# Why Ann Coulter is great.



## billc

In her latest column Ann Coulter claims, "Scrooge was a liberal" and for those who want quotes from my links:  http://www.anncoulter.com/

"What the Bible says about giving to the poor is: "Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians (9:7) 

Being forced to pay taxes under penalty of prison is not voluntary and rarely done cheerfully. Nor do our taxes go to "the poor." They mostly go to government employees who make more money than you do."  Ann Coulter.

Another great Column.  One of my favorite Ann Coulter quotes goes something like this, "If the main stream media insists that we refer to Islam as a religion of peace, it would be a big help if they stopped killing people."  It is not an exact quote but it catches the spirit of the column.


----------



## CanuckMA

And what is the viable alternative to those taxes she doesn't want to pay?


----------



## billc

This column is more about charitable giving and who does it.


----------



## SensibleManiac

Ann Coulter is simply a moron, this isn't political as I am not a liberal but she is simply stupid.


----------



## billc

Wow, sensible maniac, that was quite insightful.  I think you have changed my mind about how great Ann Coulter is.


----------



## Omar B

The same chick who said the 9/11 widows loved the attention.  Yeah, she's someone to listen to.


----------



## Darksoul

-Ann Coulter is a hate monger. I don't see what is so great about that.


Andrew


----------



## billc

Darksoul, another good argument, I am almost convinced.


----------



## girlbug2

I think, going back to the original post, that it effectively counters the notion that taxes are a moral way to "give to the poor". Ann Coulter wouldn't be the first to mention that bible quote in reference to taxes. But OTOH taxes do serve other purposes, it's just that they do not fulfill charitable giving.


----------



## granfire

the bible says to give 10%...

I wouldn't know this Coultard chick from Adam's dog...


----------



## Tez3

Scrooge could well have been a Liberal but in the British sense not the American. 

_"If there be any party which is more pledged than another to resist a policy of restrictive legislation, having for its object social coercion, that party is the Liberal party. (Cheers.) But liberty does not consist in making others do what you think right, (Hear, hear.) The difference between a free Government and a Government which is not free is principally thisthat a Government which is not free interferes with everything it can, and a free Government interferes with nothing except what it must. A despotic Government tries to make everybody do what it wishes; a Liberal Government tries, as far as the safety of society will permit, to allow everybody to do as he wishes. It has been the tradition of the Liberal party consistently to maintain the doctrine of individual liberty. It is because they have done so that England is the place where people can do more what they please than in any other country in the world...It is this practice of allowing one set of people to dictate to another set of people what they shall do, what they shall think, what they shall drink, when they shall go to bed, what they shall buy, and where they shall buy it, what wages they shall get and how they shall spend them, against which the Liberal party have always protested_."  
Sir William Harcourt.
 

​


----------



## Ramirez

billcihak said:


> Darksoul, another good argument, I am almost convinced.



  Yeah,  doesn't quite live up to your fine argument and reasoning in the OP does it?


----------



## Cryozombie

CanuckMA said:


> And what is the viable alternative to those taxes she doesn't want to pay?



Cutting unnecessary spending and government waste so more of the existing money is available and newer, higher taxes need not be levied.

Create more Jobs so less money needs to be given out as handouts and stop giving to those who *CAN* but *WONT* take available work.

I could go on, but considering many of the points I would raise have been brought up before and the same question you asked keeps getting re-asked I doubt anyone would listen and it wasn't the point of the OP, so I won't sidetrack the thread any further..


----------



## Steve

The formula is pretty simple.  First, take any villain (either fictional or historical... doesn't matter).  Next, call that villain a liberal.  Finish with a few out of context quotes and some historical cherry picking and you're the darling of the conservative movement.

I'll do it.  The snow miser is a liberal.   While the heat miser makes his own way, the Snow Miser rides on Santa Claus' coat tails (don't get me started on what a liberal he is, redistributing wealth like a damned hippy), the Snow Miser is popular only because Christmas is in Winter.   If Winter weren't subsidized by Santa Claus and the socialist, Christmas movement, it would be far less popular than it is.   

That's off the top of my head.  I could do better if I actually gave it a little thought.  But, then again, it's a sham...  lucrative, to be sure, but a sham nonetheless.


----------



## billc

You can sidetrack all you want when I post something.  Things go where they go, I just like to put out a start point.


----------



## Ken Morgan

stevebjj said:


> The formula is pretty simple. First, take any villain (either fictional or historical... doesn't matter). Next, call that villain a liberal. Finish with a few out of context quotes and some historical cherry picking and you're the darling of the conservative movement.


 
I dont disagree with your argument but it transcends political movements.

A similar manner of arguments can be made from any and all sides of any issue, political, political parties, religion, academia and anything else you can think of. 

I consider myself a conservative but Ann and I have very little in common, in fact in many regards she is an embarrassment.


----------



## Ray

Of the 2 Coulter books I've read, I enjoyed one and didn't care for the other.  As a conservative, I'm pretty happy with the way she can think quickly and speak well.  There are times when she certainly goes overboard.

Equating taxes with alms is mixed up.  Taxes should be to support the common good: roads, schools, military, etc.  Taxes should be limited and the scope of where they go should be far more limited than they are today.  The giving of money to the poor should be 100% to the poor with no skimming off the top, and it should be a matter of conscience.  

(I think) Tithing (or the biblical 10%) was not necessarily for the orphans, widows and poor; it was for the support of the Levite priests...and I'm open to biblical/talmudic/"torah-ic" correction.


----------



## Tez3

Ray said:


> Of the 2 Coulter books I've read, I enjoyed one and didn't care for the other. As a conservative, I'm pretty happy with the way she can think quickly and speak well. There are times when she certainly goes overboard.
> 
> Equating taxes with alms is mixed up. Taxes should be to support the common good: roads, schools, military, etc. Taxes should be limited and the scope of where they go should be far more limited than they are today. The giving of money to the poor should be 100% to the poor with no skimming off the top, and it should be a matter of conscience.
> 
> (I think) Tithing (or the biblical 10%) was not necessarily for the orphans, widows and poor; it was for the support of the Levite priests...and I'm open to biblical/talmudic/"*torah-ic"* correction.


 

Well, that's different!


----------



## CanuckMA

It was different but essentially correct. The Tithe went to the priests who used it to live and redistribute. There are also other requirements for the poor. For example, you were not to glean the corners of your fileds, those were to be left for the poor.


----------



## Tez3

CanuckMA said:


> It was different but essentially correct. The Tithe went to the priests who used it to live and redistribute. There are also other requirements for the poor. For example, you were not to glean the corners of your fileds, those were to be left for the poor.


 
I meant using the word 'Torah-ic' was different, it's a new one on me


----------



## Touch Of Death

billcihak said:


> You can sidetrack all you want when I post something.  Things go where they go, I just like to put out a start point.


A Hat will Cover that up.


----------



## David43515

Say what you will about Coulter`s opinions and politics (She`s blunt, abrasive, opinionated, and sometimes even cruel) the one thing that you can`t deny is that she bases her columns on fact. She footnotes all of her opinions with the relavant stats and info, usually either from official government offices or direct quotes from the people she lambastes. I only agree with about 1/2 of what she says, but I do find the way that she bases it on supportable fact very refreshing. I hear alot of people in the media put her down, but no one ever seems to dispute the facts that she uses as refferance. Alot of people take the time to say she`s mean......they never seem as willing to try and prove her wrong, which is a shame because it would make thier own opinions weightier and much more interesting to hear.


----------



## Ramirez

David43515 said:


> Say what you will about Coulter`s opinions and politics (She`s blunt, abrasive, opinionated, and sometimes even cruel) the one thing that you can`t deny is that she bases her columns on fact.



 Fact? I recall in one of her books that she is an evolution denier......who the hell in the 21st century doesn't believe in the empirical evidence of evolution...if you deny evolution you are a fantastist ....Coulter is a total loon.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/ann-coulter-no.html


----------



## billc

If you read that book you might understand why she believes that evolution is still theory, and not fact. i remember it having to do with large gaps in the fossil record, and something to do with the different parts of the eye that would need to simultaneously be adapted in order for the eye to have survived as an evolutionary advantage. That may have been another book, now that I think of it. Her opinions on evolution are once again based in scientific theory, just like evolution.


----------



## billc

Darwin's Black Box is just one book that takes a close look at the theory of evolution and finds some problems in the science of it. 

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1293417071&sr=1-1

If you google arguments against evolution you will find a lot of interesting science looking at wether or not evolution is as thorough an explanation as some claim that it is.


----------



## Ramirez

billcihak said:


> If you read that book you might understand why she believes that evolution is still theory, and not fact. i remember it having to do with large gaps in the fossil record, and something to do with the different parts of the eye that would need to simultaneously be adapted in order for the eye to have survived as an evolutionary advantage. That may have been another book, now that I think of it. Her opinions on evolution are once again based in scientific theory, just like evolution.



  Intelligent design is what you are referring to, that example of the eye ball has been refuted by the scientific community and it has absolutely no credibility.

  Sorry Biicihak....Anne is completely off the reservation on evolution,  so is any denier of the FACT of evolution.....it's not a "theory" as you are using the word in the vernacular, it is a scientific theory as robust as any in science as say quantum theory (which was used to develop the microchip in the computer you are using) or relativity theory which is powering the computer I am using to to reply to you now.

  If you reject evolution you should also reject DNA as evidence because DNA is the mechanism by which evolution works....in fact you could say evolution is based on better evidence than gravity...we don't have a proven mechanism by which it works.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Actually according to Ann&#8217;s facts, Canada sent troops to Vietnam, we didn&#8217;t. 

Her idiotic remark that Canada use to be a good friend of the USA and that we were lucky to be allowed to exist on the same continent as the USA really pissed me off at her.

Look there are some smart, intelligent Conservatives in the US, why do you guys need to flock to the loudmouths all the time?? McCain is an intelligent, well spoken man, he would have been a great President, he is a much better role model and leader of the conservative movement then certain nut jobs.

BTW &#8220;theory&#8221; in a scientific sense explains how something works, not that it is unproven. We have the theory of gravity, not because we don&#8217;t know it to be true, but because we are only 95% sure of how it works.

A gap in the fossil record?? We have 3.1 billion years of life and evolution to sort through, unless you are taking a sample every couple of generations, there will always be a gap in the fossil record. 

A lack of evidence does not automatically mean the only remaining answer is god, that&#8217;s a copout.


----------



## billc

McCain would have been slightly better than Obama but not by much.  By continually trying to be loved by the democrats and the main stream media he made it clear that he was too willing to compromise with the democrats on issues like taxes, and immigration.


----------



## billc

It doesn't rule him out either.


----------



## WC_lun

Ann Coulter does for conservatives what people like Al Sharpton does for progressives.  She stirs stuff up and likes saying outragious things for the attention it gives her.  It amazes me that anyone would take her seriously as a spokesperson for conservatives.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Ken Morgan said:


> Actually according to Anns facts, Canada sent troops to Vietnam, we didnt.
> 
> Her idiotic remark that Canada use to be a good friend of the USA and that we were lucky to be allowed to exist on the same continent as the USA really pissed me off at her.
> 
> Look there are some smart, intelligent Conservatives in the US, why do you guys need to flock to the loudmouths all the time?? McCain is an intelligent, well spoken man, he would have been a great President, he is a much better role model and leader of the conservative movement then certain nut jobs.
> 
> BTW theory in a scientific sense explains how something works, not that it is unproven. We have the theory of gravity, not because we dont know it to be true, but because we are only 95% sure of how it works.
> 
> A gap in the fossil record?? We have 3.1 billion years of life and evolution to sort through, unless you are taking a sample every couple of generations, there will always be a gap in the fossil record.
> 
> A lack of evidence does not automatically mean the only remaining answer is god, thats a copout.


According to a show I watched recently, Canadian Troops aided in the evacuation.
Sean


----------



## Tez3

Touch Of Death said:


> According to a show I watched recently, Canadian Troops aided in the evacuation.
> Sean


 
Canadian troops as part of the UN Peace Keeping force, wearing the blue beret rather than their Canadian ones.

 "_1973 - Vietnam. International Commission for Control and Supervision (ICCS). 248 personnel helped monitor the ceasefire and return of prisoners to Vietnam. Completed in 1974."_

_ 

http://members.shaw.ca/kcic1/peacekeepers2.html
_


----------



## Ken Morgan

Touch Of Death said:


> According to a show I watched recently, Canadian Troops aided in the evacuation.
> Sean


 
The point is according Ann, we had combat troops in Vietnam, we never did.

