, and Facism at 3:00.

Obama is about 9:30, and trying to turn the clock back.

And if dealing in lead make one evil, I'm a baaaaaaaaaaaad boy.

Good, now if we could find a way to motivate all those with guns to shoot all of the extremists on both the right and the left, then those left alive may actually be able to make the country a better place for all.

reply to post by Walkswithfish

Great idea.

Of course, it's gonna take a lot of lead.

A LOT of lead.

reply to post by Chevalerous


Bye Chevalerous...... you won't even hold a conversation. All you do is put down, insult, talk down to, and berate. There is no use even replying to your points since you won't even consider them and it will just cause more insults from you. You are a prime example of everything wrong with political debate right now.

If someone else wants me to respond to what this person has said, let me know. Thanks.

LOL at that!!! Her case against socialism, " mothers are forced to work." umm yea because that never happens with capitalism.

Originally posted by johnny2127


And here is another that places Hitler in the upper left side of the political spectrum:

I do not mean to sound offensive, but that looks like you whipped it up in M$ paint during your lunch break. (I'm not suggesting you did, but where exactly did that chart come from?)

The first point of contention I would have, is that it separates the left and right ends of the spectrum into capitalism at the far right, and socialism ( ) at the far left.

In reality, pure capitalism would be at the far right, and pure communism would be at the far left. Socialism would be much closer to the middle.

My second point of contention, would be the representation of the scale. Notice how the right half is occupied almost entirely by US presidents and founding fathers? And the left half is occupied almost entirely by dictators? (And Karl Marx, who many in the right-wing consider the antichrist.)

Pretty obviously politically slanted, fairly obviously written with an American-centric point of view (politics is a global affair, not limited to the US), and very obviously written by someone with a weak grasp of political science. (Again, I'm not trying to deride you if you are in fact the one who drew that chart, whoever did it just needs to do a little more research and broaden their views.)

I have said repeatedly that that socialism, capitalism and democracy are not mutually exclusively...most of the European nations mix the three to some degree or the other. The big difference is the form of democracy...most democratic nations practice parliamentarian democracy.

The answer is complicated.
Below is the best model I could find in explaining the complexities of the political ideology:

With something like Rand's remark in mind, David Nolan, one of the founders of the Libertarian Party, realized that the old idea of a left/right political spectrum was inadequate to capture how it was that people like he and Rand and Jefferson viewed freedom. Instead of a one dimensional scale stretching from Stalin at one end to Hitler at the other, Nolan proposed a two dimensional representation, with different axes for personal freedom and for economic freedom. [This chart can be constructed with equal areas for all five divisions.] The traditional right, high on economic freedom but low on personal freedom, lies at one corner of the chart; the traditional left, high on personal freedom but low on economic freedom, lies at the opposite corner;

but then, indeed, people like Hitler and Stalin, both subordinating personal and economic freedom to the needs of the state, lie rather close together at a corner at right angles to the left/right spectrum, while those who believe in both personal and economic freedom, like Jefferson, belong in the corner directly opposite from Hitler and Stalin, and also at right angles from the traditional left/right spectrum.

Thus, with someone who believes in laissez-faire capitalism but also in the legalization of drugs, prostitution, abortion, and pornography, it is not necessary to split the difference and put them in the "moderate" center of the left/right spectrum, when none of those beliefs are "moderate" in the typical sense of accepting the mixed messages of the status quo. Just as Hitler and Stalin belong close together in the "Authoritarian" corner, so does the radical advocacy of freedom belong in the "Libertarian" corner

www.friesian.com...

[edit on 9/29/2009 by clay2 baraka]

reply to post by clay2 baraka
More information:

Nonetheless, the right-left spectrum is so common as to be taken for granted. Many people even have a hard time conceptualizing any alternative to it. However, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum.

Perhaps the simplest alternative to the left-right spectrum was devised as a rhetorical tool during the Cold War. This was a circle which brought together the far right and left ends of the traditional spectrum, equating "extreme socialism" (i.e. the Communist Party) with "extreme conservatism" (i.e. Fascism). This nexus was particularly useful to those opposed to rapprochement with the Soviet Union.

Having three axes is a modified Nolan Chart created by the Friesian Institute. It combines the economic liberty and personal liberty axes with positive liberty, creating a cube showing the form of government crossed with the four corners of the Nolan Chart. Another three-dimensional representation is the Vosem Chart, the axes of which represent cultural issues, fiscal issues, and corporate issues.

There are many charts out there, with many varied agendas driving their design.

I personally prefer the three dimensional models as they seem the most neutral. Unfortunately, no one has created a perfect chart.
www.politicsdefined.com...

[edit on 9/29/2009 by clay2 baraka]

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
Good, now if we could find a way to motivate all those with guns to shoot all of the extremists on both the right and the left, then those left alive may actually be able to make the country a better place for all.

Wait a tick, wouldn't that make whoever was left alive "extremists"? I mean, the "extremists" currently aren't firing....and if we kill all of them..whats that make us?

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

Why now, why not fight back during the bush era?
It looks bush jr got a lot of freepass to me.

I don't mind if people want to fight back at all. I'm just not sure about their motives or reasonings. Some definitely have legitmate reasons, but again, why now?

Simple. Look at the polls. A far smaller number of Americans call themselves liberal or so-called "progressive" (12%) than call themselves conservative (41%) or independent (41%). This president and congress are pushing a very liberal agenda, which most Americans are against.

That's why, and that's why now ...

AP polls

Rasmussen Reports has taken a look at how conservative or liberal the voters are in different aspects of their every day life. They found that 41% of the voters think of themselves as conservative when it comes to the issues of taxes, government spending and the regulation of private business while 41% consider themselves to be moderates and 12% say they are liberal.

[edit on 9/30/2009 by centurion1211]