[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Adolf Hitler's First Letter about Jewry

Programme of the NSDAP, 24 February 1920

Not exactly right-wing capitalist pig conservatism, is it?

Oh yeah. I know zillions of right-wingers who just love the idea of an all-encompassing state.

As I thought would happen, you've made my point for me.

Fascism is neither left nor right. Many of its social aspects, and many of the movements which embraced fascist elements, were from a radical/authoritarian/populist Right (and I'll note you had no answer for the ideological elements I pointed out). But its economic model was that of a "corporate state" or a state bereaucratisation of all economic activities: it rejected free-market capitalism for a less-state-controlled economic model of the "communist state."

I've seen it described as "center extremism" which I find is best.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

were from a radical/authoritarian/populist Right

There's no such thing. All authoritarianism comes from the left, because the proper right doesn't believe in the mechanisms which allow that authoritarianism to occur.

You're simply holding onto the old chestnut of "authoritarian = right wing" there. No fault of yours, since you've probably just spent years at college being subconsciously pounded with propaganda containing that message.

[Uncle Skeleton]

So was Ronnie Ray-gun a leftie? Or does military expansion not count as "authoritarian" enough?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So was Ronnie Ray-gun a leftie? Or does military expansion not count as "authoritarian" enough?

"Military expansion" means nothing by itself. Was this expansion designed to force Ronnie's will onto others or was it to protect the country from lefties?

[ironknee]

didn't john lennon sing

White Power to the the People

and

For the Benefit of Mr. KKKite

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

didn't john lennon sing

White Power to the the People

and

For the Benefit of Mr. KKKite

What are you talking about?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Did you not watch the Tea Party videos?

Did you read what I wrote?

I said what von Brunn posted on FreeRepublic about Obama not being a US citizen sounds just like what the Right-Wingers are saying at the Tea Party, who deny Obama is a US citizen. Does it not?


YouTube - Tea Party protestors believe Obama not US-born


You don't think they are saying the same thing about Obama not being a US citizen or the lack of proof that he is a citizen?

I guess you have the

-inability to listen to, much less reason with those around you who may say things you disagree with.


Next time, do some comprehensive reading because you start accusing others of something because of your intolerance and the blind hatred for ideologies other than yours.

[/quote]

If you had any concept of what those "tea parties' were really about, then instead of slinging sensational media bullshit out and about to try to tie conservatism to a neo-nazi, you would have made no such statement. So yes I read clearly what you said, however it has no basis in reality, and is therefore invalid.

My previous statements still stand. If you'd like to have a civil political discussion about a particular topic I'd be more than happy to engage you in one, but you'll have to be intellectually honest about it.

*Note - before you start linking to youtube videos and news articles about how you must be right, take the time to consider that whatever sensational whackjob you can find makng stupid statements on youtube does not represent the movement behind the tea parties or the people who are committed to its ideals. The tea parties had nothing to do with whether or not obama was a citizen, and therefore any reference you find linking the two topics is not accurate, precise, or representative in any way of "right wingers" as a whole.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If you had any concept of what those "tea parties' were really about, then instead of slinging sensational media bullshit out and about to try to tie conservatism to a neo-nazi, you would have made no such statement. So yes I read clearly what you said, however it has no basis in reality, and is therefore invalid.

My previous statements still stand. If you'd like to have a civil political discussion about a particular topic I'd be more than happy to engage you in one, but you'll have to be intellectually honest about it.

*Note - before you start linking to youtube videos and news articles about how you must be right, take the time to consider that whatever sensational whackjob you can find makng stupid statements on youtube does not represent the movement behind the tea parties or the people who are committed to its ideals. The tea parties had nothing to do with whether or not obama was a citizen, and therefore any reference you find linking the two topics is not accurate, precise, or representative in any way of "right wingers" as a whole.

I said what von Brunn posted on FreeRepublic about Obama not being a US citizen sounds just like what the Right-Wingers are saying at the Tea Party, who deny Obama is a US citizen. Does it not?

You chastise me for posting a youtube link after you dare me "to find anyone who went to the tea parties in this area that would find anything in common with that monster."

When did I say they representative in any way of "right wingers" as a whole?