_"Between 28 January 1973 and 31 July 1973, Canada provided 240 peacekeeping troops to Operation Gallant, the peace keeping operation associated with the International Commission of Control and Supervision (ICCS) Vietnam, along with Hungary, Indonesia, and Poland. Their role was to monitor the cease-fire in South Vietnam per the Paris Peace Accords." _


----------



## Ramirez

Ken Morgan said:


> The point is according Ann, we had combat troops in Vietnam, we never did.
> 
> _"Between 28 January 1973 and 31 July 1973, Canada provided 240 peacekeeping troops to Operation Gallant, the peace keeping operation associated with the International Commission of Control and Supervision (ICCS) Vietnam, along with Hungary, Indonesia, and Poland. Their role was to monitor the cease-fire in South Vietnam per the Paris Peace Accords." _


----------



## CanuckMA

billcihak said:


> McCain would have been slightly better than Obama but not by much. By continually trying to be loved by the democrats and the main stream media he made it clear that *he was too willing to compromise* with the democrats on issues like taxes, and immigration.


 

And that sums up the problems with the system nowadays. When somebody is willing to listen to the other side, he is labelled as soft.


----------



## CanuckMA

The closest we came to Vietnam was a small number of Canadians enlisting in the US military and going.


----------



## Steve

Ken Morgan said:


> I dont disagree with your argument but it transcends political movements.
> 
> A similar manner of arguments can be made from any and all sides of any issue, political, political parties, religion, academia and anything else you can think of.
> 
> I consider myself a conservative but Ann and I have very little in common, in fact in many regards she is an embarrassment.


I agree.  It's called character assassination and it's common on all sides.  IMO, recognizing it is important, and what's said about Ann Coulter is less interesting to me than what a thread like this says about its author.  When someone lauds Ann Coulter (or anyone else who has made their living in such a manner) in ways such as posting a thread entitled "Why Ann Coulter is great." it really only says to me that this is a person who can't see it for what it is.


----------



## Big Don

Coulter is great, simply because she drives the left barking mad.


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> Coulter is great, simply because she drives the left barking mad.



  She doesn't bother me.  I think she's kind of hot.  She's clearly also smart and sharp witted.  

I also think she doesn't believe most of what she says.  As I said before, she's playing a game that she's very good at playing.  But it's still a game.


----------



## Steve

CanuckMA said:


> And that sums up the problems with the system nowadays. When somebody is willing to listen to the other side, he is labelled as soft.



And if, in light of new evidence, changing times or compelling arguments, their position evolves, they are a flip-flopper.


----------



## Ramirez

stevebjj said:


> She doesn't bother me.  I think she's kind of hot.  She's clearly also smart and sharp witted.
> 
> I also think she doesn't believe most of what she says.  As I said before, she's playing a game that she's very good at playing.  But it's still a game.



  Maybe at the start of her career...but as Vonnegut pointed out be careful of the masks we wear because we become the mask....I think she has been playing the right wing bat guano mad neo-con so long she has become exactly that.


----------



## Big Don

stevebjj said:


> She doesn't bother me.  I think she's kind of hot.  She's clearly also smart and sharp witted.
> 
> I also think she doesn't believe most of what she says.  As I said before, she's playing a game that she's very good at playing.  But it's still a game.


She's OK, but, she needs a sandwich or something, I shouldn't be able to count her ribs through a loose sweater...


----------



## Empty Hands

Big Don said:


> Coulter is great, simply because she drives the left barking mad.



Took the words right out of my mouth.  In the end, that's all that matters.  Honesty, integrity, honor, rigorous thought, consistency...none of that matters to you as long as The Left is upset.

See also: Sarah Palin.


----------



## SensibleManiac

> Wow, sensible maniac, that was quite insightful. I think you have changed my mind about how great Ann Coulter is.



I'm not trying to change your mind, just stating facts.


----------



## Ramirez

SensibleManiac said:


> I'm not trying to change your mind, just stating facts.



  LOL....not sure why he thinks he is so important that either you or Darksoul would waste your time trying to convince him otherwise of Ann Coulter....the very fact he cleaves to her opinion makes it a lost cause, or that he thinks his OP was so great that you need to address it.


----------



## Chifuka-ryu

billcihak said:


> One of my favorite Ann Coulter quotes goes something like this, "If the main stream media insists that we refer to Islam as a religion of peace, it would be a big help if they stopped killing people." It is not an exact quote but it catches the spirit of the column.


 

Oh?
As compared to the millions, if not BILLIONS of people killed by christianity? You know, the crusades, the killing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, the massacres in Afghanistand now and everthing else.

That quote is just propaganda to salve the conscious of Americans as they try to stamp Islam into the ground. If Americans want Muslims to stop killing them, they should pull back to the borders and leave the rest of the world alone.


----------



## billc

Actually the biggest body counts so far are awarded to the various socialist and atheist movements of the 20th century. These movements killed a lot of people around the planet and their totals are going to be difficult to beat. One hopes, anyway.

Pagans helped a little as well.


----------



## Ken Morgan

billcihak said:


> Actually the biggest body counts so far are awarded to the various socialist and atheist movements of the 20th century. These movements killed a lot of people around the planet and their totals are going to be difficult to beat. One hopes, anyway.
> 
> Pagans helped a little as well.


 
Actually totalitarianism all throughout history is the source of the greatest mass murders in history, religious or otherwise. 
An old argument.


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> Actually the biggest body counts so far are awarded to the various socialist and atheist movements of the 20th century. These movements killed a lot of people around the planet and their totals are going to be difficult to beat. One hopes, anyway.
> 
> Pagans helped a little as well.



Yes, indeed, they died like flies...


----------



## Steve

billcihak said:


> Actually the biggest body counts so far are awarded to the various socialist and atheist movements of the 20th century. These movements killed a lot of people around the planet and their totals are going to be difficult to beat. One hopes, anyway.
> 
> Pagans helped a little as well.


What's an atheist movement?  I've never heard that one before.


----------



## Ramirez

stevebjj said:


> What's an atheist movement?  I've never heard that one before.



  yeah,  like you can motivate anyone from lack of belief.


----------



## billc

The various socialist movements of th 20th century were all atheist in nature.  The national socialists in germany were anti-religion, especially the catholic religion, although the ss had a pagan side to them.  The soviets in Russia, China, Cambodia, Latin America were also atheists.  The Japanese socialists in world war two had a belief that the emporer was a god, as well as shinto, and budhism.  So, atheism and a little paganism helped rack up the biggest body count in history.  So far.


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> The various socialist movements of th 20th century were all atheist in nature.  The national socialists in germany were anti-religion, especially the catholic religion, although the ss had a pagan side to them.  The soviets in Russia, China, Cambodia, Latin America were also atheists.  The Japanese socialists in world war two had a belief that the emporer was a god, as well as shinto, and budhism.  So, atheism and a little paganism helped rack up the biggest body count in history.  So far.



your weird history cocktail is making me nausious.

Are you not ever tired of this nonsense?

naturally Japanese and Cambodian point of view will differ from, say, American and German versions.

And for the last time: If somebody believes the emperor is god make them hardly a socialist!


----------



## billc

In Stephen Ambrose's books, Citzen Soldier and D-Day, I don't remember which one it was, he mentions that the Japanese government had  a 70% tax rate at the time of ww2.  He stated that they believed that the government had the right to direct the efforts of the people to the betterment of the people.  That is why the Japanese were socialists.


----------



## Ramirez

billcihak said:


> The Japanese socialists in world war two had a belief that the emporer was a god, as well as shinto, and budhism.



 atheists that believed in a God, that is.........awesome.


----------



## Ramirez

billcihak said:


> The various socialist movements of th 20th century were all atheist in nature.  The national socialists in germany were anti-religion, especially the catholic religion, although the ss had a pagan side to them.



  And you think Hitler , his henchmen and any other Europeans came to be genocidal anti semites because of atheism.....or could growing up in a society where anti semitism was promoted and accepted by Christian churches for over 1500 years have had something to do with it?


----------



## Steve

critical thinking is a good thing.  It sounds to me like you need to do some non partisan research into what atheism and socialism really mean.  You might also consider looking up paganism. Calling shinto and buddhism pagan religions is a little silly.


----------



## Empty Hands

billcihak said:


> ...he mentions that the Japanese government had  a 70% tax rate at the time of ww2.  He stated that they believed that the government had the right to direct the efforts of the people to the betterment of the people.  That is why the Japanese were socialists.



By that criteria, the United States was socialist at the time too.  From 1939-1944, the top rate was 75%.  From 1944-1945, the top rate was 94%.  Both rates only applied to incomes above a certain level.  Greatest Generation = Commies?

The term truly has lost all meaning.  To you, "whatever I don't like" = "socialist".


----------



## billc

Pagan:"By the fifth century CE, its meaning evolved to include all non-Christians..."  I believe shinto, Budhism, and emporer worship fit into the "non-christian" category.  Yes, I think that FDR was a socialist.  Look at the massive government take over of the most basic business activities.  In particular the case of the man who was forced by FDR's government to not grow food for his own use.  That isn't free market capitalism.  You could almost say that world war 2 was the war of the socialists,  as governments around the world, with great control over their populations went to war with each other.  FDR was hemmed in by 200 years of checks and balances on the centralization of power in the government.  The other socialists of the time were not, and they rampaged around the world.


----------



## billc

Empty hands, I am not fond of several people here on martial talk, but I don't consider them socialists, yet.


----------



## Blade96

ann coulter just didnt want to pay her taxes.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> Pagan:"By the fifth century CE, its meaning evolved to include all non-Christians..." I believe shinto, Budhism, and emporer worship fit into the "non-christian" category. Yes, I think that FDR was a socialist. Look at the massive government take over of the most basic business activities. In particular the case of the man who was forced by FDR's government to not grow food for his own use. That isn't free market capitalism. You could almost say that world war 2 was the war of the socialists, as governments around the world, with great control over their populations went to war with each other. FDR was hemmed in by 200 years of checks and balances on the centralization of power in the government. The other socialists of the time were not, and they rampaged around the world.


 
Where can I find an 'emporer' to worship, will it cost much or is it for socialists only?

Bilichik you do know that the Nazis were Fascists don't you? As were Mussolini's lot oh and the Spanish, very much NOT socialists.
Please do your history and forget this blind hate of the thing you've invented and called socialism. It's really not healthy......................though very amusing!


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> Please do your history and forget this blind hate of the thing you've invented and called socialism. It's really not healthy......................though very amusing!



ah, the amusement factor is wearing thing after the umpteenth rerun: Not Fox News = COMMUNIST


----------



## Steve

I'm reminded of a time when a jehovas witness asked me if I believed in god.  I answered no.  next she asked if I believed in satan.  I didn't tell her wh a silly question that was.

I'm pretty sure that there are more buddhists in the world than christians.  Combining every non christian religion throughout history is pretty sillyand in the context of this discussionboth lady and intellectually dishonest. 
christianity has only existed for 2010 years.  comparing that to every other religion and non religion doesn't make much sense.

 I don't blame you, bill.  Its threads like this that make me wish there were mental self defense classes, teaching people some basic critical thinking skills.


----------



## CanuckMA

billcihak said:


> Pagan:"By the fifth century CE, its meaning evolved to include all non-Christians..."


 

So I'm a Pagan?


----------



## Ken Morgan

Modern humans have been on the earth for 200 000 &#8211; 400 000 years, belief in a single deity has existed for maybe 3500 years, the Christian god, about 2000. There have also been only about 100 billion modern humans ever to have existed.

So essentially for only 1% of our existence, we&#8217;ve had morals and ethics, everyone else, in every other time was a heathen barbarian who didn&#8217;t know how to love their children, didn&#8217;t know how to respect their fellow man, and were involved in wars all the time. 

Do me a favour? Go call up some fundamental American Christian leaders or some members of the RC clergy and ask them about stealing money from hardworking parishioners while diddling prostitutes and little boys, and ask them about morality.


----------



## Darksoul

-Look, I just want to know if these threads are being posted as serious comment/discussion material for the board or simply to get a rise out of people. I don't mind have my beliefs challenged, heck, I love learning about other people's ways of thinking or point of views, simply because it makes me a better person, broadens the mental horizons. But some of this seems to be targeted troll mongering.

(Okay, that last line is made up, but I'm sure everyone understands what I'm saying.)


