Beck, Goldberg suggest Hitler was a liberal
January 22, 2010 5:14 pm ET
From the January 22 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
All you do, col, is make irrational assertions. You have no information to back up your ranting and raving.
You're just a whiny little girl.
How about religious instruction in schools?
The Olympics?
Free Speech?
Nice dodge......
In the modern sense of the word, he [Hitler) was.
Now....here's what I asked before you trolled in:
Question: how do you, personally, define a 'liberal in the modern sense'? How do 'liberals' feel about religion, especially the joining of religion and government?
How about religious instruction in schools?
The Olympics?
Free Speech?
Either unknowing or richardsliming can answer....
Contemporary Liberalism is characterized by a desire for a more "mixed" economy, a desire for a moderating of capitalism (would be the pragmatic way of eloquating it). It strives for a more egalitarian state (i.e. progressive taxation [marginal income taxation], welfare, ect.). Usually when someone in America or the United Kingdom say Liberal this is what is meant.
Classical liberalism however, value the individual over the collective. Generally speaking, they believe in lassez-faire economics. And believe in the maximization of liberty. Classical liberals also believe that rights are independent of the state (the states purpose is to defend rights not provide them).
When using these terms it is important to use the correct capitalization status (Contemporary = L, Classical = l)
Your good description of the difference between a modern liberal and a classic one notwithstanding, Goldberg's analogy is a failure.
1. Hitler was also for a strong military and police, preserving a national ethnic culture, compulsary education, corporate domination over labor, and a unifying national spirituality and aesthetic. Sounds like a hippy to me...
2. If all progressives are communist/stalinist because they see a larger role for government, then conservatives who advocated an active military foreign policy and draconian law enforcement must be fascists.
Most true hippies would have nothing to do with corporations, since they were more about getting back to our roots and living in harmony with nature.
Of course, the Col. was absolutely correct in what he said about your posts and in your slavish devotion to the nonsensical and dishonest ravings of radical right media grifters, but why nitpick in the face of such an evolved stratagem?
Keep it up, unknowing1. You are well on your way to earning a special place in the MMFA pantheon of drooling wingnut trolls.
Well, let's see now. I see a healthy dose of racial profiling, hatred of progressivism, killing off enemies, hatred of regulations, etc. etc. etc...
Nope, looks like nothing's changed, it still accurately describes the reichswine party and you, undiebomber1.
One of our greatest ingenuities was the ability to adopt technology - make a weapon that can fire the enemy's bullets, advance into the motherland...
But examine the underlying assumption upon which the Wikipedia article proceeds, and which those who comment on it (often) adopt: that somehow we can understand political ideology in terms analogous to mixing the ingredients of some final end-product (a cake or a stew)... some of this, some of that, stir it all together and we get [blank]-ism at the end. It doesn't work that way at all.
First of all, fascism was not a settled, worked-out political ideology in any sense. Most reputable scholars on fascism (Paxton, Payne) point out that those calling themselves fascists were more of a reactionary mob who idolized power, force and violence -- particularly military violence, as they (Mussolini's mob) were ex-soldiers -- and their main target was, first and foremost, the liberal democratic state itself (which was very young at the time in Italy) for it was nowhere near nationalistic-patriotic enough for them, and was not seeking glory for Italy through military adventuring and colonialism... as they would do once they took power.
There isn't anything -- at all -- of the political "Left" in fascism. The "Right" owns that one and always will... Jonah Goldberg's ludicrous hissyfit-in-print notwithstanding.
Just as an additional note, the same thing happens at the other pole. I am a liberal libertarian (or classic liberal) and I often find myself at odds with conservative libertarians. I also have some things in common with them.
Personally I find it important to know what he would think, because there are people who believe as he did. I've taken philosophy classes at my school where we read his writings. It was interesting in a Saw-ish-movie sort of way. I don't think it's right to think of the Nazi's as spacemen, because as distastful as they are, there was reasoning for what they did. If you forget what their ideology entailed (outisde of the "Jews" thing that part will not be forgotten) then history will begin to rhyme.
Oh the modern sense of the word? You mean the sense that includes adamant protection of civil rights and opposition to discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity and sexuality?
You know, Beck likes to misquote Pastor Martin Niemoller's poem "First They Came..." quite a bit, so maybe you've never heard how it actually goes:
"First they came for the communists, and I laughed really, really hard.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I was off changing into a new pair of pants when they came for the Jews."
The whole 41/2 minutes is good if you have the time.
* EXcept possibly to idiot trolls
This was a very fantastic journey that you took us all on. Such is the way of the loony left.
When there's no incentive: why even try?
Yeah, well neither do you to infinity plus infinity squared times infinity factorial.
unknown1, this little spar between you and snoopy is entertaining, but I'd really love it if you took your game up a notch and addressed one of the substantial critical responses to your assertion that Hitler is a liberal, if you can. If not, I'm like rubber and you're like glue.
One of the defining characteristics of idiots is that they rarely realize they're idiots. They often are under the impression that they're brilliant, and sometimes even think they're "debating" by posting PeeWee herman -style "I'm rubber, you're glue" responses in place of actual thoughts.
Ignorant1 may have tried to think of an avatar, and just blanked out. It may have thought of one, and been unable to figure out how to post one. It's unfair to accuse it of willfully withholding its avatar, when it may have tried really hard, but was just too incompetent.
Besides, this is at least the second time this idiot troll has resorted to Ad Hominem attacks on my Gravatar for lack of any argument. Doesn't that say enough about its failure ?
Fixed.
Posters respond in various ways.
Pantyline1 only responds to the sarcasm in response to his lunatic claims, avoiding the fact based responses.
Pantyline1 claims victory because he never responded to a fact...
And then there are contemporary undergraduate students of political science and economics who can't spell or make a coherent argument.
(Anyone can make a mistake, and I've certainly made plenty of grammatical errors and typos here, but "liberalsim, conemporary, and Liberalsim" in a 22-word comment that adds nothing to the discussion is mighty impressive.)
Liberal, you may be surprised to learn, is a word with different meanings in many different social, political, cultural, temporal, and geographic contexts. The same is true, in fact, of many words. This revelation doesn't bring much to the discussion.
Let's cut to the chase: How was Hitler linked significantly with present-day political liberalism in the United States of America?
How was Hitler linked significantly with present-day political liberalism in the United States of America?
A. By beck, the idiot, to fool other idiots into seeing a connection.
How'd I do ?
Democrats like regulation of the economy, but want no social control over individuals. Republicans love social control over individuals, but want no regulation of the economy. The difference revolves around who or what each party values the most. Repubs value money over the individual and Dems value the individual over money.