WTF?

Don't ask me to find someone who went to the tea party saying Obama is not a US Citizen and then chastise me for doing so.

Seriously. WTF?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

"Military expansion" means nothing by itself. Was this expansion designed to force Ronnie's will onto others or was it to protect the country from lefties?

How are those not the same thing? If my will is to protect myself from you, and I have to use force to do it, then aren't I forcing my will on you?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How are those not the same thing? If my will is to protect myself from you, and I have to use force to do it, then aren't I forcing my will on you?

It's a pretty big stretch to say that self-defense is forcing yourself on somebody else.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's a pretty big stretch to say that self-defense is forcing yourself on somebody else.

In the context of the cold war military build-up, I don't think it's a stretch at all. How does a "defensive" arms race differ from an "offensive" one, in practice?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In the context of the cold war military build-up, I don't think it's a stretch at all. How does a "defensive" arms race differ from an "offensive" one, in practice?

Or the Iraq War as a matter of fact.

This defensive tactic against terrorism turned into an preemptive war in Iraq.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

so why is rush/fox trying to spin this guy into a liberal?

Why does Rush/Fox do anything? They're a commercial venture for profit, and making crazy, heavily-charged statments gets people like you up in arms, creates controversy, and gets them revenue.

If you think that what they're doing is wrong, why are you countering it by doing the exact same thing...lowering yourself to their level, so to speak. Why not prove their conception of "Liberals" wrong by being a better person and rising above the bait, instead of participating in the childish finger-pointing?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I said what von Brunn posted on FreeRepublic about Obama not being a US citizen sounds just like what the Right-Wingers are saying at the Tea Party, who deny Obama is a US citizen. Does it not?

You chastise me for posting a youtube link after you dare me "to find anyone who went to the tea parties in this area that would find anything in common with that monster."

When did I say they representative in any way of "right wingers" as a whole?

WTF?

Don't ask me to find someone who went to the tea party saying Obama is not a US Citizen and then chastise me for doing so.

Seriously. WTF?

It does not. Apparently you have not read my posts. They sound nothing like each other. If you really think otherwise, you're either being dishonest or you truly are ignorant to other people's viewpoints.


**NEWSFLASH** YOUTUBE IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION. Finding someone who feels some way about obama on youtube that went to the tea party is not the same as revealing particular motives of a political movement. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. It would be the same as me finding a youtube video of a liberal claiming the moon is made of bbq ribs, then exclaiming "liberals think the moon is made of ribs!"

I'm chastising you for A) trying to argue semantics with me to prove that "right wingers" are just like this monster and B) using youtube videos as proof of motivation behind a political movement

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It does not. Apparently you have not read my posts. They sound nothing like each other. If you really think otherwise, you're either being dishonest or you truly are ignorant to other people's viewpoints.


**NEWSFLASH** YOUTUBE IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION. Finding someone who feels some way about obama on youtube that went to the tea party is not the same as revealing particular motives of a political movement. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. It would be the same as me finding a youtube video of a liberal claiming the moon is made of bbq ribs, then exclaiming "liberals think the moon is made of ribs!"

I'm chastising you for A) trying to argue semantics with me to prove that "right wingers" are just like this monster and B) using youtube videos as proof of motivation behind a political movement

I think you have reading comprehension issues and problems with logic.

von Brunn: Obama is not a US citizen
right-wingers at the tea-party: Obama is not a US citizen

Your claim: They sound nothing like each other




Your dare: "to find anyone who went to the tea parties in this area that would find anything in common with that monster."
I provided: Youtube video showing a number of people who went to the tea party claiming Obama is not a US citizen, the same claim von Brunn is making.
Your claim: Youtube not a reliable source



Your argument: they are not representative in any way of "right wingers" as a whole
My response: I never said they were representative of "right wingers" as a whole


Those who attended the Tea-Party don't represent Right-Wingers as a whole.
Those who believe Obama is not a US citizen is a fringe group and don't represent Right-Wingers as a whole.
You, snow-i, don't represent Right-Wingers as a whole.
von Brunn does not represent Right-Wingers as a whole.