Andrew


----------



## Ken Morgan

Darksoul said:


> -Look, I just want to know if these threads are being posted as serious comment/discussion material for the board or simply to get a rise out of people. I don't mind have my beliefs challenged, heck, I love learning about other people's ways of thinking or point of views, simply because it makes me a better person, broadens the mental horizons. But some of this seems to be targeted troll mongering.
> 
> (Okay, that last line is made up, but I'm sure everyone understands what I'm saying.)
> 
> 
> Andrew


 
Agreed, there seems to be a great deal of trolling lately, whether its from a Troll is another matter.


----------



## billc

From  Chapter 4, Left Right Dichotomy, Thomas Sowell, in his book "Intellectuals and Society":  "...there is remarkably little difference between Communists and Fascists, except for rhetoric, and there is far more in common between fascists and even the moderate left than between them and the traditional conservatives in the American sense."

"Communism is socialism with an international focus and totalitarian methods.  Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, defined fascism as national socialism in a state that was totalitarian, a term that he also coined.  The same idea was echoed in the name of the National Socialist German Worker's Party in Germany, Hitler's party, now almost always abbreviated as Nazis, thereby burying its socialist component.  Viewed in retrospect, the most prominent feature of the Nazis-racism in general and anti-jewish racism in particular-was not inherent in the fascist vision, but was an obsession of Hitler's party, not shared by the fascist government of Mussolini in Italy or that of Franco in Spain."


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> From  Chapter 4, Left Right Dichotomy, Thomas Sowell, in his book "Intellectuals and Society":  "...there is remarkably little difference between Communists and Fascists, except for rhetoric, and there is far more in common between fascists and even the moderate left than between them and the traditional conservatives in the American sense."
> 
> "Communism is socialism with an international focus and totalitarian methods.  Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, defined fascism as national socialism in a state that was totalitarian, a term that he also coined.  The same idea was echoed in the name of the National Socialist German Worker's Party in Germany, Hitler's party, now almost always abbreviated as Nazis, thereby burying its socialist component.  Viewed in retrospect, the most prominent feature of the Nazis-racism in general and anti-jewish racism in particular-was not inherent in the fascist vision, but was an obsession of Hitler's party, not shared by the fascist government of Mussolini in Italy or that of Franco in Spain."



No matter ow many time you parade this 'evidence' out. It's still not the same. A cow is not a pig even if both end up on the dinner plate...


----------



## billc

From Chapter 4, Left and Right Dichotomy, in Thomas Sowell's book, "intellectuals and society":

"What distinguished Fascist movements in general from Communist movements was that the Communists were officially committed to governmental ownership of the means of production,while fascists permitted private ownership of the means of production, so long as government directed the private owner's decisions and limited what profit rates they could recieve.  Both were totalitarian dictatorships but Communists were officially internationalist while Fascists were officially nationalist.  However, Stalin's proclaimed policy of "Socialism in one country" was not very different from the Fascists' proclaimed policy of national socialism"

"WHEN IT CAME TO PRACTICE, THERE WAS EVEN LESS DIFFERENCE, SINCE THE COMMUNIST INTERNAITONAL SERVED THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE SOVIET UNION, DESPITE WHATEVER INTERNATIONALIST RHETORIC IT USED."


----------



## billc

But they are still both mammals, as communism, fascism, and national socialism are all socialism under different names.  Names, like Nazi, which are used by one group of socialists, the communists, to get out from under their history of mass murder by calling the other group fascists.


----------



## billc

From Chapter 4, Left and Right dichotomay, from Thomas Sowell's book, "intellectuals and Society":

"In short, the notion that Communists and Fascists were at polar opposite poles ideologically WAS NOT TRUE, even in theory, much less in practice.   As for similarities and differences between these two totalitarian movements and liberalism on the one hand, or conservatism(American) on the other, there was far more similarity between these totalitarian's agendas and those ot the left than with the agendas of most conservatives.  FOR EXAMPLE, AMONG THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDAS OF THE FASCISTS IN ITALY AND/OR THE NAZIS IN GERMANY WERE:

1-GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF WAGES AND HOURS OF WORK
2-HIGHER TAXES ON THE WEALTHY
3-GOVERNMENT-SET LIMITS ON PROFITS
4-GOVERNMENT CARE FOR THE ELDERLY
5-A DECREASED EMPHASIS ON THE ROLE OF RELIGION AND THE FAMILY IN PERSONAL OR SOCIAL DECISIONS
6GOVERNMENT TAKING ON THE ROLE OF CHANGING THE NATURE OF PEOPLE, USUALLY BEGINNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD....
THESE ARE OF COURSE THINGS OPPOSED BY MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED "CONSERVATIVES" IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY ARE THINGS MUCH MORE CONGENIAL TO THE GENERAL APPROACH  OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED "LIBERALS" IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CONTEXT.


----------



## billc

Socialists, who tend to be less religous, wether atheists or not, have murdered more people in the name of helping people than religion has.  You may not like to think that Communists, fascists and National socialists share the title socialism, but you cannot make it not true.


----------



## CanuckMA

Wow, I had no idea that I lived in such a scary country. I need to get out.

NOW!!


----------



## billc

Ken, you missed the point of the atheist part.  I am not saying atheists and pagans are bad.  Ramirez or Omar, I forget which one said it, stated that religion has killed more people around the world.  They are wrong.  Atheists, who happen to follow the belief in socialism, and pagans, the SS in germany or the imperial soldiers in Japan who worshiped the Emporer, are not in fact Chrisitans.  Because they are not chrisitians, they come under the nonjudgmental term Pagan, or those who do not believe in chrisitanity.  Thats all.


----------



## CanuckMA

So no one in the SS was a Xtian?

You have no clue what Paganism is, anymore than what socialism is. 

Have a good look around the world and find out which countries have democratic socialist governments. 

BTW, by your definition, Jesus was a Pagan.:uhyeah:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

granfire said:


> No matter ow many time you parade this 'evidence' out. It's still not the same. A cow is not a pig even if both end up on the dinner plate...


 
So rather then refute his assertion, you just dismiss it out of hand with no 'evidence' to back it up.

So, in order to enlighten us, tell us the differences between facism and socialism that purport to show that they are not even remotely similar.


----------



## Ken Morgan

billcihak said:


> Ken, you missed the point of the atheist part. I am not saying atheists and pagans are bad.


 
Dude....you said that atheists are responsible for some of the worst crimes in human history......how can i misconstrue that?

BTW:


_The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable._
Sam Harris


----------



## billc

Thomas Sowell makes a point about the democratic left and their (in my words) evil twins the totalitarian left being similar in their goals as you saw above.  If you have a chance, check out that chapter when you go to borders or barnes and noble.  also, When I first got cable it seemed like every other program on the history channel was something about Nazi Germany.  I started calling it the Nazi channel because of all those programs.  One program in particlular dealth with the SS.  It talked about this new type of teutonicish religion they made up and it showed one of their "temples".   THe hard core nazis blamed christians for some sort of Aryan gencide and the Nazis did not like them because of it.  That is why I would consider the members of the SS leadership, in particular, pagans, as in not being christians.


----------



## billc

Ken, the local wiccans are not bad people, the budhists are not bad people.  The hard core socialists do not believe in religion.  Shinto in japan is not evil, but the soldiers of imperial Japan were probably shintoists.  It has more to do with a mixture of atheism and paganism with socialism.  I mean, how would you explain it.  Let's for a second focus on the communists.  They murdered about 100 million people around the world, if not more.  Communists are atheists.  Marx, as has been oft repeated said that religion was the opiate of the masses.  Nazis were atheists or that silly SS religion.  They killed how many people?  How do you explain the  killing, since these groups are not religous?


----------



## billc

I believe all these socialist movements claimed to be based in science and reason over religion.  True, organized groups that have massive power with no checks and balances eventually do bad things.  My whole point to the response, "religion has killed more people" was to show that the mass murder of the 20th century was done by atheists.  That's all.  Can you deny that these murderers were atheists?


----------



## billc

From a readers review of the new book, "America Amnesia: How the U.S. Congress forced the surrenders of South Vietnam and Cambodia"

"During that entire year, sometimes no more than 7 miles from the DMZ where combat was raging, the hamlets were peaceful and friendly. The elders were very polite and often fed us; the children adored us. Not once were we ever harassed or injured. We had great opportunities to talk with the Vietnamese. They feared the communists. Some who were Christians or Buddhists had left North Vietnam as Ho Chi Minh was killing people of faith after they defeated the French. The people in the hamlets were grateful that we were there and they feared that we would leave."

Even the Vietnamese communists were murdering religous people.


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> From a readers review of the new book, "America Amnesia: How the U.S. Congress forced the surrenders of South Vietnam and Cambodia"
> 
> "During that entire year, sometimes no more than 7 miles from the DMZ where combat was raging, the hamlets were peaceful and friendly. The elders were very polite and often fed us; the children adored us. Not once were we ever harassed or injured. We had great opportunities to talk with the Vietnamese. They feared the communists. Some who were Christians or Buddhists had left North Vietnam as Ho Chi Minh was killing people of faith after they defeated the French. The people in the hamlets were grateful that we were there and they feared that we would leave."
> 
> *Even the Vietnamese communists were murdering religous people*.



yes, love. It was a war....


----------



## CanuckMA

When you're talking about dictatorship, don't put too much stock at what they call themsekves. Hint, what was the official name of East Germany? What is the official name of North Korea?

Pay more attention as to what the economic model of countries is called, especially by others. And look at which countries are socialist now.


----------



## billc

We aren't talking about people killed in the confusion of combat, but the intentional targeting of civilians for murder simply because they were religous believers.


----------



## Ramirez

billcihak said:


> We aren't talking about people killed in the confusion of combat, but the intentional targeting of civilians for murder simply because they were religous believers.



 you mean like Jews by Catholics during the inquisition or  Bosnian Muslims by Christian Serbs?


----------



## Ken Morgan

:headbangin:


----------



## Tez3

If 'socialists' hate religion etc how come we have Christian Socialist parties in Europe? there are plenty of Christian communists too. Even Wiki has a page on Christian communists!
http://particracy.wikia.com/wiki/Christian_Communist_Party

http://www.thecsm.org.uk/

http://thechristiansocialist.blogspot.com/


The Nazis attitude towards religion was far more complicated than you present. In fact most things you present us with are far more complicated than you seem to think. the Catholic church had a strange reltionship with the Nazis, and bearing in mind that Germany was and is a basically Protestant country (whereas Austria where Hitler was born is a Catholic one) it brings even more complications with the subject of the Nazis and religion. Hitler cited Martin Luther in his justification for the Holcaust, and generally the Lutherans were comfortable with the Nazi's anti semitism, many of course were not. In 1934 the Lutheran bishops pledged their overwelming support for Hitler and his party with all that means.

From: Jadwiga Biskupska (Cornell University), "Hitler & _Triumph of the Will_: A Nazi Religion in the Catholic Style" in _Undergraduate Quarterly_, September/November 2004, page 147 (URL: http://www.undergradquarterly.com/EJournal/2004Q2/Biskupska.pdf): 
_"Catholicism and Nazism have a more complicated relationship than some might think. Hitler both despised and admired various aspects of the Roman Catholic Church. Though the Nazi movement was superficially areligious, even anti-religious, the Nazi's greatest piece of propaganda and self-aggrandizement, Leni Riefenstahl's 1934 film about the Nuremberg Party Rally, Triumph of the Will, is in many ways profoundly religious. The _[COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]_film_[/COLOR][/COLOR]_ both makes use of Catholic religious imagery and draws on the Catholic sacramental tradition to give dignity and legitimacy to its construction of Adolf Hitler as the "god" of the Nazi movement... Since the beginning, Catholicism and Nazism had an uncomfortable coexistence. They jarred long before Riefenstahl began filming Hitler's rally in the summer of 1934... The Concordat, along with many other more famous agreements and treaties signed by the Fuehrer, was quickly violated, and the Church was ineffective in protecting Catholics from all manner of religious and cultural harassment. Alfred Rosenberg, the closest Nazism as an ideology ever came to having a philosopher, was consistently and virulently anti-Catholic... Hitler himself was not purely or simply anti-Catholic or anti-Church, and certainly not so before his rise to power. He was a baptized Catholic, as was his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, and a number of other prominent members of his administration. Interestingly, though both men rejected their Catholic faith and recognized that they had excommunicated themselves, neither ever formally left the Church and dutifully continued to pay church taxes until their respective deaths. Hitler's own mother, to whom he was very close, was a devoted Catholic, and Hitler received Catholic schooling during his childhood in Austria... In his extensive, often contradictory writings and "table-talk," Hitler reveals an ambivalent attitude toward the Catholic Church. As an institution on German soil, he is very much opposed to it, and he ridicules the teachings of Church fathers and the practice of the Catholic faith... he detested the doctrines, of the Roman Church... Institutionalized religion, in Hitler's view, was a waning phenomenon... "_​


----------



## billc

I never said all socialists hate religion, just that the socialists who committed the mass murders in Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and so on did.