In Hitler's case he valued control over both money and individuals. He sought strong social control and strong control over the economy. That is why he drove scientists, academics, and artists out of Germany. That is also why he took control of businesses and directed production.
So Beck is doing is looking at history and cherry-picking facts to support his own conclusion. Goldberg is doing the same and should not call himself a historian because that is a disgrace to the profession. Furthermore, I can't understand why you are drinking this stuff up like koolaid.
I strongly suggest that you turn off your television, avoid Fox "News," go down to your local bookstore, and ask the clerk there to show you some good HISTORICAL books on Nazi Germany. Something by Bendersky, Shirer, or Kershaw.
Go to the library, not the local bookstore, and ask a research librarian for assistance. If you go to the bookstore, they might direct you to Jonah Goldberg's false piece of garbage which is NOT a historical tome nor is it based on fact.
As for reading books, I was a history major in college and wrote a thesis paper on Wehrmacht's role in rounding up and killing "undesirables" during World War II. So I think I know quite a bit about Nazi Germany. I even submitted my paper to "The Historian" (with the help of my professor), though it wasn't published. I think I have a fair amount of knowledge when it comes to historical studies.
As for books on the USSR and China, I took courses regarding both of those countries and read many books as a result of it. I even took my China course with a professor that lived in China during the Mao Era while much of her family lived in Taiwan. So I am not ignorant of the history of those countries. However, what Beck is giving people to watch is not a documentary, but rather propaganda.
As for my statement about Hitler being a statist, that is well-founded and accepted among political scientists and historians. It is not a matter of me "calling it what I want," but rather a consensus among historians and political scientists, many of whom have written articles about it.
I'm sorry if I came off as rude, but that was not my intention and many of the people here can attest to that. However, I still think that you should seriously consider looking into books by one of those three authors as a way to get the whole picture, rather than watching Beck on FNC. I am not trying to convert people to MSNBC by any means, but I just wish people would look into the facts rather than believing Fox's propaganda and opinutainment.
What evidence do you have to support your own assertions? I won't be holding my breath.
"Those who worship Ayn Rand don't understand Geogre Orwell." (I don't recall where I read this.)
In EVERY SENSE of EVERY WORD that you people co-opt to fit your agenda, this described the RW Media, which is to say ALL MEDIA, to a tee.
----------------------------------------------------
IMHO
This is called revisionist history and it is pure, unadulterated trash and propaganda prepared by a man who has NO IDEA what the HELL he is talking about. He prepared it for you mindless drones who WATCH HIS PROGRAM. It is designed to keep your hatred and fear boiling so you'll come back for more and he'll get higher ratings and make more money. He's nuts and if you believe his crap, so are you.
Most of the people here understand how the propaganda works, but thanks for being an unpaid guinea pig.
All that was said is "Hitler was not a right-winger but a nationalist marxist-socialist". Period. It's not that hard to understand.
The clip begins by offering a definition for modern conservatism "in a nutshell". Then Beck asks if Nazi Germany is really right-wing. This at the very least suggests some sort of connection between conservatism and right-wing politics.
Beck then turns to Jonah Goldberg, identified only as the author of "Liberal Fascism," a book that famously features a smiley face with a Hitler mustache on the cover, implying a connection between Nazism and liberalism. Goldberg argues that Hitler's association with rightist politics is inaccurate, and offers similarities between Nazi Germany and communist dictatorships.
So we have a string of implied associations between conservatism and rightist politics, and an opposing set of associations between Hitler, fascism, liberalism and communism.
Why do you think it is "bad" for MMFA to gloss this as a suggestion by Beck through his documentary that Hilter was liberal?
Let's see, going to my site (unfortunately, no longer have the dittobusters.com domain)....
4) if you cannot rebut the argument pick on details such as misspellings,improper punctuation or taglines
5) If your opponent has an unrefutable argument, change the subject
6) if your opponent consistently overturns your "correct" stories (anything told by Rush Limbaugh), use ad hominem attacks.
oooh.. couple others on display here:
14) always take everything personally
15) whatever your weakness is, blame it on your opponent
16) the more narrow and prejudiced your sources, the more you project that onto your opponent
In the modern sense of the word, he was. "
and my questions as to what a 'librul' believes remains unanswered....
You are no better than a holocaust denier.
Some of the brighter ones try, and fail, to back up their moronic GOP talking points.
Unknowing has not adjusted from the world where saying something makes it true, and questioning that something is rude. It has been following me around, pizzing up my ankles, since I first asked it (politely) to back up some of its ridiculous assertions.
It called my relevant and reasonable questions "arrogant", and refused to answer.
It has been reduced to Ad Hominem attacks on my gravatar,
It is one of the most incompetent trolls I have seen in years on the internets, and that's saying something.
Godwin's Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
I only mention this because that misinterpretation works in right wingers favor. As an internets thread gets longer, it's more likely that a right winger will resort to his true beliefs, which are likely to be Nazi-like. This will be pointed out, and he'll try to claim victory via Godwin's Law.
That interpretation only encourages Nazis.
For anyone who believes that, consider this: The word "gullible" is not in the dictionary. If you don't believe me, go look it for yourself. You'll thank me later.
WAY out side of the box, with humor!
And, btw, Sir Winston Churchill loved Cincinnatti!
What a laugh.
What a troll.
communist - anything left of radical right
educated - Fox News Channel viewer
progressive - rapist
liberal - satanist
war - peace
freedom - slavery
ignorance - strength
enemy - Eurasia/Oceania or Liberals/terrorists
Hitler promoted universal health care, and cradle to the grave welfare for the Jews and undesireables of Germany didn't he?
Top German scientists and artists fled from Germany.
or
Craps is a dice game in which players place wagers on the outcome of the roll or a series of rolls of two dice. Players may wager money against each other (street craps) or a bank (casino craps). Because it requires little equipment, street craps can be played in informal settings.
Well, they had 'pre-existing conditions'....
I would tell them if they knew of any clients who would hire me for slightly less money than they wanted, to tell them I didn't believe I could do the work, give them my number.
We isn't mad about being tea-bagged. We is mad about paying attention, and pretty crazy about knowing the truth. We is down right fanatical about thinking for ourselves. You is the ones whose(sic) mad about being tea-bagged.
As has been said: he doean't have to be correct, that isn't what his viewers are after, anyway.
~
Stupid argument. Dumb statements.
Stupid analogy. REALLY stupid statements.
Glen, I would have been bowled over , convinced 100% of the truth in your Documentary.
Of how very Enlighting, Eye Opening, of how much I did not know.