For the last time, stop accusing me of saying von Brunn represents Right-Wingers as a whole or that the fringe group of Tea Party goers who refuse to believe Obama is a US citizen is representative of the Right-Wing as a whole. I've said no such thing.


snow-i, at least try to make some logical arguments like:

Okay, even though both von Brunn and some people at the Tea Party claim Obama is not a US citizen, they are not representative of the Right-Wing as a whole.

Is that what you are attempting to say?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I think you have reading comprehension issues and problems with logic.

von Brunn: Obama is not a US citizen
right-wingers at the tea-party: Obama is not a US citizen

Your claim: They sound nothing like each other




Your dare: "to find anyone who went to the tea parties in this area that would find anything in common with that monster."

Youtube video showing a number of people who went to the tea party claiming Obama is not a US citizen.

Your claim: Youtube not a reliable source

Okay, you win. Someone somewhere at the tea party said something that von brunn did too. I bet von brunn liked cheetohs, therefore making anyone who've ever said that they liked chee-tohs "like von brunn" under your definition.

I guess the right wingers are all just a bunch of homicidal neo-nazis, especially ones at the tea party, like my family attended. You were right, Von brunn was among our ranks, as you have so aptly pointed out using a combination of 4th grade logic and youtube videos.


Give it a break..

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Okay, you win. Someone somewhere at the tea party said something that von brunn did too. I bet von brunn liked cheetohs, therefore making anyone who've ever said that they liked chee-tohs "like von brunn" under your definition.

I guess the right wingers are all just a bunch of homicidal neo-nazis, especially ones at the tea party, like my family attended. You were right, Von brunn was among our ranks, as you have so aptly pointed out using a combination of 4th grade logic and youtube videos.


Give it a break..

How many times do I have to say von Brunn doesn't represent Right-Wingers as a whole nor does attendees of the tea party represents Right-Wingers as a whole before you can get it through your thick skull?

If I said von Brunn is white and is a white supremacist, are you going to accuse me of saying von Brunn is representative of white people as a whole? Come on, use your brain before spouting off your nonsense.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In the context of the cold war military build-up, I don't think it's a stretch at all. How does a "defensive" arms race differ from an "offensive" one, in practice?

One leads to blood, screaming, dying, and the other just leads to a lot of wasted money.

[Big Mac]

Brunn was a follower of the Nazi ideology - anyone disagree with that? And what were the Nazis by the very definition of the term? National Socialists = the radical left. But it's convenient for the left to claim that all racists are somehow right-wing.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Brunn was a follower of the Nazi ideology - anyone disagree with that? And what were the Nazis by the very definition of the term? National Socialists = the radical left. But it's convenient for the left to claim that all racists are somehow right-wing.

ok... so where are the commies?

[ironknee]

filthy hippies

[Big Mac]

The scourge of the radical left comes in more than one form, ironknee.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The scourge of the radical left comes in more than one form, ironknee.

just want to be sure... commies and nazis are more or less in the same left-wing area... therefore they should have some common beliefs right?

please show your work, thank you

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

filthy hippies

Exactly. If they weren't filthy hippies, they'd be out driving their Lamborghinis, wouldn't they?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Exactly. If they weren't filthy hippies, they'd be out driving their Lamborghinis, wouldn't they?

not sure what you mean

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

just want to be sure... commies and nazis are more or less in the same left-wing area... therefore they should have some common beliefs right?

What, you mean like Uncle Joe deporting all the Jews to the gulags? Something like that?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

not sure what you mean

I mean here's how proper right wingers enjoy themselves:
YouTube - Road to St. Tropez
You know, rather than acting like prats in front of a silly flag.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What, you mean like Uncle Joe deporting all the Jews to the gulags? Something like that?

then why in ww2 did they fight each other? wow together they really could have ruled the world... right?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I mean here's how proper right wingers enjoy themselves:
YouTube - Road to St. Tropez
You know, rather than acting like prats in front of a silly flag.

you mean wealth?

nazis and hippies are somehow the "same" because they are poor?

are the nazis poor? are hippies poor?

so it's just a matter of wealth?

would nazis and hippies unite and be friendly?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

then why in ww2 did they fight each other?