----------



## Empty Hands

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So rather then refute his assertion, you just dismiss it out of hand with no 'evidence' to back it up.



Bill has had evidence put in front of him several times.  He has yet to engage or even acknowledge any of it.  I'm not sure why anyone else should feel compelled to engage in a task of futility yet again.  He shares that characteristic with others on the board and in society at large.  If you don't even acknowledge the points and evidence put against you, then you are acting in bad faith and no one should pay any attention to you.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> So, in order to enlighten us, tell us the differences between facism and socialism that purport to show that they are not even remotely similar.



The difference between the conservative tendency and the liberal tendency is in the attitude to social change, the place of the past and the future, and the role of social institutions.  Conservatism is fundamentally resistant to change, emphasizes the superiority of the past to the present, and seeks to preserve social institutions and mores.  Liberalism/leftism promotes change, looks to the future and future change as a source of social stability, and generally wishes to alter social institutions and mores of the past to bring them into line with current and future values.  These definitions are universal across contexts (a Belgian conservative and a Saudi conservative have very different beliefs but a common tendency for their context) and are independent of any particular views.  Any particular conservative belief today may not be conservative tomorrow, and the same goes for liberal beliefs.

So, as to fascism.  Fascism was a fundamentally reactionary movement.  Fascism looked to the glories of the past, particularly the glories of a particular race, as a model for the future.  Fascism promoted the unit of the Nation and the People and the Leader above all others.  Fascism promoted traditional values of the past, such as the domestic role of women and the superiority of working the land to working in a factory (pastoralism).  Fascism co-opted traditional social institutions and promoted them for their own use (esp. business - another name for Mussolini's fascism is "corporatism".).  Fascism was supported by and supported the traditional conservative institutions of society (business, military) and repressed institutions committed to social change (trade unions especially).  The NSDAP in particular used socialism as a cosmetic shield - none of the socialist party planks such as land redistribution were ever acted upon.

Socialism generally and communism in particular, while totalitarian, had opposite impulses.  Their view was to the future, in nearly every way, and was committed to altering or abolishing traditional roles, mores and institutions.

None of this is acts as a value judgment.  Totalitarian reaction is just as bad as totalitarian revolution.  Neither extreme is to be desired.  The thing is what the thing is however, and you can't twist history to suit your own ends and your parochial political goals.

As I also said, all of this evidence has been presented before, and none of it has ever been reacted to or even acknowledged.  Thus, the ones making the arguments are acting in bad faith IMO.  They are obviously not interested in anything approaching "debate."


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> I never said all socialists hate religion, just that the socialists who committed the mass murders in Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and so on did.


 

No, you are still not there, the Nazis may have had socialist in their title but they were *RIGHT WING* FASCISTS. 
And Russia (it wasn't Russia then btw) China, Vietnam and Cambodia were communist not socialists. 
Please, do look up your history properly.


----------



## billc

Ramirez, remember, the statement was that religion has killed more people than any thing else.  I looked up some quick stats on the inquisition and historians put their murder total at around 31,000 to 130,000, with a lot of the deaths ocurring from medieval prison conditions.
THe atheists of the various socialist movements racked up a murder rate of over 100 million people, around the globe, not just in Europe.
Also, the inquisition was in the way distant past when everyone was less civilized and people were violent and cruel as a common practice.  Just watch any one of the cable shows, Rome, The tudors, and so on to get a taste of what it was like back then.(I know, they are television, but they show the cruelty of the times)
The communists, nazis and fascists, were just 70 years ago and they were modern nations, not medieval barely literate populations living in horrible conditions.  The past religous persecutions do not compare with the modern socialist murders of the 20th century.


----------



## billc

As 5-0 kenpo pointed out, please define Right-wing fascist vs. a communist/socialist.  Remember, socialism is the intermediate step to true communism.  The defenders of communism always say that these murderers were not true communists but socialists.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> Ramirez, remember, the statement was that religion has killed more people than any thing else. I looked up some quick stats on the inquisition and historians put their murder total at around 31,000 to 130,000, with a lot of the deaths ocurring from medieval prison conditions.
> THe atheists of the various socialist movements racked up a murder rate of over 100 million people, around the globe, not just in Europe.
> Also, the inquisition was in the way distant past when everyone was less civilized and people were violent and cruel as a common practice. Just watch any one of the cable shows, Rome, The tudors, and so on to get a taste of what it was like back then.(I know, they are television, but they show the cruelty of the times)
> The communists, nazis and fascists, were just 70 years ago and they were modern nations, not medieval barely literate populations living in horrible conditions. The past religous persecutions do not compare with the modern socialist murders of the 20th century.


 

Watch cable shows to learn history? You got to be kidding surely?

I have rarely found any television show to present anything other than soundbites and what they think will sell their programmes.

Clearly though rather than argue from a knowledgable point of view we are expected to swap television programmes.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> As 5-0 kenpo pointed out, please define Right-wing fascist vs. a communist/socialist.* Remember, socialism is the intermediate step to true communism*. The defenders of communism always say that these murderers were not true communists but socialists.


 

Says who?

I think you actually make things up as you go along.


----------



## Empty Hands

Tez3 said:


> Says who?
> 
> I think you actually make things up as you go along.



Says Thomas Sowell.  Or Rush Limbaugh.  Or Mark Levin.

_Every single argument _I've seen Bill make on this board I've seen first elsewhere coming from the conservative echo chamber.  He's just doing his part to spread the confusion around.  It's not even original.


----------



## billc

Yes, I have heard that the "Fascists" looked to the past and the communists looked to the future, but that is a superfiicial difference.  As I have stated before, there are many flavors of ice cream, vanilla, choclolate and strawberry, but they are all still ice cream.   Socialism puts the government in control of the means of production, the extent varies on the needs of the socialists at the time.  Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism points out that Hitler needed the business community to supply his war machine.  Mussolini had to contend with the Catholic Church as did Franco, but they were still big government in charge of everything movements.  

American conservatives, believe in strict checks and balances on the government, a small government and the rights of the individual.  These are the opposite of what the various types of socialists believe.

The funny part is when people say Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh are Nazis.  They have nothing in common with nazis, yet the term nazi is used to smear them.  You notice they don't call Coulter and Limbaugh communists, the group that actually had the same beliefs as the nazis.  

Another funny thing, communists, wether you believe they are the same as national socialists or not, killed over 100 million people, and yet, you have people today who still walk around claiming they are communists.  How can they do that?


----------



## billc

I believe Marx talked about the intermediary step towards communism when the workers would rise up and sieze the means of production.  And after a brief period they would move on to the ideal of non-ownership of property, that whole "from each according to their ability,to each according to their needs.

I mention these television shows because they like to show the more gruesome parts of the time periods that they cover.  The gladiators, the murders, the rack, the hot pokers.  It is a quick walk through the horrors of more primitive times, and some pretty attractive actresses as well.


----------



## billc

Tez, this is not my original source for Marx, but it was easily found in wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

For orthodox Marxists, socialism is the lower stage of communism based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" while upper stage communism is based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"; the upper stage becoming possible only after the socialist stage further develops economic efficiency and the automation of production has led to a superabundance of goods and services.[39


----------



## billc

Why do people still use the term communist to describe themselves and some of their political parties?  Why do democrats still use the term democrat to name their political party?  Shouldn't these names be cast out of polite society?


----------



## Empty Hands

billcihak said:


> American conservatives, believe in strict checks and balances on the government, a small government and the rights of the individual.  These are the opposite of what the various types of socialists believe.



As I stated before, conservatism and liberalism are independent of any particular set of conservative or liberal beliefs.  A small government and respect for the rights of the individual _was the belief that coined the term liberalism!  _It was promulgated by thinkers like John Stuart Mill.  In colonial America, conservatism meant monarchism.  Free market thinking was also once a liberal idea.

Conservatism and liberalism/leftism are contextual.  Thus it does you *no good whatsoever *to compare the beliefs of the Nazis and modern American conservatives directly and then claim that Nazism has nothing to do with conservatism.  Looking to the past or future *is part of the very definition of conservatism*, it is not some surface aspect for you to gloss over so you get to claim that your political opponents are Nazis.

If your simplistic thinking was true, then modern American conservatism could be the *only *marker of conservatism for all places and all times.  This is so obviously false that I'm surprised any thinking individual could promote it.


----------



## Empty Hands

billcihak said:


> Why do people still use the term communist to describe themselves and some of their political parties?  Why do democrats still use the term democrat to name their political party?  Shouldn't these names be cast out of polite society?


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> Why do people still use the term communist to describe themselves and some of their political parties? Why do democrats still use the term democrat to name their political party? Shouldn't these names be cast out of polite society?


 

The fact you say there are actresses in these shows indictate that you are watching fiction, I hope one of these shows wasn't the Tudors as that is very much a work of fiction with a young actor playing the elderly Henry. 

Marxism is what it says on the label....Marxism, it's a 'brand' if you like of communism. There are many 'types' of communism, in fact where you get people you will always get various thoughts on things. It's what thinking people do, think things out and come up with their own ideas. 
The ice cream comment doesn't hold true either because ice cream isn't always what it seems, some don't even have cream in them therefore aren't ice cream. Another erroneous argument I'm afraid.


----------



## billc

Tez, did I make up the fact that socialism was considered a necessary but intermediate step to true communism?


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> Tez, did I make up the fact that socialism was considered a necessary but intermediate step to true communism?


 

It may be thought that by some but not all socialists, you generalise far too much. My father was a lifelong supporter of the Labour Party, he was a socialist but never in all his long years did he consider himself or ever contemplate being a communist.
If I stated all American were bigots the downpour of scorn and flame would descend on my head but you feel free to label people as you think fit, you really need to stop doing that if any meaningful discussion is to take place.


----------



## CanuckMA

billcihak said:


> Tez, did I make up the fact that socialism was considered a necessary but intermediate step to true communism?


 
Have a look at Canada, the UK, most of Europe, the Scandinavian countries. All socialists. Have been for a long time. Will be for the foreseeable future. I don't see any of those turning communist anytime soon.

Explain Canada. We have a Conservative government in a socialist country.


----------



## billc

Remember, it was stated that religion killed more people, I responded, that no, more people were killed by socialists and atheists.  Thomas Sowell talks about the democratic left, like in the countries you mentioned, and the totalitarian left, the ones who murdered those people.  That's all.  The religion killed more people statement is not true, that's all.  Other than soccer, I like the people in those countries.  Really, I am not into sports of any sort, so not liking soccer isn't really not liking soccer by itself.


----------



## billc

THey won't turn communist because socialism doesn't work.  Why would you go all the way over the edge with communism?


----------



## CanuckMA

billcihak said:


> THey won't turn communist because socialism doesn't work. Why would you go all the way over the edge with communism?


 

We seem to be going along just fine, thank you. The last recession was not as long or as deep up here. So, yes, socialism does work.


----------



## billc

We'll see.  I hope you are right.


----------



## Touch Of Death

billcihak said:


> THey won't turn communist because socialism doesn't work.  Why would you go all the way over the edge with communism?


Not one "communist" country was ever truly communist; so, communism is really uncharted territory.
Sean


----------



## billc

Yeah, it may only take another 100 million or so dead people to get it juuust right.


----------



## Touch Of Death

billcihak said:


> Yeah, it may only take another 100 million or so dead people to get it juuust right.


Maybe.
Sean


----------



## Ramirez

billcihak said:


> Ramirez, remember, the statement was that religion has killed more people than any thing else.  I looked up some quick stats on the inquisition and historians put their murder total at around 31,000 to 130,000, with a lot of the deaths ocurring from medieval prison conditions.
> THe atheists of the various socialist movements racked up a murder rate of over 100 million people, around the globe, not just in Europe.
> Also, the inquisition was in the way distant past when everyone was less civilized and people were violent and cruel as a common practice.  Just watch any one of the cable shows, Rome, The tudors, and so on to get a taste of what it was like back then.(I know, they are television, but they show the cruelty of the times)
> The communists, nazis and fascists, were just 70 years ago and they were modern nations, not medieval barely literate populations living in horrible conditions.  The past religous persecutions do not compare with the modern socialist murders of the 20th century.