Glen , I saw you in glasses , I felt that you were a smart person! Only smart peolpe wear glasses ! Glen, all you had to do was wear a Tweed Jacket, with Arm Patches. I would have been Yours For All of Time, ready to bring down those Scumie Progressive / Libereals! Geeks also wears glasses, you could not be a Geek becouse you did not have a Pocket Protect
"free speech" this electoral season. We are going to all witness a new form of truth.
The only person I see who is MAD because his hero, Beck, is being called out is you. Beck is a very stupid, very dangerous narcissist who is MAKING THIS S**T up to impress stupid, stupid people like you.
I'm reading Albert Speer's memoirs right now. Slow reading, but interesting.
Hitler was a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur, and probably a little inferiority complex thrown into the mix. He was a despotic, complex individual with some apparent personality disorders. There was nothing "liberal" about him.
But, point taken on the unknowing1. He does manage to blend equal portions of arrogance, cluelessness, bluster, whining, and bone-grinding ignorance into one big steaming stew of stoopid'.
Unknowing1 may be my new favorite punching bag. The oblivious ones stick around longer than the ones who are bright enough to realize that they're getting b**ch-slapped.
LMAO!
Key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism, eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.
That is right wing to me! The Nazis were fascists! If you was not pure aryan race you denied rights to live in Germany! Hitler threw out Germans who a mix of another race in their blood line! Did Becky and Goldberg mention that??? SMH!
Combined they have less than zero credibility.
Could it be, in the final analysis, that what Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc. had in common was that they were maniacal despots, not any "ism", Left or Right? Just a thought.
Q: Would you vote for the person who said this:
"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country.We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press--in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
Adolph Hitler
Hitler only allied himself with the USSR temporarily to buy some time to build up his forces for operation Barbarosa. Only a extremely disingenuous person would try to pretend that this means that they were philosophically aligned.
Statism and Libertarianism are split in half by the left/right schism. Imagine a vertical line drawn down the middle of the diagram below. The red dot represents where Fascism would be, whereas Marxism would be on the mirror image location on the other side of the Statist section.
I think this diagram gives a pretty good example of how the ideologies compare with each other.
There are a number of charts like this. Political Compass includes their take on the positions of historical figures:
First of all, you should read Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism if you want to understand the similarities between Stalinism and Nazism. And that alliance between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union didn't seem to matter all that much when the Nazis invaded the USSR. The Soviets weren't kidding about their war with the Nazis: about a million Soviets died in the Battle of Moscow alone.
Now, you're totally right about Nazism's roots in Marxism. I mean, Hitler was a big fan of Marxism and communism. Why, Hitler even wrote a little tribute to Marxist communism in Mein Kampf:
Was there ever written more beautiful praise for a political philosophy than that?
That pretty much puts any wingnut into DUH mode....
Beck attempted to draw a straight line from Hitler through Stalin and Mao to President Obama. He even ended his screed with the infamous shot of Anita Dunn's Mao remark. His paranoid viewers got the warped message loud and clear.
Nobody is denying that the former Soviet Union [there is no Soviet Union any longer] was an evil dictatorship and I've never run into ANY academic who "glossed it over." Beck is a dishonest, dangerous tool. Oh, and I don't get into "fashionable."
I'd suggest you read this about the alleged Nazi Germany/Soviet Union alliance. Not QUITE what you learned from Beck's docudrama
...beck Name Meaning and History
English: topographic name for someone who lived beside a stream, from northern Middle English bekke ‘stream’ (Old Norse bekkr).
English (of Norman origin): habitational name from any of various places in northern France, for example Bec Hellouin in Eure, named with Old Norman French bec ‘stream’, from the same Old Norse root as in 1.
English: probably a nickname for someone with a prominent nose, from Middle English beke ‘beak (of a bird)’ (Old French bec).
English: metonymic occupational name for a maker, seller, or user of mattocks or pickaxes, from Old English becca. In some cases the name may represent a survival of an Old English byname derived from this word.
German and Jewish (Ashkenazic): occupational name for a baker, a cognate of Baker, from (older) South German beck, West Yiddish bek. Some Jewish bearers of the name claim that it is an acronym of Hebrew ben-kedoshim ‘son of martyrs’, i.e. a name taken by one whose parents had been martyred for being Jews.
North German: topographic name for someone who lived by a stream, from Low German Beke ‘stream’. Compare the High German form Bach 1.
Scandinavian: habitational name for someone from a farmstead named Bekk, Bæk, or Bäck, or a topographic name for someone who lived by a stream.
So why does he keep wanting to hit people with shovels?
Beck owns no Shovel, If he is struck by one, he can then take your puck A$$ , Liberial A$$ to court to get your SHOVEL!
Beck then has his own Shovel!
He says Hitler was a progressive. Doesn't take a genius to see he wants you to associate progressives with Nazis... What do you do about Nazis? Well our past offers an immediate solution.
He says Obama is a progressive. He says progressives are Nazis. He says the 08 election was a coup. He says the Republic is at stake. He tells his obedient audience that they must prepare for disaster and civil war. He tells them they are in the midst of a revolution. He tells them they are founders. He tells them the solution lies with God, Gold, and Guns... And he constantly infers that everyone of his listeners is in physical danger from the progressives...
I've listened to his radio show almost everyday for about a year and a half... Would any Right-Wingers like to refute any of these statements I've made? And would any of you fans of Beck like to tell me how Beck's narrative of the present/near future seems to end? It all points in one direction. This cr@p is no different then the 'helter-skelter' predictions and ranting of Charles Manson.
Yes, the final solution.......euphemisms are very big with these people, eh?
Beck is more conservative and right-wing than Hitler was.
Everyone to Beck looks like they are part of the left-wing!
Someone please take this extremist off the air.
That's modern conservatism in the United States, alright: proclaiming the evils of government while occupying as much of it as possible.
Controlling every aspect of citizens' lives is a mark of totalitarianism. Jonah Goldberg's book is not a contribution to scholarship on the philosophical or historical linkages between fascism and liberalism, but an exercise in intellectual laziness and stubborn ignorance of significant scholarly contributions: most notably, that of Hannah Arendt and her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism. Goldberg is aware of Arendt, but he doesn't seem to have bothered to actually try to understand what she's argued.
Goldberg's list of similarities between Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union is easy enough to account for: totalitarian regimes are totalitarian. From there, arguing that contemporary U.S. leftist politics are covert forms of Nazism and Stalinism is easy: just ignore each and every difference between U.S. leftism, Nazism and Stalinism. Gender and racial equality? Decriminalization and destigmatization of homosexuality? Egalitarianism? Defense of civil liberties and opposition to state surveillance of its citizens? Those differences with Nazi Germany are only superficial and inconvenient trivia to Goldberg and Beck.
Anybody who doesn't immediately start chuckling at Goldberg's contrasting Hitler and Stalin as the left/right examples should not be allowed to cross the street by themselves.