Well, the People's Front of Judea doesn't want anything to do with the Judean People's Front.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

nazis and hippies are somehow the "same" because they are poor?

Yes. All insects. If they weren't insects, they'd be out having fun in their Lambos, wouldn't they? Or at least standing in front of a poster of the model they hope to one day own, instead of that stupid flag.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

One leads to blood, screaming, dying, and the other just leads to a lot of wasted money.

Then I guess ours was offensive, then, if people died in it.

I still don't see what difference it makes to authoritarianism or big government. Is an enlarged military somehow not authoritarian or not government if it's "defensive?"

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then I guess ours was offensive, then, if people died in it.

I still don't see what difference it makes to authoritarianism or big government. Is an enlarged military somehow not authoritarian or not government if it's "defensive?"

You make a good point, but the problem is without a strong defense you can't protect yourself from the authoritarians abroad. I still prefer this screwed up system of governance.

[Kerrigan]

When the media speak of so called far right parties like the BNP or the National Front, they neglect to mention that these parties are technically populist parties, and that populism is inconsistent with conservatism.

They are really just parties of hatred. They may have an ostensible connection with the mainstream right, but in reality they have very little in common.

And the mainstream left has the same problem with the far left. The "far left" Marxists, who seem pacifist and whatnot, are in reality identifying themselves with a despicable movement (20th century communism) that has resulted in hateful atrocities that were, at the very least ,equal to those committed by the "far right."

So basically, the "far-x" parties are basically just based on hate.

[Kerrigan]

Also, Soviets and Nazis had quite a lot in common.

I'll make this as brief as possible.

1) They were both socialists.

2) They both sought to use the full force of the socialist state to take over the economy, aggressively reorganize society, and elevate the citizenry (those that weren't killed, anyways) to a Utopian society.

3) For the Russians, socialism was an intermediary step required in order to reach the true goal of communism. So, in theory, they would have reached a point where socialism converted over to communism, but obviously this never had a chance of happening in reality.

4) The Nazis sought a similar goal with socialism, except that their goal was to kill off certain races and just stick with a socialist state for the foreseeable future. The Russians wanted to kill off people indiscriminately hoping that at some point this would somehow spur the Marxist dialectic and push them further down the road towards communism.

So basically they were both socialists, and no self-respecting conservative is a socialist.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

just want to be sure... commies and nazis are more or less in the same left-wing area... therefore they should have some common beliefs right?

Aside from them both being highly authoritarian, there's...

Nazi-Fascism
- "The National Socialist movement has one single master: Marxism." - Goebbels
- "We want no other god than Germany" - Hitler
- "Struggle is the origin of all things, because life is full of contrast." - Mussolini
- "We know that there is no definitive state, that there is nothing durable, that there is only a perpetual revolution." - Rauschning
- "The State is the continent and the race is the content." - Hitler

Communism
- "We are Communists, disciples of Marx and Engels."
- "God is the personal enemy of the Communist society." - Lenin
- "The law of contradiction, which is inherent to all things, to all phenomena, is the fundamental law of dialectical materialism." - Mao Tse Tung
- "There is nothing definitive, absolute, or sacred. The only thing that exists is the uninterrupted process of the future and the transitory." - Engels
- "The dictatorship of the proletariat is domination unrestrained by the law and based upon force." - Lenin

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, the People's Front of Judea doesn't want anything to do with the Judean People's Front.

i love it! great reference

[ironknee]

a buddy of mine said he heard War is peace, freedom is slavery

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Aside from them both being highly authoritarian, there's...

Nazi-Fascism
- "The National Socialist movement has one single master: Marxism." - Goebbels
- "We want no other god than Germany" - Hitler
- "Struggle is the origin of all things, because life is full of contrast." - Mussolini
- "We know that there is no definitive state, that there is nothing durable, that there is only a perpetual revolution." - Rauschning
- "The State is the continent and the race is the content." - Hitler

Communism
- "We are Communists, disciples of Marx and Engels."
- "God is the personal enemy of the Communist society." - Lenin
- "The law of contradiction, which is inherent to all things, to all phenomena, is the fundamental law of dialectical materialism." - Mao Tse Tung
- "There is nothing definitive, absolute, or sacred. The only thing that exists is the uninterrupted process of the future and the transitory." - Engels
- "The dictatorship of the proletariat is domination unrestrained by the law and based upon force." - Lenin

ok so again why did they fight each other in ww2?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

ok so again why did they fight each other in ww2?