  I don't know why you keep conflating atheism with this bete noir you have created called "socialism"...which as most posters have pointed out are called either fascism and/or communism traditionally.  The Italian fasicists by the way were Catholic.

  so explain to me a couple of things,  Orthodox Christian Serbs and Catholic Croats were at each other's throats for centuries,  the only "Christian" good times were under communist Tito,  communism went away and they went back at each other's throats.  See, in place with no Jews, Hispanics,  blacks the zany Christians can still improvise

  Then again we have the foremost Christian in the world Pope Pius XII who somehow didn't see fit to condemn Hitler, the Nazis, Germans etc. even while they dragged off Jews to gas chambers from right under his window....and spare me the apologists on how he secretly saved Jews or had other considerations because of Catholics in Germany....he should have used his balls for something other than altar boys and done something substantial.

  And how about those peaceful Christians in Ireland until recently,  two flavours of Christianity almost indistinguishable from each other and those peace loving Christians still managed to bomb and shoot each other.

 In fact I am having a hard time taking this love of humanity that you are professing when the OP in this thread was about the raging hard on you have for Ann Coulter who suggested that we invade Muslim countries,  kill their leaders and forcibly convert them to Christianity....got to love that peace loving right winger, the milk of human kindness just flows through her.


----------



## billc

I believe my point still stands.  Socialists over 100million murdered, Religion?


----------



## Blade96

billcihak said:


> I believe my point still stands.  Socialists over 100million murdered, Religion?



It doesnt because those countries that we called communism and that belief has been around for how long vs how many millenia for religion?


----------



## Ramirez

billcihak said:


> I believe my point still stands.  Socialists over 100million murdered, Religion?


----------



## Tez3

Ramirez said:


> I don't know why you keep conflating atheism with this bete noir you have created called "socialism"...which as most posters have pointed out are called either fascism and/or communism traditionally. The Italian fasicists by the way were Catholic.
> 
> so explain to me a couple of things, Orthodox Christian Serbs and Catholic Croats were at each other's throats for centuries, the only "Christian" good times were under communist Tito, communism went away and they went back at each other's throats. See, in place with no Jews, Hispanics, blacks the zany Christians can still improvise
> 
> Then again we have the foremost Christian in the world Pope Pius XII who somehow didn't see fit to condemn Hitler, the Nazis, Germans etc. even while they dragged off Jews to gas chambers from right under his window....and spare me the apologists on how he secretly saved Jews or had other considerations because of Catholics in Germany....he should have used his balls for something other than altar boys and done something substantial.
> 
> And how about those peaceful Christians in Ireland until recently, two flavours of Christianity almost indistinguishable from each other and those peace loving Christians still managed to bomb and shoot each other.
> 
> In fact I am having a hard time taking this love of humanity that you are professing when the OP in this thread was about the raging hard on you have for Ann Coulter who suggested that we invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders and forcibly convert them to Christianity....got to love that peace loving right winger, the milk of human kindness just flows through her.


 

Damn good post! Just one thing, the Christians in Northern Ireland are actually still bombing and shooting each other, it hasn't stopped, it just doesn't get as much publicity these days.

Seems to me that Billcihak is calling everyone he doesn't agree with a 'socialist' and he doesn't agree with so many people simply because he is uneducated. Either that or he is trolling here with his constant posts about the Right. I'm tending to believe he is winding people up now with his posts and disrailment of other peoples threads.

There is no discussion now it's just the constant repetition of 'the socialists kill people' 'the socialists hate religion' etc etc all posted with the assurance of a child who discovers it can play with it's own faeces.
Still only posts in the study, no martial arts posts at all, so a troll?


----------



## billc

The Study:For the serious discussion of non-martial arts topics including world events, social and political issues, or other items not covered in the other forums. Topics in here should stay focused on their topic, with new threads created where topics split.

-social issues
-political issues
-world events

Hmmm, I think I post on those things here in the study.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> The Study:For the serious discussion of non-martial arts topics including world events, social and political issues, or other items not covered in the other forums. Topics in here should stay focused on their topic, with new threads created where topics split.
> 
> -social issues
> -political issues
> -world events
> 
> Hmmm, I think I post on those things here in the study.


 

The word here though is '*discussion*', you don't actually discuss. You post a link up, lecture us on the evils of socialism as you see it, there is no discussion. No witty banter back and forth, no searing insights, no brilliant repartee....it's just 'socialism is bad'. My dear boy, it's boring! that's about the worse sin you can commit in my eyes in the study, being a bore. Something controversial is fine as long as it's not insulting anyone but really, the same post time and time again, it's just passe now. No offfence intended of course old boy.


----------



## billc

None taken old girl.


----------



## billc

Tez, old girl, I do post on the martial arts side, you should check out my posts.  They are less political and social over there.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> Tez, old girl, I do post on the martial arts side, you should check out my posts. They are less political and social over there.


 

Ah but you can't make your mind up whether you are a beginner or an experienced martial artist! 

You should be more political here though, politics is a world of interesting things.


----------



## billc

Tez, I am game, pick a spot on the martialtalk side and I'll chat about whatever topic it is.  Now I have trained in Kosho shorei ryu kempo, Modern Arnis, dabbled in Pekiti Tirsia kali, Serrada kali, Lameco kali and I am currently studying Dekiti Tirsia Sirada Kali.  I had two years of Judo in high school and have tried Aikido, hapkido, and western fencing.  My main area of enjoyment is the FMA.  I also like movies, besides the political ones, and I like to read sci-fi and fantasy.  Pick one, anyone or even one I am not listing and we can chat.


----------



## billc

Guns are a good topic as is general self-defense, Tez.


----------



## WC_lun

I think part of the issue when it comes to equating political leanings to religion is they aren't the same thing.  It is comparing apples to oranges.  You can be socialist and a devout Christian.  You can also be athiest and a hard line right wing conservative in a Democratic country.  

I don't know if religon has killed more people than anything else is true or not.  There may not be any way to prove it one way or another.  However, what I think is blatantly obvious, the thinking of people who believe thier way is the only proper and true way, to the extent that anyone not like them are somehow less, is responsible for more death than anything else in our history.  That includes both political and religious belief.  It takes a lot of faith in a belief to kill a person over it...or should.  When that faith is blind, that is a recipe for disaster.  Unfortunately, many people seem set on teaching that lesson time and again.


----------



## CanuckMA

I guess I should not exist.

- I am an Orthodox Jew, devout in my faith
- I am fiscally conservative
- I am in favour of a strong social safety net and government healthcare

People are a lot more complex than talk show hosts make them out to be.


----------



## Ken Morgan

CanuckMA said:


> I guess I should not exist.
> 
> - I am an Orthodox Jew, devout in my faith
> - I am fiscally conservative
> - I am in favour of a strong social safety net and government healthcare
> 
> People are a lot more complex than talk show hosts make them out to be.


 
Hell I&#8217;m more screwed up then you are!!
I&#8217;m a conservative, atheist, who loves the arts and believes in a strong social safety net and government healthcare


----------



## Ken Morgan

FYI

_"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them."_ -Hitler in a speech on April 12, 1922.

_"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." 1933_

_"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator."_ Mein Kampf.

_"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." _Mein Kampf


----------



## billc

I have moved the health care topic to its own thread.  See you there.


----------



## granfire

CanuckMA said:


> I guess I should not exist.
> 
> - I am an Orthodox Jew, devout in my faith
> - I am fiscally conservative
> - I am in favour of a strong social safety net and government healthcare
> 
> People are a lot more complex than talk show hosts make them out to be.





Ken Morgan said:


> Hell Im more screwed up then you are!!
> Im a conservative, atheist, who loves the arts and believes in a strong social safety net and government healthcare



OH MY GOD!!!!
Do you play cards with Santa and the Easterbunny?


----------



## Tez3

granfire said:


> OH MY GOD!!!!
> Do you play cards with Santa and the Easterbunny?


 
Who? As Jews we are hardly likely to are we?


----------



## billc

Tez, Santa may be out for you but what about the easter bunny?  Unless the rabbit rises from the dead it should be okay to get some chocolate bunnies, shouldn't it?


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> Who? As Jews we are hardly likely to are we?



LOL, no, the obvious trades that don't go together: being religious and so obviously communist! 
I mean, REALLY, a _strong safety net _and _government health care_? And religion....


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> Tez, Santa may be out for you but what about the easter bunny? Unless the rabbit rises from the dead it should be okay to get some chocolate bunnies, shouldn't it?


 
Easter for me means memories of school where the so called Christian children would taunt and sometimes even try to hit me for being the Jesus killer so no, no Easter bunny I'm afraid.


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> Easter for me means memories of school where the so called Christian children would taunt and sometimes even try to hit me for being the Jesus killer so no, no Easter bunny I'm afraid.



Wow, nice neighborhood....

Sadly, the wit to counter this stupidity does not come til much later in life....


----------



## Touch Of Death

The goddess Eastre allows any faith to sample her chocolates. :ultracool
Sean


----------



## CanuckMA

Tez3 said:


> Easter for me means memories of school where the so called Christian children would taunt and sometimes even try to hit me for being the Jesus killer so no, no Easter bunny I'm afraid.


 
Similar. Heck, I went to Catholic schools. But in a nice wine sauce, the easter bunny may serve a purpose...

Santa is obviously an anti-semite. Never visited me. :ultracool


----------



## SensibleManiac

> 1-GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF WAGES AND HOURS OF WORK
> 2-HIGHER TAXES ON THE WEALTHY
> 3-GOVERNMENT-SET LIMITS ON PROFITS
> 4-GOVERNMENT CARE FOR THE ELDERLY
> 5-A DECREASED EMPHASIS ON THE ROLE OF RELIGION AND THE FAMILY IN PERSONAL OR SOCIAL DECISIONS
> 6GOVERNMENT TAKING ON THE ROLE OF CHANGING THE NATURE OF PEOPLE, USUALLY BEGINNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD....
> THESE ARE OF COURSE THINGS OPPOSED BY MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED "CONSERVATIVES" IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY ARE THINGS MUCH MORE CONGENIAL TO THE GENERAL APPROACH OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED "LIBERALS" IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CONTEXT.



Ok?


----------



## Tez3

granfire said:


> Wow, nice neighborhood....
> 
> Sadly, the wit to counter this stupidity does not come til much later in life....


 
Not a neighbourhood, a city but if it hadn't of been that it would have been something else. People bully or try to bully people they consider different, it's nothing to do with religion or lack. I didn't get bullied because even then I would belt anyone who tried. People blame religion for wars, inhumanities etc but that's a cop out, they are trying to excuse the fact that it's people that cause wars and are cruel.


----------



## ballen0351

Kinda funny you all blasted Ann Coulter for being mean, stupid, hateful ect ect ect.
Yet you all do the exact same thing to billcihak because he believes differently then you. Ive got no dog in this hunt since I dont listern to Coulter and have never read her books but I read thru this entire thread and the only person Ive seen even try to post an argument to defend his points of view was billcihak. The rest just resort to name calling. Then when called out on it and asked for a real argument or thought all you say is "well we have tried before he just dont get it" Classy


----------



## Darksoul

ballen0351 said:


> Kinda funny you all blasted Ann Coulter for being mean, stupid, hateful ect ect ect.
> Yet you all do the exact same thing to billcihak because he believes differently then you. Ive got no dog in this hunt since I dont listern to Coulter and have never read her books but I read thru this entire thread and the only person Ive seen even try to post an argument to defend his points of view was billcihak. The rest just resort to name calling. Then when called out on it and asked for a real argument or thought all you say is "well we have tried before he just dont get it" Classy


 

Really? lol

 -People are blasting a certain someone for reasons other than simply believing differently.

Andrew


----------



## ballen0351

Darksoul said:


> Really? lol
> 
> -People are blasting a certain someone for reasons other than simply believing differently.
> 
> Andrew


 
So its wrong for Coulter to do it but as long as your bashing a conservitive its fair game?


----------



## billc

Ballen 0351, you should see how they react if you say anything nice about Sarah Palin.