You're right of course, Vy, and this was discussed on another thread recently. The ability of Beck and the other clowns to ignore the big picture ideologies of these totalitarian regimes, to focus their tunnel vision on some arbitrary right wing/ left wing aspects of their economic or social ideas (real or imagined) is a pretty low-level propaganda exercise.
It probably works on 10% of teabaggin' America, but they're already in line for the Kool Aid anyway. This stuff doesn't change any minds, just rattles the ones who that are already under their control.
I now go off Topic:
One of you Wonderful people here has become a talking point!
I have heard what you wrote here in the last few days on two news broadcasts! I wish to shake your hand, if I could remimber who you are!
Someome here said that congress men should wear logos as NASCAR drivers do.
Come clean, who wrote it, I wish to turn it into a Visual Image!
Did you hear the JOKE, about the man who sat on a wall throwing stones?
Hitler and castro both had universal healthcare and abolished labor unions so that means hitler was a liberal? How about taking it the other way? Maybe castro is not a liberal... Is that too convoluted for you guys? This is ridiculous. Beck can call hitler a liberal just as easily as we can call stalin a conservative. But what exactly is that accomplishing? Who cares what the USSR or nazi germany was on the left-right, liberal-conservative spectrum? It has no real bearing on today's political conversation.
I can handle it very well: it's an absurd claim.
Is there a point to your question in our near future? I could start a little list of my own (Pinochet, Franco, Anastasio Somoza García...) but what would be the relevance?
How ignorant must you be to not know this, a month after this story was debunked?
Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Jong-il were dictators who oppressed their people for political rule. Che was a revolutionary who believed that no people should be oppressed by any form of government. Castro deemed him dangerous, so did the U.S. Che also denounced the USSR. He is looked at by many people as a revolutionary who looked out for the oppressed people. Extra reference: Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King were revolutionaries but in two different spectrums. Malcolm X called for violent resistance and King called for non-violent resistance. Both men were denounced by the U.S. government and deemed dangerous. Bottom line: If you look out for the benefit of the people you will be held as a hero and Icon. Except you do not need violence to make change. Unless it is a last result. I repeat a last result. Hope this country never goes there. Too bad Becky is calling for violence, but will denounce it if it happens. Now that is dangerous!
We did a revolution in this country before. Did we capture and kill people? No. That is just the difference in countries. Some do their political movements differently. Is our business? No.
Not supporting Che. I am just a history buff.
Reagan: Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. (Conservatism in a nutshell)
Is this true? Do you all agree with this?
Nazi platform principles: universal health care, cradle to grave welfare state, attacking big business (sounds like what progressives believe in)
Does anybody here claim Goldberg is wrong in these assertions of the Nazi political platform? Does he not make at least decent points? Or do you all hate conservatives so much you won't even entertain the notion that they could sometimes be right?
Is this okay? Do you agree with this?
Are you serious? The Nazis had cozy relationships with a ton of American corporations. IBM sold the punch cards used to catalog undesirables. (How interesting, by the way, that the big Nazi platform principle was "exterminating Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and leftists", which you apparently find less objectionable than the above.) The Nazis weren't evil because they established a "welfare state". They were evil because they murdered thirteen million people, you callous Randbot psycho.
Yes, we are. If you compare someone to Nazis, you are invoking the Holocaust. You're being deliberately obtuse, as is your inclination.
6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
Additional: [pdf]http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf
[html]http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/mmarkowski/H113/AH/platform.html
And Hitler starts with an "H" and so does "Hussein" !!!
Mother Mary and Joseph, it gets harder & harder to talk to these right wing zombies. They're like toddlers staring at shiny car keys.
It appears by your comments, you are only considering one of the two possible extremes.
Conservatives have a very long and bitter history in the US of advocating a more powerful statist government. There is much more to conservatism than just the libertarian wing, you know.
Not so much, actually. You see, lots of people have different impressions about what it means to be right or left, and that's fine. If you think that right-leaning means tending towards anarchism, I won't argue with your personal approach to rightist politics.
But you still have to account for the fact that anarchism is commonly regarded as an extreme leftist position. There are socialist anarchists, and Marxism and anarchism share some common goals. The anarchists who protested the WTO, G8 and World Economic Forum oppose war, capitalism, and globalization. If you're telling me that they're right-wing, on what do you base that claim?
Right wing doesn't mean "anti-state": it means a support for preserving traditional social orders with a view favoring a more stratified society.
How is politics ever not social?
What difference does it make what your political perspective is or what your political beliefs are? Politics is a social practice among a social body of social human beings. Every political decision has a social impact and is carried out by social human beings.
A Union among States... which are both social structures...
We're not talking about laws of physics -- we're talking about the laws governing a social body of people. This sort of law is social.
That's most definitely regulate social relations among distinct social bodies
You've just listed a string of social responsibilities for a social body charged, and restrictions placed on how that body can relate to other social bodies. I ask again: how is politics ever not social?
What's not a social issue or program, and on what basis to you make a distinction between a social program and other programs? Spending on education is social, but immigration policy isn't? How exactly does that work?
How do you define a social program when all political actions and decisions are deliberated, legislated, and enforced socially? After all, even economic policy is, by definition, overtly social.
Sounds like a social engineering project to me: build a country and hold a people together despite different social affiliations. I'd love to know, in fact, how it's possible to regard it as something other than a social project.
You can certainly argue that, but that seems to me a separate argument from the one at hand at hand: the distinction you were attempting to draw between politics and social spheres, and your claim that "[t]he extreme right cannot be totalitarianism" because the extreme right would have to "be anarchy."
I've read many critical founding documents of the United States, including the federalist papers (though I certainly wouldn't say that I've read every document of that era that contributed to the founding of the country). They are all documents concerned with the proper construction and governance of a just social organization: a new country. This is an inescapably social project, regardless of whether or not you think the founding fathers would frown upon the government as it is today.
One of the critical aspects of the U.S. Constitution is the mechanism it provides for its own amendment in article 5. Amendments concerning prohibition and its repeal, the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and others all strike me as social interventions of the sort about which you seem to be concerned, but they're perfectly constitutional and were established legally by the very mechanisms the founding fathers provided.
I agree that one could argue that there's a significant distinction between these, but I'm not sure that it's a distinction that directly relates to right/left political spectrum. For example, abolishing slavery is justified today as both (or neither) a right and a left position: right because it's a protection of all people's individual liberties and natural rights, and left because the denial of those liberties and natural rights under slavery is grossly anti-egalitarian.
In that case, maybe we should agree to table the discussion. I do thank you for taking the time to talk through this issue. I want to reiterate that I think you've expressed yourself very well, and I really do appreciate your point of view.