Even a mother will take a swing at an unruly child.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Even a mother will take a swing at an unruly child.

cosmic man... so you were saying?

[Kerrigan]

"Why did the Germans fight the Russians?"

My god that is the most retarded question I have ever heard. I'm sorry but it has to be said.

(edit - I apologize for the tone of this post, ironknee)

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

ok so again why did they fight each other in ww2?

Read some history. They had a non-aggression pact. Basically both sides (inarguable the two superpowers of Europe at the time) agreed to lay off the other so each would be free to carve up slices of the world without interference from the other. But Hitler had always planned to conquer the Soviets because in reality he despised Bolshevism as much as anything else, and when he thought he had the chance, he went for it.

I know it's probably way over your head because it's more complicated than a bumpersticker slogan, but the reasons "they fought each other" have little to do with what's being discussed about how the two ideologies DO have very similar beliefs. Hitler didn't go after the Soviets because he was against Stalin being a godless dictator who felt everything revolved around the state, he went after them because he saw there being room for only ONE godless dictator that everything revolved around- himself.

I'd boil it down the main similarity even further than others: what Nazis, commies, and the far-left have most in common is that they are different brands of statists.

You can make up what you will about the right, but statism is NOT a hallmark of the right. Conservatives outright reject most statist desires, and champion constitutional republican government that favors the individual over the state- the polar opposite of statism.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Sigh. The amount of ideological cherry-picking going on here is hilariously sad.

I'll say it again: Fascism was anti-liberal and anti-conservative.

Those who say it is "left" completely focus on the structure and conveniently ignore the social ideology. Those who say it is "right" completely focus on the social ideology and conveniently ignore the structure.

Are you seriously all so ****ing blind and stupid and partisan that you can't see or acknowledge this?



greg

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Sigh. The amount of ideological cherry-picking going on here is hilariously sad.

I'll say it again: Fascism was anti-liberal and anti-conservative.

Yeah, so of course fascism is moderate.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'll say it again: Fascism was anti-liberal and anti-conservative.
...
Are you seriously all so ****ing blind and stupid and partisan that you can't see or acknowledge this?

I thought I acknowledged this when I said that far-left/right parties are based on hate, and bear little to no resemblance to the mainstream left/right. Just sayin'.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Sigh. The amount of ideological cherry-picking going on here is hilariously sad.

I'll say it again: Fascism was anti-liberal and anti-conservative.

Those who say it is "left" completely focus on the structure and conveniently ignore the social ideology.

Explain please.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yeah, so of course fascism is moderate.

No. Fascism is extreme.


Edit: Wasn't picking on Crash or Kerrigan specifically. Just at the partisanship in particular.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Sigh. The amount of ideological cherry-picking going on here is hilariously sad.

I'll say it again: Fascism was anti-liberal and anti-conservative.

Those who say it is "left" completely focus on the structure and conveniently ignore the social ideology. Those who say it is "right" completely focus on the social ideology and conveniently ignore the structure.

Are you seriously all so ****ing blind and stupid and partisan that you can't see or acknowledge this?



greg

Well we're a two-party system, so it has to be one or the other. It HAS to.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Hey, wasn't the whole argument for the last few months was that even though Pres. Bush is a right-wing Republican, he is no conservative. Wasn't that ebuddy's argument?

No. Because you're fascinated with my statements, I will clarify them for you. I said too often someone will see a socially conservative person and claim simply "conservative" and that fiscally, Bush was a leftist's wet dream. I said there's more to conservatism than its social wing. That's what I said.

I'm not saying von Brunn is a conservative. I did say von Brunn is a Right-Wing Extremist according to the DHS's profile.

You mean the DHS profile Napolitano had to apologize for repeatedly? Great example. The criteria in that report is so broad, you could be locked up for it. It was a joke, lacked any specificity whatsoever, had absolutely no threat assessment, no incident to use for basis, and was politically motivated to the nth degree.