----------



## WC_lun

Yeah, yeah, conservatives are such victims of the progressive left...  LOL

Both billcihak and Ann Coulter are taking heat because of stuff that they say.  Both of them have a right to believe what they want and say what they want...and even post what they want, within certain guidelines.  However, there are a lot of us who disagree with what they have to say.  I do agree name calling is pointless, even when frustrated.


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> However, there are a lot of us who disagree with what they have to say. I do agree name calling is pointless, even when frustrated.


 
Thats all im saying you cant critize Coulter for name calling by calling her names.
You want to disagree thats great a good debate keeps the mind young but really to say she crawls in "bat guano" or whatever that post was.  To say she stupid but have nothing to back it up other then well shes stupid because I say shes stupid. Really does not help your cause.  To jump down billcihak throat when I see him actually posting his sources and articles to back up his argument if you agree or not at least hes putting up facts not just wikipedia links.


----------



## WC_lun

ballen0351 said:


> when I see him actually posting his sources and articles to back up his argument if you agree or not at least hes *putting up facts* not just wikipedia links.


 
No, most of the time he is not putting up facts.  He is putting up opinion pieces written by people he agrees with.  This is far from relying on facts.  He is supporting his arguements by citing people who believe similiar things, but that is a far cry from citing "facts."


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> No, most of the time he is not putting up facts. He is putting up opinion pieces written by people he agrees with. This is far from relying on facts. He is supporting his arguements by citing people who believe similiar things, but that is a far cry from citing "facts."


 
OK fair enough some of it is opinion articles but its more then alot post at least hes backing up his arguments. Much like Anne Coulter who seems to be able back up her arguments.  Ive stated I dont listen to her show but since posting in this topic ive watch a few dozen clips of her and she seems like she can def. hold her own.


----------



## Omar B

ballen0351 said:


> Kinda funny you all blasted Ann Coulter for being mean, stupid, hateful ect ect ect.
> Yet you all do the exact same thing to billcihak because he believes differently *then* you. Ive got no dog in this hunt since I dont listern to Coulter and have never read her books but I read thru this entire thread and the only person Ive seen even try to post an argument to defend his points of view was billcihak. The rest just resort to name calling. Then when called out on it and asked for a real argument or thought all you say is "well we have tried before he just dont get it" Classy



Yeah, and I would learn the difference between "then" and "than" if I were you.

But yes, I've read her books because I am a conservative, but she is the worst of the lot as far as I'm concerned.  No better than Sharpton.


----------



## billc

Omar, really, then vs. than, wow, you got him good.  Sharpton vs. Coulter, you shouldn't even try that one.  Remember the scam with Tawana Brawley, you know, where Sharpton tried to destroy an innocent mans life.

In 1998, Pagones was awarded $345,000 (he sought $395 million) through a lawsuit for defamation of character that he had brought against Sharpton, Maddox and Mason. The jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones, Maddox for two and Mason for one. The jury deadlocked on four of the 22 statements over which Pagones had sued and eight statements were found non-defamatory.[26] In a later interview, Pagones said the turmoil by the accusations of Brawley and her advisers had cost him his first marriage and much personal grief.[27

Coulter is so far above Sharpton, you should know better.

Ballen 0-351, some of the members here on martialtalk insist that you supply vast amounts of research data when you post here on the threads, plus proper grammer punctuation and spelling so be warned, they are watching.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> Omar, really, then vs. than, wow, you got him good. Sharpton vs. Coulter, you shouldn't even try that one. Remember the scam with Tawana Brawley, you know, where Sharpton tried to destroy an innocent mans life.
> 
> In 1998, Pagones was awarded $345,000 (he sought $395 million) through a lawsuit for defamation of character that he had brought against Sharpton, Maddox and Mason. The jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones, Maddox for two and Mason for one. The jury deadlocked on four of the 22 statements over which Pagones had sued and eight statements were found non-defamatory.[26] In a later interview, Pagones said the turmoil by the accusations of Brawley and her advisers had cost him his first marriage and much personal grief.[27
> 
> Coulter is so far above Sharpton, you should know better.
> 
> Ballen 0-351, some of the members here on martialtalk insist that you supply vast amounts of research data when you post here on the threads, plus proper *grammer* punctuation and spelling so be warned, they are watching.


 

It's 'grammar'. 


Posting up your opinion is fine, no one has a problem with that. Say it's your opinion or preface your sentence with 'I think'. No one needs proof if it's your opinion, they can disagree with it or try to change your mind but you don't need proof for what you think. However when you post something up as a statement of fact then you do have to provide some proof not just a link to someone spuriously famous who thinks the same as you do or more likely you think the same as them. That's not proof nor I'm afraid is magazine or newspaper articles. Fpr example the Mail on Sunday published today ( it's the sister paper to the one you keep quoting from) says that a television series today made in the UK which has been sold to the States is to be cut and have an American narrator as the American television company thinks Americans aren't clever enough to follow the plot which they consider too intricate for American viewers to follow!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...xecutives-fearing-plot-baffle-US-viewers.html

Now do we regard this as proof that Americans aren't intelligent or get baffled easily? Of course we don't! It's actually very condescending of the American company and I wouldn't say that the people who will consider watching this programme ( which is quite good actually though it is escapism, just poshed up) are too thick to understand what's going on. However I gather you would regard it as truth because it's written in a right wing newspaper where everything they report is true, you keep posting links to it as proof of what you claim. Like the other articles you post it is merely reporting on other peoples claims and using them for their own purposes.

Correct grammar and spelling save a lot of misunderstandings, it's a pleasure to read something that is set out correctly. My eyes aren't as good as they used to be and looking at thousands of words not paragraphed for example means I often don't bother reading it. Correct spelling and punctuation helps understanding when all you have to go by is the written word, if there's no facial movements or voice tones to help you understand how the poster means things it's important the post is written in a way that doesn't leave it open to misinterpretation.


----------



## ballen0351

Omar B said:


> Yeah, and I would learn the difference between "then" and "than" if I were you.
> 
> But yes, I've read her books because I am a conservative, but she is the worst of the lot as far as I'm concerned. No better than Sharpton.


 
Ahh yes im sorry oh Guardian of Grammar.  I do not write for a living like you do so that will not be the last mistake you find.


----------



## Tez3

ballen0351 said:


> Ahh yes im sorry oh Guardian of Grammar. I do not write for a living like you do so that will not be the last mistake you find.


 

If you don't check your spelling you'll find it often changes the meaning of the sentence you are writing and it may not mean what you want it to.

I had someone email once asking about our 'marital' arts class. You can see how that could be taken. In a serious context it could cause a big misunderstanding.


----------



## ballen0351

Tez3 said:


> If you don't check your spelling you'll find it often changes the meaning of the sentence you are writing and it may not mean what you want it to.
> 
> I had someone email once asking about our 'marital' arts class. You can see how that could be taken. In a serious context it could cause a big misunderstanding.


 I know I got the point I was just making a joke.  I made a mistake I am sorry Ill try harder next time.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Tez3 said:


> If you don't check your spelling you'll find it often changes the meaning of the sentence you are writing and it may not mean what you want it to.
> 
> I had someone email once asking about our 'marital' arts class. You can see how that could be taken. In a serious context it could cause a big misunderstanding.


 
I can just imagine a marital arts classes run by Tez.
Right, tossing your partners in that group, leather over there, ground work in that corner..
Hmmmmm..might be fun..


----------



## Ramirez

ballen0351 said:


> Ahh yes im sorry oh Guardian of Grammar.  I do not write for a living like you do so that will not be the last mistake you find.



  I think most third graders know the difference between then and than.


----------



## ballen0351

Ramirez said:


> I think most third graders know the difference between then and than.


 
 Cant all be as smart as you are ramirez.  I'll try harder.  Sorry for the typo.  Youre welcome to come over and give me a lesson if it will make you feel better


----------



## Ramirez

ballen0351 said:


> Cant all be as smart as you are ramirez.



 As long as you know your place.


----------



## ballen0351

Ramirez said:


> As long as you know your place.


 Sure do Cheech


----------



## SensibleManiac

> Kinda funny you all blasted Ann Coulter for being mean, stupid, hateful ect ect ect.
> Yet you all do the exact same thing to billcihak because he believes differently then you. Ive got no dog in this hunt since I dont listern to Coulter and have never read her books but I read thru this entire thread and the only person Ive seen even try to post an argument to defend his points of view was billcihak. The rest just resort to name calling. Then when called out on it and asked for a real argument or thought all you say is "well we have tried before he just dont get it" Classy



???

If I didn't know any better I would say this is billcihak

It makes just about as much sense as his posts.

If I'm wrong then just read your post to yourself and think about how little sense it makes.

Very little of it has anything to do with our beliefs as has to do with the facts.


----------



## ballen0351

SensibleManiac said:


> ???
> 
> If I'm wrong then just read your post to yourself and think about how little sense it makes.
> 
> Very little of it has anything to do with our beliefs as has to do with the facts.


 
I guess im just tired but I have no idea what your trying to say here.


----------



## billc

He's not me but I welcome him to the discussion. He has an interesting perspective on the topics.  His fearlessness is also a neat addition.


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> He's not me but I welcome him to the discussion. He has an interesting perspective on the topics.  His fearlessness is also a neat addition.


you mean he is your long lost twin who toots the same horn...


----------



## Omar B

ballen0351 said:


> Ahh yes im sorry oh Guardian of Grammar.  I do not write for a living like you do so that will not be the last mistake you find.



Well considering we are communicating in text it would be nice to have good grammar, sentence structure and syntax.  Not as if one usually listens to someone who can get an idea across in the real world.


----------



## Omar B

billcihak said:


> Omar, really, then vs. than, wow, you got him good.  Sharpton vs. Coulter, you shouldn't even try that one.  Remember the scam with Tawana Brawley, you know, where Sharpton tried to destroy an innocent mans life.
> 
> In 1998, Pagones was awarded $345,000 (he sought $395 million) through a lawsuit for defamation of character that he had brought against Sharpton, Maddox and Mason. The jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones, Maddox for two and Mason for one. The jury deadlocked on four of the 22 statements over which Pagones had sued and eight statements were found non-defamatory.[26] In a later interview, Pagones said the turmoil by the accusations of Brawley and her advisers had cost him his first marriage and much personal grief.[27
> 
> Coulter is so far above Sharpton, you should know better.
> 
> Ballen 0-351, some of the members here on martialtalk insist that you supply vast amounts of research data when you post here on the threads, plus proper grammer punctuation and spelling so be warned, they are watching.



Yes I did compare the two.  They are both pretty much the same except far left and far right.  Sharpton went to court for it, but the are both loudmouth alarmists.


----------



## Tez3

Omar B said:


> Well considering we are communicating in text it would be nice to have good grammar, sentence structure and syntax. Not as if one usually listens to someone who can get an idea across in the real world.


 
Someone doesn't agree with us, I got an anonymous bad rep for talking about grammar! Always amusing to me as a Jew to be called a Nazi, good taste from whoever wrote it without the guts to add their name.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Tez3 said:


> Someone doesn't agree with us, I got an anonymous bad rep for talking about grammar! Always amusing to me as a Jew to be called a Nazi, good taste from whoever wrote it without the guts to add their name.


In whomever's defense, it is quite common in the US to emphasize a point by using Nazi as a sort of adjective noun. The Jewish people are not supposed to get a pass; in fact, Jewish entertainers came up with it in the first place. Almost everyone in the US knows exactly which show your are referencing, when the term "Soup Nazi" comes up, and it has little or nothing to do with real Nazis or Jews. I am sorry that you are offended by some REP NAZI... see.:uhyeah:
Sean


----------



## Tez3

Touch Of Death said:


> In whomever's defense, it is quite common in the US to emphasize a point by using Nazi as a sort of adjective noun. The Jewish people are not supposed to get a pass; in fact, Jewish entertainers came up with it in the first place. Almost everyone in the US knows exactly which show your are referencing, when the term "Soup Nazi" comes up, and it has little or nothing to do with real Nazis or Jews. I am sorry that you are offended by some REP NAZI... see.:uhyeah:
> Sean


 

It's obviously a cultural thing because in Europe ( where we suffered under the Nazis, Americans only fought them) it's not something you bandy around, in fact it's less shocking to swear than call someone a Nazi. It's a big no no and you can end up in court for libel/slander if you call someone a Nazi. It's akin to calling a black person the N word I'm afraid. So yes I'm offended.

A radio presenter here was sacked for calling someone he was interviewing a Nazi, there were complaints to the communications watchdog. It is offensive.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10618638

History is too close to us to have being called a Nazi seen as just another word.