You just rewrote the preamble to the constitution.
Incidentally, if you want to avoid an American institution that really WAS Hitler's brainchild, I suggest you avoid the interstate highway system, which Dwight Eisenhower modeled directly on the Hitlerian autobahn.
Etymology: Middle English prive, from Anglo-French privé, from Latin privatus private
Date: 14th century
1 a : private, withdrawn b : secret
2 : belonging or relating to a person in one's individual rather than official capacity
3 : admitted as one sharing in a secret <privy to the conspiracy>
or
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural priv·ies
Date: 14th century
1 a : a small building having a bench with holes through which the user may defecate or urinate b : toilet 3b
2 : a person having a legal interest of privity
'nuff said (Stan Lee)
Not that it hurt you much.
"Did they not believe in universal health care, a welfare state for all Germans, and the nationalization of private companies? Are these not similar to progressive beliefs?"
I want to know why you choose to ignore the Nazi's similarities to Progressives.
The United States has a large powerful military, just like Nazi Germany. What dots do you connect there ?
The welfare state for all citizens and nationalization of private companies could be found under many regimes, left and right, through history. Maybe not in practice, but in theory. These are "little picture" things, and that's what Beck and Goldberg are trying to focus on.
Look at the "Big Picture" stuff; human rights, demonization of minorities, corporate and military power, that kind of thing. That's where you want to see comparisons.
If you still have questions about Nazis being liberals, don't be offended if you don't get answers. Nobody's "ignoring similarities", they're just not going to waste their time on somebody who wants to believe Beck and Goldberg.
If nationalization of companies makes you a Nazi, then a hearty "Sieg Heil to George W. Bush for bailing out AIG, Bank of America and other companies. Of course another "Sieg Heil" shoutout goes to Ronald Reagan for nationalizing the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company in 1984 (which oddly enough was re-privatized under Bill Clinton - what a Nazi!) Not to mention George HW Bush's nationalizing of the banks using the RTC during the S&L crisis to the tune of $150 billion!
Do I really need to go one with more examples of Rightwing Nazis? You agree these Republicans are Nazi's right? Because they have something in common with the Nazis?
I don't know if it's possible for people who can believe Nazi's were liberals to understand how absurd that is, and no amount of logic or facts will change that.
The ultimate irony is that the American right uses the fact that the Nazis had national healthcare to suggest that we should not be like the Nazis and adopt National Healthcare ourselves. (I wonder if such suggestions came up during the building of the Interstate highway system under Ike - which was based almost entirely on the Autobahn?) It seems ironic that such considerations did not seem to stop Israel from adopting National Healthcare. I wonder if the Israelis knew something that rightwing Americans don't.
The topic is that Beck and Goldberg suggested that Hitler was a liberal in an attempt to smear current liberals!
Get a clue.
Just a couple relevant ones
http://mediamatters.org/research/200801250012
&
on the April 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, in which he likened former Vice President Al Gore's fight against global warming to Adolf Hitler's use of eugenics as justification for exterminating 6 million European Jews.
I'll give Beck's robots credit on one thing: they've got his version of a logic down to a science.
Do you see this, mods? This "person" just segued into a rant about how Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves. Ban this piece of garbage. I'm not even going to try to respond to this.
So, you lie with the first thing you typed!
Jews didn't do anything to cause the hatred of a few Germans, the Nazi Party and Hitler blamed the Jewish Bolsheviks for the failures of Germany. The rest of your Anti-Semetic rant is not worth replying to.
Many people have talked to Germans who were alive during Hitler's rise to power. You will be shocked to learn that the opinions and experiences of all Germans are not unanimous.
That's like saying Grape Nuts cereal must come from grapes. The names of things do not completely override the reality of the things named. Nazi Socialism is hardly representative of socialism in general -- nevermind communism, Marxism, liberalism, leftism, and the Democratic Party of the United States.
That would make Hitler a totalitarian, not a leftist. Hitler openly despised Marxism and communism as the a perversion of German philosophy by Jewish intellectuals. He certainly did want a socialism of a kind, but only in the sense that the social body would serve the good of the German nation.
A few of the Germans?
Nevermind.
I'll give you a truthful answer: nothing. The Jews did nothing to warrant genocide.
Please name one country, one culture in the past 2,000 years that hasn't resort to the kind of scapegoating you're engaging in now.
Woah, hold on -- I didn't realize I was talking to a drunk Mel Gibson. Loved your work in Lethal Weapon, by the way. And Chicken Run was great. Maybe we could talk about this when you've dried out, yeah?
Awesome, Hummer. There are some real idiots on this thread, but the fictional historical anecdote always scores high if you're trying to be the stupidest.
Guess what? I just went outside, and there were a bunch of 100 year old Germans in my driveway. They told me they love punking right wing suckers by telling them that Hitler was a socialist. They can't believe they pull it off.
Does my completely made- up story cancel out yours? Good.
I'd only suggest that, in the future, if you want to call people ignorant or "stupids", you have a ten year old spell-check and proof read your comment before posting.
Hey, by that logic, China is full of Republicans, right? I mean, after all, it IS the People's Republic of China, yes? So, that's where St. Ronnie went when he died, right? To the Forbidden City?
You question about Jews is hateful and misleading. Rather, show me one government, one country in the last 2,000 years that have not oppressed the Jewish people. Then you will have your answer, though your level of intellectual honesty hardly deserves one.
To apply a recent American notion to Germany in the 1930's and 40's to make an ideological point is completely twisted.
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [September 14, 1960]
Is it true that you're an anti-Semitic troll who has, in two comments
1) implied that Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves
2) ranted nonsensically about Jews wanting to remove traffic lights
3) tried to cover up your bigotry by claiming A Jewish Friend, and then launching into another anti-Semitic tirade about how obsessed with money he was?
I'm just asking questions.
Who's hating? jimhum, I answered you honestly and then joked at the conclusion of my post because I believed that you couldn't possibly be serious. If you didn't like the answer, that's fine, but you weren't the target of hatred.
ROFLMAO!!!
Freakin Nazi morons, I luv 'em.
Nothing at all. Just be advised that asking idiotic questions is going to get you ridicule.
Would that follow the liberal or the conservative agenda?
Would that follow the liberal or the conservative agenda?
The answer, of course, is neither. Nobody has an agenda to confiscate guns. Conservatives like to talk about the imaginary liberal agenda to take away guns, but that doesn't make it real.
But if I had to speculate about whose agenda would most likely lead to such a thing, I'd look at some actual past behavior;
-Segregating protesters into designated free speech zones
- Legislating to give corporations more power than private citizens (even more than they currently have).
- Taking away personal freedoms regarding marriage and reproduction.
- Suspending constitutional rights regarding detaining suspects and religious-based legislation.
Obviously, if one had to choose, confiscating guns would fit in much more comfortably with the right wing agenda.
"The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."
The right to bear arms was so important that it was in the First Amendment. Progressives like Barbara Boxer were screaming when the Supreme Court recently upheld it. The scary part is the decision was narrow which means one new appointee could swing it the other way.
This thread is about Hitler being a liberal, not about persecution of the Jews. Gun confiscation is clearly an objective of the progressives.
Once again, we see that the idea of the gubmint taking guns offends you more than the murder of thirteen million people.
Hitler and progressives have this in common.
The First Amendment is the one that Obama was mad about yesterday because the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment. He said that now lobbyists can spend money directly instead of having to go through lawyers to find loopholes around the progressive McCain bill.
That pesky Constitution. Obama is so ignorant he thinks he can go to Congress to override the Supreme Court.
That was my laugh of the morning, raddave. Wingnuts are only required to know about one amendment, and Jose got it wrong.
Oops. Back to square one.
-Adolf Hitler
For you it is said.
You can write that one without reading a single word.
What's your basis for that assertion?
by soze169880 (January 22, 2010 10:06 pm ET)
what had the Jews done in those few years to cause such hatred by a few of the Germans?
***Do you suggest that the Jews were loved, and the German hate just came out of thin air?
by DellDolly (January 22, 2010 10:11 pm ET)
No German ever told you that the Socialist in the name NAZI had any relationship to the
• ***Many, Many Germans told me that. We spent over 300 nights in nearly 80 different towns and cities in Germany, and I talked to people all the time.
• by raddave43 (January 22, 2010 10:26 pm ET)
I would say you have not talked to ANY Germans
*** I talked to hundreds of East Germans also, while the Wall still stood.
by raddave43 (January 22, 2010 10:26 pm ET)
Jews didn't do anything to cause the hatred of a few Germans, the Nazi Party and Hitler blamed the Jewish Bolsheviks
*** The Jewish Bolsheviks must have done something, and in Germany, and in the centuries before.
• by vysotsky (January 22, 2010 11:26 pm ET)
Many people have talked to Germans who were alive during Hitler's rise to power. You will be shocked
*** I would not be shocked, I have talked to Germans with all opnions.
"What does NAZI stand for, any idea?"
*** Why would they use the word Socialism if it did not apply?
"He wanted to government to have complete control over everything, but lost the war before he could implement his leftist ideas."
*** That is exactly what the Lefties in this country want.
I'll give you a truthful answer: nothing. The Jews did nothing to warrant genocide.
*** And I agree completely in our opinion, but not in Hitler’ opinion.
Please name one country, one culture in the past 2,000 years that hasn't resort to the kind of scapegoating
*** The same countries that did not have Jews insisting on living their way, instead of their homeland’s way.
"Do you like the fact that Jews want the traffic lights turned off on the weekend in parts of Los Angeles? "
Woah, hold on -- I didn't realize I was talking to a drunk Mel Gibson.
*** You would rather a few people die, right?
• by bintx (11 hours and 57 minutes ago)
No, you didn't. The word "socialist" in the name of the Nazi Party had absolutely nothing
*** I never heard one person who would agree with you.
• by Col. Harlan Sanders (9 hours and 16 minutes ago)
Awesome, Hummer. There are some real idiots on this thread,
*** I agree, so many stupid hatey leftiest.
• by j238 (January 22, 2010 10:25 pm ET)
Actually, the idea that conservatives believe government is bad goes back to the Reagan
• *** There have always been people who want control everything, just like the lefties.
by soze169880 (January 22, 2010 10:27 pm ET)
Timothy McVeigh is tied with Ted Bundy as the only Republican devoted
***Why do Demorats want prisoners to be allowed to vote? Because most criminals in prison are Demos.
by soze169880 (11 hours and 40 minutes ago)
He was active in the Republican party. You're right, though, it's not fair to make that political when he was just a sicko. McVeigh, on the other hand,
**** If there was space, I try to list a few dozen lefty criminals.
One of the meanings of the word "socialism" certainly did apply: a subordination of individualism to the nation. Marxists aren't big on nationalism, though, so it's pretty hard to argue that National Socialism implies the philosophy that Marx proposed. And then there's the fact that Hitler openly loathed communism and many other brands of socialism as a Jewish perversion of philosophy.
Yeah, that first quote was actually something you wrote to which I was responding. My words appear nowhere in that passage. This was my response:
If you have a response, I'd love to hear it.
You really believe that? You've never heard of colonialism? Witch trials? Red scares? Pretty much every society on the planet has found a way to blame its minorities and neighbors for problems.
As for Jews insisting on living their way: what group doesn't insist on the right to live according to its own beliefs and ethics?
And about this traffic camera business, you're aware that in the last year many states have outlawed traffic cameras, yes? I believe Mississippi is one of them. They're not popular with lots of different people -- not just Jews.
I.E. I will lie and distort, like my masters on the Republican News Channel. (A.K.A. MindFox)
No one said that, you are just distorting the truth. There WAS antisemitism-on the part of the national Socialist, or NAZI party.
I seriously doubt that, considering what history reveals. Or maybe you only talked to the Nazi sympathizers, and not the victims.
Considering that no travel was allowed to East Germany during the Cold War due to it being on the Communist side of the Iron Curtain, and supplies had to be secretly airdropped into East Berlin in order to prevent it's utter derfeat by the forces of communism, thus giving the commies a political triumph, your alleged trip into East Germany was a COUP! Congrats, mister miracle person!
Name what they did, or silence yourself.
Really? I doubt it, considering your words.
Because fascism wouldn't fly with the average German, and they had to dress it up. (I'm just having fun here, someone already took this anti-semite to task on this one.)
No, we want the playing field to be fair. picture a schoolyard. Do we let the bullies run around giving wedgies until everybody submits to their ideas and rule, or do we have a strict ruleset to ensure that playtime is safe, secure, orderly, and fun for everyone? (BTW, that's rhetorical, you needn't answer.)
scapegoating? Is that what you call invasions of soverign nations, torture and rape and murder in the name of genetic cleansing? Oh wait...
OK, this is stupid, even for a troll. How is it that turning off traffic lights, which were designed to save lives, safer for motorists? And by the way, i never heard of that. link, or you're just making it up.
Hello. You just met me, and the rest of the Reality-Based community. How are you?
This proves what a troll you are. He was being so sarcastic it's funny!
...and the only thing I hate is stupidity. AKA, you.