----------



## Touch Of Death

I didn't say it was right, I am just telling you what to expect from us American types.:ultracool
Sean


----------



## Tez3

Touch Of Death said:


> I didn't say it was right, I am just telling you what to expect from us American types.:ultracool
> Sean


 
I think this is why Americans wonder why things they say and do aren't received by the rest of the world in the way they expect!


----------



## Ramirez

Tez3 said:


> Someone doesn't agree with us, I got an anonymous bad rep for talking about grammar! Always amusing to me as a Jew to be called a Nazi, good taste from whoever wrote it without the guts to add their name.



 Yep, anonymous is the same as coward.


----------



## ballen0351

Omar B said:


> Well considering we are communicating in text it would be nice to have good grammar, sentence structure and syntax. Not as if one usually listens to someone who can get an idea across in the real world.


 
 Yes and as stated several times now I got it.  I guess this is another "I cant beat his argument so ill just attack the person."  No problem Ill go ahead an apologize right now for any and all future typos, grammar mistakes, misspelled words, missing commas, periods, question marks.  Im truly sorry I do not write to your abilities.  Ill try harder but I can make no promises.


----------



## Tez3

ballen0351 said:


> Yes and as stated several times now I got it. I guess this is another "I cant beat his argument so ill just attack the person." No problem Ill go ahead an apologize right now for any and all future typos, grammar mistakes, misspelled words, missing commas, periods, question marks. Im truly sorry I do not write to your abilities. Ill try harder but I can make no promises.


 
You are taking this the wrong way, you weren't being attacked. If you feel you are please report it to the mods.

You and I are thousands of miles and a whole culture apart so what we write has to be plain so we understand each other and hopefully avoid more misunderstandings. I can't see your face or hear your voice to help me understand what you mean so writing as clear as you can with as correct a spelling as you can really helps. Putting things into paragraphs is a big help because it's hard to read on screen if things are one big paragraph. Sometimes I either have to print off posts or miss them because my eyes go funny after a little while of trying to read long posts without paragraphs.

We also have a lot of people for whom English isn't their first language who read and post here, if we keep the posts to plain English it helps them too. It isn't a purely American site, there's people from all over Europe, as well as the Middle East and Asia that post here.

I'm not meaning to sound patronising because I'm sure if you think about it you know that writing so people can understand you is important for clarity. I know Omar doesn't need to pick on you about your English if he wants to disgree with your arguments on anything else. He's quite good at disagreeing on a lot of subjects without rancour.


----------



## Steve

Touch Of Death said:


> In whomever's defense, it is quite common in the US to emphasize a point by using Nazi as a sort of adjective noun. The Jewish people are not supposed to get a pass; in fact, Jewish entertainers came up with it in the first place. Almost everyone in the US knows exactly which show your are referencing, when the term "Soup Nazi" comes up, and it has little or nothing to do with real Nazis or Jews. I am sorry that you are offended by some REP NAZI... see.:uhyeah:
> Sean


FWIW, calling someone a "nazi" is about as tasteless as saying that someone "drank the koolaid."  Both are commonly used, and both are rude and tasteless.  I'd say on the spectrum of bad taste they both fall somewhere worse than farting at the dinner table but not as bad as making sexual jokes about someone's daughter.


----------



## Omar B

ballen0351 said:


> Yes and as stated several times now I got it.  I guess this is another "I cant beat his argument so ill just attack the person."  No problem Ill go ahead an apologize right now for any and all future typos, grammar mistakes, misspelled words, missing commas, periods, question marks.  Im truly sorry I do not write to your abilities.  Ill try harder but I can make no promises.



Or you could play the victim continually.  Our common ground here is English, not the version that has been corrupted by bad grammar, spelling, etc by internet speak.  I always find it funny how the more people spend online (where it's mostly text) the less they can communicate effectively.

It's not about beating the argument.  The OP does not have one, he has a statement, quotes and opinions of other people.   I've said my bit and he hasn't many more quotes to post as his argument.  I think Rush is on vacation.


----------



## Tez3

stevebjj said:


> FWIW, calling someone a "nazi" is about as tasteless as saying that someone "drank the koolaid." Both are commonly used, and both are rude and tasteless. I'd say on the spectrum of bad taste they both fall somewhere worse than farting at the dinner table but not as bad as making sexual jokes about someone's daughter.


 

The expression 'drank the koolaid' is unknown here so doesn't mean anything at all. You'd get odd looks if you used it here because we don't know what koolaid is nor do we know the reference.

I've had to look it up and thanks to good old Wiki now know what it means, agreed...very tasteless and rude.

Being called nazi here is probably on par with making sexual comments about someone's _infant_ daughter.


----------



## Touch Of Death

stevebjj said:


> FWIW, calling someone a "nazi" is about as tasteless as saying that someone "drank the koolaid."  Both are commonly used, and both are rude and tasteless.  I'd say on the spectrum of bad taste they both fall somewhere worse than farting at the dinner table but not as bad as making sexual jokes about someone's daughter.


I've used the words, "drank the Koolaid" a few times myself. :ultracool
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Tez3 said:


> The expression 'drank the koolaid' is unknown here so doesn't mean anything at all. You'd get odd looks if you used it here because we don't know what koolaid is nor do we know the reference.
> 
> I've had to look it up and thanks to good old Wiki now know what it means, agreed...very tasteless and rude.
> 
> Being called nazi here is probably on par with making sexual comments about someone's _infant_ daughter.


You have never heard of the "Jone's Town" Mass Suicide? How old are you?
Sean


----------



## Tez3

Touch Of Death said:


> You have never heard of the "Jone's Town" Mass Suicide? How old are you?
> Sean


 
21?

I've heard of it, never associated 'koolaid' with it though but then again I've never seen 'koolaid'.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Tez3 said:


> 21?
> 
> I've heard of it, never associated 'koolaid' with it though but then again I've never seen 'koolaid'.


You don't have to see it to know it killed 900 people.:ultracool

Sean


----------



## Tez3

Touch Of Death said:


> You don't have to see it to know it killed 900 people.:ultracool
> 
> Sean


 
Well when I looked it up Wiki said it wasn't actually koolaid that was used, it was something called  'flavor aid' which is probably what was reported in the British press so I wouldn't have connected it to anything anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid


----------



## Touch Of Death

Tez3 said:


> Well when I looked it up Wiki said it wasn't actually koolaid that was used, it was something called  'flavor aid' which is probably what was reported in the British press so I wouldn't have connected it to anything anyway.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid


Americans also commonly use big brand names for lower priced products.:ultracool
Sean


----------



## granfire

Touch Of Death said:


> Americans also commonly use big brand names for lower priced products.:ultracool
> Sean



It's like calling all facial tissue 'Kleenex'....


----------



## Steve

I'm going to call it.  This thread is officially beyond saving.  Official time of death: 1/3/11 at approximately 11:44 am Pacific.


----------



## ballen0351

Tez3 said:


> You are taking this the wrong way, you weren't being attacked. If you feel you are please report it to the mods.
> 
> You and I are thousands of miles and a whole culture apart so what we write has to be plain so we understand each other and hopefully avoid more misunderstandings. I can't see your face or hear your voice to help me understand what you mean so writing as clear as you can with as correct a spelling as you can really helps. Putting things into paragraphs is a big help because it's hard to read on screen if things are one big paragraph. Sometimes I either have to print off posts or miss them because my eyes go funny after a little while of trying to read long posts without paragraphs.
> 
> We also have a lot of people for whom English isn't their first language who read and post here, if we keep the posts to plain English it helps them too. It isn't a purely American site, there's people from all over Europe, as well as the Middle East and Asia that post here.
> 
> I'm not meaning to sound patronising because I'm sure if you think about it you know that writing so people can understand you is important for clarity. I know Omar doesn't need to pick on you about your English if he wants to disgree with your arguments on anything else. He's quite good at disagreeing on a lot of subjects without rancour.


 naa I would never cry to a Mod.  This is the internet I dont take anything serious on the internet.  For All I know youre a 12 year old boy in Texas and Im a 72 year old female in a prison in Germany.
Im just saying I got it you made your point I made a mistake and i have said im sorry how many times do I need to say Sorry?

Then and Than is not a big difference and Im sure it confused nobody.  Everyone got the point but I understood the point the 1st 3 times.  Im 100% sure you can find much worse examples of my bad grammar in some of my other posts.


----------



## Tez3

ballen0351 said:


> naa I would never cry to a Mod. This is the internet I dont take anything serious on the internet. For All I know youre a 12 year old boy in Texas and Im a 72 year old female in a prison in Germany.
> Im just saying I got it you made your point I made a mistake and i have said im sorry how many times do I need to say Sorry?
> 
> Then and Than is not a big difference and Im sure it confused nobody. Everyone got the point but I understood the point the 1st 3 times. Im 100% sure you can find much worse examples of my bad grammar in some of my other posts.


 

A 12 year old boy in Texas, how very droll.

Well you can always PM me and I'll give you my work number, you can phone me up at great expense to confirm I am who I say I am, or you can 'befriend' me on FB rofl.


----------



## Ramirez

Tez3 said:


> 21?
> 
> I've heard of it, never associated 'koolaid' with it though but then again I've never seen 'koolaid'.



  LOL....kool-aid is colonies thing.


----------



## Blade96

Tez3 said:


> Someone doesn't agree with us, I got an anonymous bad rep for talking about grammar! Always amusing to me as a Jew to be called a Nazi, good taste from whoever wrote it without the guts to add their name.



i got one too recently for my views on prostitution where i said most of the people agreeing with it being legalized are men and most people in that prostitution most sex workers are women. got one for the gender insult, the person never left a name. Wuss. I dont mind a neg rep, a person has something to say. Thats ok, just wont you please leave your name, pretty please? 

Also some people also pos repped me and forgot to leave a name too. 

If I negative rep anyone I'll leave my name. Same if I pos repp someone.

and if i didnt know better I'd think Bill and Ball were twins too. They think and write and have similar beliefs, even the first four letters of their user names are the same, all you do is change the middle letter.

I think I'll call them the twins. They seem a lot like twins, and no thats not an insult. I'd say the same about two other people who seem very the same as well.


----------



## Steve

I think that if ballen is a sock puppet, the mods will sort it out.  If he's not, it's rude to call him one. 

This thread has devolved into petty bickering.  Isn't there a rule that a thread should be allowed to die once nazis have been mentioned and people start arguing rules of grammar?  Seriously, guys.  Am I the only one who thinks this thread started off bad and has only gotten worse?


----------



## granfire

stevebjj said:


> I think that if ballen is a sock puppet, the mods will sort it out.  If he's not, it's rude to call him one.
> 
> This thread has devolved into petty bickering.  Isn't there a rule that a thread should be allowed to die once nazis have been mentioned and people start arguing rules of grammar?  Seriously, guys.  Am I the only one who thinks this thread started off bad and has only gotten worse?



Well, considering the original Poster, this thread has yielded a pretty good discussion.

I don't think Ballen is trolling or being an alter for anybody, but he sure matches ole bill! 

However, when the grammar gets in the way of understanding - or spelling for that matter, it's worth pointing it out, sans the 'Nazi' remark.


----------



## Tez3

Any thread started by Billichik seems to wander and meander it's own way through here, I don't believe he minds as I think he's said before he starts them and they'll go where they will. It depends whether the mods or the posters mind I suppose. 

It's more like a real life conversation really which will take different avenues and discuss many things started by the original subject. 

I suspect that the OP subject is exhausted because I don't think there's probably much more to say about the woman, people either like her, don't like her or don't know who she is.


----------



## Tez3

granfire said:


> It's like calling all facial tissue 'Kleenex'....


 

Nah they're all paper hankies!


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> Nah they're all paper hankies!



Tempo, for the German people


----------



## Tez3

granfire said:


> Tempo, for the German people


 
Yeah, we get them from either Lidl or Aldi here.


----------



## Empty Hands

stevebjj said:


> Am I the only one who thinks this thread started off bad and has only gotten worse?



All of these agenda driven, disingenuous trolling threads are terrible "discussions".  However, they clearly weren't meant to be real discussions to begin with.


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> Yeah, we get them from either Lidl or Aldi here.



GAWD! you got ALDI *and* Lidle?!!!!!!! that is liek so not fair! :wah::wah::wah:

(I gt an Aldi 45 minutes or so away...I am too German to drive that often...)