All Neocons are against Gay Marraige. Isn't that controlling what Americans can and can't do? How about the Patriot Act, which allows Government to control our lives as it wants? That's a Right-Wing brainchild. All liberals want is to use the power of government to HELP the people. Right Wingers hate government, and if you hate government, you can't RUN government.
Care to back that up with evidence?
Somehow, I doubt it would even REMOTELY compare to the crimes committed by Righties. How many Liberals lied their country into war? Let terrorist masterminds escape when they had them cornered?
You have no business even speaking, because all that comes out of your mouth is hate and talking points direct from the KKK. Leave, and never return, and you may yet prove you have a shred of intelligence in your body. Stay, and continue to spout this crap, and you prove you have no soul.
=====
Another question I have asked many times, and never get an answer. Since Hitler was in power just a few years before he started to attack the Jews, what had the Jews done in those few years to cause such hatred by a few of the Germans?
And while I am asking, tell me one culture, one country, one government in the last 2,000 years where the Jews didn't accuse their neighbors of anti-Semitism?
Do you like the fact that Jews want the traffic lights turned off on the weekend in parts of Los Angeles? Those lights were not installed for religious reasons, they were installed to save lives.
========
Some one said that there was no reason for Hitler to hate the Jews, they had done nothing wrong in all history. He just threw a bunch of names against the wall, and killed the one that stuck.
When is the first time in history that Jews were hated for whatever reason? Why did Moses lead them out of Egypt? The Jews even hate each other. Recently they threw a lady off the bus in Jerusalem because she wore the wrong hat, and sat in the wrong seat.
When ever, did anyone just for fun, without any reason, however stupid, fought and killed other people?
The illiterate anti-Semitic rants don't really give the impression that you want serious answers.
After all, if it's a choice between saving the whole planet or just wiping out a few hundred million people the final solution is obvious.
Afghanistan Czar
Ultra liberal anti gun former Gov. of New Mexico.
David J. Hayes
CALIFORNIA CZAR
Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, “Progress Policy”.
Carol Brower
Energy and Environment Czar
Political Radical Former head of EPA - known for anti-business activism. Strong anti-gun ownership.SOCIALIST on Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
Todd Stern
International Climate Czar
Anti business former White House chief of Staff- Strong supportrer of the Kyoto Accord. Pushing hard for Cap and Trade. Blames US business for Global warming.
Cass Sunstein
REGULATORY CZAR
Lberal activist judge believes free speech needs to be limited for the “common good”.
Take away their guns with gun control, take away their means to make a living with cap and trade. Starvation follows.
Call them what you want, they are ready to pursue Hitler's final solution.
YOU NEED THE PRAYERS OF EVERONE HERE!
YOU HAVE BEEN BRAIN WASHED!!
p.s.
CZAR is a term the Press came up with, becouse it was easier than using the full and proper name of the Office!
GOD HELP YOU!
Jose2
Czar of mind numb right wing trolls.
Things are likely to go downhill very quickly with these creeps.
There are many countries that have not been accused of anti-semitism who are not neighbors of Israel. There are many countries, especially in europe that used Jews in much the same way as the Nazis did. Jews were expelled from almost every country in Europe at one time or another.
What are you raving about about the traffic lights in LA?
The Jews even hate each other? You are a lunatic and a anti-semite.
Downsizing of the population whether by gas chambers or starvation is a matter of political expediency. Whatever group is sufficient in size and can be sold to general population as the bad guys will be targeted.
In order for it to work you need to have a problem such as a deep recession. You instill fear that if you don't do X and Y the social fabric will break down. We see daily attacks on the private sector very similar to Hitler's attacks on the Jews. Or we must immediately stop industry or the land will fall into the ocean.
Then you confiscate guns for one reason or another such as an assassination. Next some form of genocide is carried out. Starvation is probably the easiest.
That is why Hitler matches the characteristics of a liberal.
You've asked your question and have received an answer. It's not my fault that you aren't satisfied with the truth: The Jews did nothing to provoke the genocidal hatred they received from [i]many[/i Germans and the Nazi state.
As for the traffic lights, please provide your source for this story and explain why this somehow gives you insight into the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Petitioning the government to shut off traffic lights one day of the week is an easy thing to refuse on the grounds of public safety in a representative democracy. It's not a provocation for hatred.
If you're not satisfied with these answers, you'll need to find a way to resolve your questions yourself. But don't pretend that you asked and received hatred or silence, because nothing could be further from the truth.
Actually, maybe someone else here can help you. I'd like to extend an invitation to the conservative members of this forum. jimhum seems to be having trouble with some questions about history. Perhaps some of you learned people can offer him the answers he seeks, yes?
Human beings have usually had reasons when they kill one another. Less often have they had good reasons.
You seem to be asking what Jews did to tick off the Nazis and provoke their own genocide. This is like hearing about a violent rape and responding, "Wow, that's awful, and of course I'd never say that anyone deserves or asks to be raped, but I mean, come on, she must have done something..." Only worse.
We did a revolution in this country before. Did we capture and kill people? No
In WAR, mankind is not Humane!
Americans like to beleive we fight the good and clean War!
.....................WE DO NOT.........................
..............WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT IT..................
The Revolutionary War --???-outside of crimes againest the native people!
Civil War.....Andersonville! + More!
Indian Wars... WOUNDED KNEE! + More!
Viet-Nam...... My Lai !+ more
.............OUR HANDS ARE NOT THAT CLEAN?.............
.................REALITY BITES........................
Civil War - States rights vs Federal rights - the battle is still not over.
Indian Wars - a bunch of Europeans fighting over land - not sure how to explain it.
Viet Nam - One of the things that Kennedy wanted to do before he was assassinated was to shutdown the Federal Reserve. If he had succeeded, there would not have been enough money to go to war in Viet Nam.
No government is perfect. If you have the power to change it for the better and don't, then you are at fault.
You missed the whole point!!
The American Indian Wars-- you know that mass murder Custer!
When America tried to wipe out the Native American!
I do not know you are going with your other off the wall comments!
I will pray for you !
I can tell by the words you use, they are the BECK'S and not YOURS!
YOU ARE A BECKIE!!
I can tell by the words you use, they are the BECK'S and not YOURS!
Any of you Texans with your brains still functioning, feel free to join us in the upper 47.
IT IS CALLED THE VOTING BOOTH- NOT A TEA PARTY REVOLUTION!
or do you refer to Harpo Marxist?
YOU KEEP MISSING MY POINT!
We Americans wrap ourselfs in the Flag, we make the sign of the cross and all is forgiven or forgotten!
America, has over thrown Democatocratically Elect Goverments - On 11 September 1973, the government of President Salvador Allende was overthrown by the Chilean military in a coup d’état.-
America, is respondsible for the death of inoccent citizens by direct or indirect actions!
I can go on and on , and not change your mind!
Confucius Said" to argue with a wall , is like throwing stones down a well, in the end you have no stones, and the well remains Empty! "
You really believe that? You've never heard of colonialism? Witch trials? Red scares? Pretty much every society on the planet has found a way to blame its minorities and neighbors for problems.
***I’ve heard of all of them. The answer is to stop immigration.
As for Jews insisting on living their way: what group doesn't insist on the right to live according to its own beliefs and ethics?
***Yes but since they never had their own country, it was not possible. Living their way in someone elses home land, causes nothing but problems. The Jews have always had a culture, but never a border.
And about this traffic camera business, you're aware that in the last year many states have outlawed traffic cameras, yes?
*** I never mentioned a word about traffic cameras. I am talking about traffic lights that save peoples lives.
Here are just a few of my comments:
In 1950, I visited the United Nations Headquarters twice, and asked that all immigration be stopped, worldwide. If you were born there, you stay there. Except for one thing, Invitation. Remember, a country has two things, and two things only - a border and a culture, if you violate either, out you go. In all of our travels, I have never seen one item of culture in some other country, that I would like to bring to our country.
--------
Already too many foreigners want to live in the USA and in Western Europe, obeying all the tenets of their previous culture that they hated enough to leave. If it was so bad that they left, why bring it along?
--------
If I want to see how the Mexicans live I will go to Mexico, not Van Nuys. If I want to know how the Algerians live, I will go to Algeria, not Paris. If we let people go from this country to that, and not require them to adopt the culture of their destination country, soon that culture, therefore that country, will disappear.
--------
Remember, a country has two things, and two things only - a border and a culture. If you violate either, out you go.
--------
When we travel we know it is their home, if we don't like it we can leave. We have never been mistreated, we have never rushed to get away from anywhere. We are there to learn about their home and way of life. We try not to tell everyone that our home and our culture is best, even though we are positive that it is. We are there to learn about their home and way of life.
--------
The cruise ship had recently been sailing in the Caribbean. The tour director said those passengers were mainly Americans, and they were so much friendlier, and so much easier to get along with, than the European passengers that sailed from Athens. We were happy to hear that.
--------
We noticed most passengers on our cruise tended to congregate with others from their own country. It’s also obvious the English are different from the Germans, who are different from the French, who are different from the Italians, who are different from the Greeks, who are different from — whoever. Viva La Difference! That’s diversity as it is intended to be, from country to country, not the phony diversity of people going to another country, and taking their culture with them, and refusing to assimilate.
Funny I'm sure the Indians were thinking the same thing a couple hundred years ago. "Look Running Bear there go those phony non-assimilating "Pilgrims" again."
Oh to be white in charge (sigh).
Please explain how stopping immigration would have prevented witch trials in the Americas among a single ethnic group and religion.
That's because they're a religious group. Pastafarians don't have their own country and like to do things their way, but that's no justification for persecution.
You seem to be trying to argue that the existence of Jewish people around the world provokes problems. The same could be easily said about Americans. Do you honestly believe this or are you just trying to provoke a response?
I apologize -- I thought that you misspoke.
I'd love to know more about this. Please first of all cite the specific case in which "Jews" are petitioning the government to turn off traffic lights one day a the week. But from what you say, this really sounds like a non-problem: public safety outweighs this group's concerns, and unless the representative government decides otherwise, the request will be refused. Any group has the freedom to petition the government for whatever it wants. That's not a problem or a crisis or a reason to justify hatred.
Start with the banks and then the auto industry.
Grab another big chunk with health care.
Stomp on the energy sector with climate change policy.
What remains after that is about 20% of the economy. Limit free speech and there goes the Internet.
Confiscate guns and resistance will be futile.
That is the Hitler-like path we are treading.
I prefer to think of myself as proactive.
And thanks for the compliment.
YOU ARE A BECKIE!!
I can tell by the words you use, they are the BECK'S and not YOURS!
The leftists in the soon-to-be minority are going to be the only ones not using them. The Hitler/liberal/progressive style policies are going to fail.
A PS before I go, I do not like being in the Mud with you!
By FOX TERMS ( the Beck, O'Orielly and that Rush)--- My rates are up , I have the top rated Conversation here! ( between you and I ( jose2 )!While at the top of my Game , I must go!
C'mon folks....let's not rewrite history.....
To jose2:
Please see your physician and have your meds adjusted.
You will feel better for this.
"The Jews even hate each other? You are a lunatic and a anti-semite."
*** Haven't you read the stories about the lady being thrown off the bus? How about the girl who was arrested because someone thought she was praying? How about elevators stopping at every floor in a hotel on a certain day of the week?
And the problem with traffic lights has happened in many cities in many countries. The LA Times story was last year sometime.
I have never had a problem with anyone I knew was a Jew, any more than with anyone who was not a Jew. I was in computer sales in the '50s, '60s, and '70s, so I met and worked with all kinds of people in 35 states, as I remember.
I have talked to many Jews about the general problems since Moses led them out of Egypt, most are shocked, and said no one ever mentioned that, especially in school or Synagogue. But I would still like to know.
You know that some people call Shakespear anti-semite, because of that one play he wrote. As I understand, he didn't just write that last year.
Is it possible to say anything about a Jew without being called anti-semite? For example if I say Madoff is a Jew, does that mean I am an anti-semite?
Another example.
---
In the mid-1950s, -------- became a Tupperware dealer. It seemed she was her own best customer, and we still have a number of the items she was stuck with when she quit a couple of months later. The part she did not like to talk about, and that I won’t go into detail here, was the rude, crude, and boorish manner that so many ladies treated her at the Tupperware parties. (The place we lived in the Los Angeles area was called "Encino Grotto" by a lot of people
----
I didn't mention anything to describe those ladies, but am I an anti-semite just because I mentioned this story?
You've clearly demonstrated that you're not the usual sort of teabagger, or wingnut, or neocon that so often drop in on us. You're not a conservative in just about ANY sense of the word. Instead, you are a neoNazi, in the George Lincoln Rockwell tradition.
Then it should be really easy to find. I've gone to the LA Times website and searched for every combination of "jews" "jewish" "traffic" "lights" and "signals" that I can think of, and haven't seen anything about the story you mentioned. Maybe those people who pull the strings behind the press are covering up the story, huh? You know what I'm talking about, right?
And thse acecdotes prove that Jews hate each other? Not in the least. I have no idea why some laty was thrown off a bus or a girl arrested because someone thought she was praying, but elevators stopping on every floor in a hotel on a certain day of the week? WTF does that have to do with Jews hating each other? You sir are racist, anti-semetic, and a fascist.
Thank you