----------



## Tez3

granfire said:


> GAWD! you got ALDI *and* Lidle?!!!!!!! that is liek so not fair! :wah::wah::wah:
> 
> (I gt an Aldi 45 minutes or so away...I am too German to drive that often...)


 

They are both within walking distance lol! We have many troops here who used to be based in Germany so want their bratties, currywurst and frikadellas. We put mayonaise on our fries too lol! We miss the schnell imbiss you see.


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> They are both within walking distance lol! We have many troops here who used to be based in Germany so want their bratties, currywurst and frikadellas. We put mayonaise on our fries too lol! We miss the schnell imbiss you see.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAH, more German than the Germans! :lfao:

and you probably get the good stuff, too! I am being cheated out of the good Black Forrest Ham here! :angry:


----------



## Touch Of Death

Tez3 said:


> Nah they're all paper hankies!


I'm sorry; but, that is just wrong!
Sean


----------



## Blade96

Its kinda fun when threads meander and go everywhere off topic though =]

sometimes its just fun when people have the attention span of a nat.


----------



## granfire

Blade96 said:


> Its kinda fun when threads meander and go everywhere off topic though =]
> 
> sometimes its just fun when people have the _attention span of a nat_.


what? THAT long?!!! :eye-popping:


----------



## Blade96

granfire said:


> what? THAT long?!!! :eye-popping:



lol it took lots of pages for this thread to go off topic, on the detroit red wings board i post on it can happen on the very first page....you guys have great attention spans by comparison


----------



## ballen0351

Tez3 said:


> A 12 year old boy in Texas, how very droll.
> 
> Well you can always PM me and I'll give you my work number, you can phone me up at great expense to confirm I am who I say I am, or you can 'befriend' me on FB rofl.



naa I believe you are who you say you are.  Just saying in the internet world we can be anything we want.  On a police forum I go to I bet 25 % of the "cops" turn out to not be.  
oh and I'm a man I don't facebook but I'd call you I think you guys have awsome accents.


----------



## ballen0351

Blade96 said:


> lol it took lots of pages for this thread to go off topic, on the detroit red wings board i post on it can happen on the very first page....you guys have great attention spans by comparison



red wings booooo
GO CAPS


----------



## Omar B

Stanford wins!

Luck rules!


----------



## Blade96

ballen0351 said:


> red wings booooo
> GO CAPS



caps are cool, I like ovechkin 

they beat the penguins the other day at the winter classic, i so happy about that, i'm sick of crosby

see i can go off topic too =]


----------



## Tez3

I wonder why someone would come onto a martial arts site and purely post on the Study which has nothing to do with martial arts? For most of us, the Study is a side 'attraction', a place to discuss political and other subjects with _fellow martial artists_, people we already have a lot in common with and being martial artists we can expect our fellow martial artists to discuss things with us with the same respect and control they use when sparring. I don't see it as a place for non martial artists to come on purely to espouse their political views, I would expect at least an interest in martial arts and some posts on the martial arts part of the board.

I've never seen Martial Talk as just another internet site, there are people here who's views I respect, people with solid martial arts experience and people I just plain like. 

Now I'm as guilty as any for leading this thread astray but really it should probably die off now.


----------



## seasoned

Most of the study regulars have little to nothing to say about martial arts. The study is a great venting place, and generates posts, but as Tez3 is saying, don't make it the end all. In a sparring match the study would be only one technique being used over and over again. Show the rest of your techniques, move around a bit, get involved else where.


----------



## ballen0351

Tez3 said:


> I wonder why someone would come onto a martial arts site and purely post on the Study which has nothing to do with martial arts? For most of us, the Study is a side 'attraction', a place to discuss political and other subjects with _fellow martial artists_, people we already have a lot in common with and being martial artists we can expect our fellow martial artists to discuss things with us with the same respect and control they use when sparring. I don't see it as a place for non martial artists to come on purely to espouse their political views, I would expect at least an interest in martial arts and some posts on the martial arts part of the board.
> 
> I've never seen Martial Talk as just another internet site, there are people here who's views I respect, people with solid martial arts experience and people I just plain like.
> 
> Now I'm as guilty as any for leading this thread astray but really it should probably die off now.


that's an interesting post.  I've only been here a few days and most of my posts are in the study.  I'm very new to martial arts study.  In fact last night was my first class.  I came here will tons of questions about martial arts like every new person does.  However most of my questions have been asked 50 times before so when I used the search function I found a ton of great stuff.  Being so new there nothing useful I can add to the martial arts section of this site.  There is a ton to learn and read as you said there is alot of  very smart people in this board to learn from.  Then I found the study section and, I like the debate you guys have.  I don't agree with alot of you but you all at least can put up a good argument (its wrong but good).  So for me I read alot in the other sections but have nothing I could post.  Where as here I've had better debates then on any other website I've been on.  Nobody has called obama the n word nobody has wished death to bush, or muslims.  I was on one forum and the topic was the body scanners at airports and the guy was against them.  I asked what security he thought was good his answer was make everyone eat a chunk of ham because muslims don't eat pork so if they don't eat the ham they don't fly.  Sadly he was not joking that's what he really believed.


----------



## Empty Hands

Tez3 said:


> I wonder why someone would come onto a martial arts site and purely post on the Study which has nothing to do with martial arts?



I make very few martial arts posts anymore.  I've found that we pretty much agree on the basics, I don't have any questions, and that the experience of martial arts is much more edifying than talking about it.  Absent that, the Study has new and interesting things to talk about on a daily basis.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Empty Hands said:


> I make very few martial arts posts anymore.  I've found that we pretty much agree on the basics, I don't have any questions, and that the experience of martial arts is much more edifying than talking about it.  Absent that, the Study has new and interesting things to talk about on a daily basis.


Given half the chance, I can disagree about your basics.:whip1:
Sean


----------



## Tez3

Empty Hands said:


> I make very few martial arts posts anymore. I've found that we pretty much agree on the basics, I don't have any questions, and that the experience of martial arts is much more edifying than talking about it. Absent that, the Study has new and interesting things to talk about on a daily basis.


 

But you are a martial artist not someone who isn't just posting politically on here. I daresay it doesn't matter but what attracted me here is the fact it was martial artists posting on subjects, all subjects.


----------



## CanuckMA

ballen0351 said:


> ... I asked what security he thought was good his answer was make everyone eat a chunk of ham because muslims don't eat pork so if they don't eat the ham they don't fly. Sadly he was not joking that's what he really believed.


 

Great argument. I guess I won't be flying either then...


----------



## Blade96

i guess i dont count in what tez said. Most of my posts are study ones, but i do post in the martial arts sections, (i r martial artist)  but lets be honest. I had a martial arts board to post on. But neither one had great debates and political discussions, well it does, at least not to the extent of this board. And one doesnt allow political subjects at all. So what attracted me to this board was the study.


----------



## Omar B

Empty Hands said:


> I make very few martial arts posts anymore.  I've found that we pretty much agree on the basics, I don't have any questions, and that the experience of martial arts is much more edifying than talking about it.  Absent that, the Study has new and interesting things to talk about on a daily basis.



I agree.  Most of us are quite a few years into our training and have a pretty good handle on what we are doing within the framework of our own art.    I like the threads about books and movies mostly, the MA threads are usually pretty good for a look at how different styles approach things.


----------



## Tez3

Blade96 said:


> i guess i dont count in what tez said. Most of my posts are study ones, but i do post in the martial arts sections, (i r martial artist)  but lets be honest. I had a martial arts board to post on. But neither one had great debates and political discussions, well it does, at least not to the extent of this board. And one doesnt allow political subjects at all. So what attracted me to this board was the study.


 
Oh you do count!  
My point was that as martial artists we have a lot in common so all the other subjects we discuss are within frameworks we understand, part of our outlook in martial arts is discipline and respect so we start with a common denominator in all our discussions.


----------



## Blade96

CanuckMA said:


> Great argument. I guess I won't be flying either then...



ballen that guy you talk about , I agree with you, he made no sense. Unless the only thing airlines had to eat was pork, muslims can still fly. They could just have potato salad instead.


----------



## Tez3

Blade96 said:


> ballen that guy you talk about , I agree with you, he made no sense. Unless the only thing airlines had to eat was pork, muslims can still fly. They could just have potato salad instead.


 
Not if it's been in contact with pork or been in the same container or near the same cutlery and plates though.


----------



## granfire

Blade96 said:


> ballen that guy you talk about , I agree with you, he made no sense. Unless the only thing airlines had to eat was pork, muslims can still fly. They could just have potato salad instead.



LOL, no, it was the screen for them that dangerus peoples....


----------



## Blade96

Tez3 said:


> Not if it's been in contact with pork or been in the same container or near the same cutlery and plates though.



maybe its not though......

and btw bill please make more threads that wander off topic.....they are fun


----------



## granfire

Blade96 said:


> maybe its not though......
> 
> and btw bill please make more threads that wander off topic.....they are fun



Those are the only ones he makes....


----------



## CanuckMA

granfire said:


> LOL, no, it was the screen for them that dangerus peoples....


 

And that still keeps me off the plane. I guess I'm a dangerous terrorist.


----------



## granfire

CanuckMA said:


> And that still keeps me off the plane. I guess I'm a dangerous terrorist.



Anybody not eating ham is suspect to me....

no, wait...that means more ham for me.... carry on!


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> Anybody not eating ham is suspect to me....
> 
> no, wait...that means more ham for me.... carry on!



and BACON !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> and BACON !!!!!!!!!!



Try it! My fork is at the ready!
I DARE YOU! :jediduel:


----------



## Blade96

*while those two fight over the bacon, Blade96 sneaks in a steals it*

Yoink. 

Now its my bacon.


----------



## granfire

Blade96 said:


> *while those two fight over the bacon, Blade96 sneaks in a steals it*
> 
> Yoink.
> 
> Now its my bacon.



.......

verkill:


----------



## Blade96

teeheehee. catch me if you can *runs*


----------



## granfire

:xwing:


----------



## bushidomartialarts

On the subject of Anne Coulter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgSBhlw-o9E


----------



## billc

Bushido, this is my point, Ann Coulter is not a facist, a facist is a socialist, and Ann Coulter is a free market capitalist, who loves the declaration of Independence and the constitution of the U.S. These three things do not even come close to being facist in nature. Also, it was the socialists who murdered the handicapped, gays and gypsies, not the free market capitalists. Henry, try to get it right next time and your bit will actually be funny. Oh, and it was the democrats who owned slaves, wanted to restart the slave trade with africa, who wanted slavery expanded into the new states, who seperated from the union over slavery, fired the first shots to keep slavery, murdered the first republican president because he freed the slaves, started the Ku Klux Klan to supress the slaves freed by republicans, started segregation, and the jim crow laws, used nightsticks and fire hoses against the freedom riders. So please Henry, try to get it right next time. thanks. 

xxoxx


----------



## Ken Morgan

billcihak said:


> Bushido, this is my point, Ann Coulter is not a facist, a facist is a socialist, and Ann Coulter is a free market capitalist, who loves the declaration of Independence and the constitution of the U.S. These three things do not even come close to being facist in nature. Also, it was the socialists who murdered the handicapped, gays and gypsies, not the free market capitalists. Henry, try to get it right next time and your bit will actually be funny. Oh, and it was the democrats who owned slaves, wanted to restart the slave trade with africa, who wanted slavery expanded into the new states, who seperated from the union over slavery, fired the first shots to keep slavery, murdered the first republican president because he freed the slaves, started the Ku Klux Klan to supress the slaves freed by republicans, started segregation, and the jim crow laws, used nightsticks and fire hoses against the freedom riders. So please Henry, try to get it right next time. thanks.
> 
> xxoxx


 
wow


----------



## WC_lun

I know I'm probably beating a dead horse, but being a fascist does not mean you are socialist, no more than being a socilaist means you are fascist.  Want proof?  Look at the number of socialist governments in Europe.  Now how many of those are fascist?


----------



## billc

Thomas Sowell addresses this in his book, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini are the totalitarian left.  The governments you mention are the democratic left.  Also, facist is a term coined by Mussolini as his name for his brand of national socialism.  The governments you mention, although closer to his principles, would not fall under the term facist unless they were italian, national socialism.

From earlier in this thread:  "What distinguished Fascist movements in general from Communist movements was that the Communists were officially committed to governmental ownership of the means of production,while fascists permitted private ownership of the means of production, so long as government directed the private owner's decisions and limited what profit rates they could recieve. Both were totalitarian dictatorships but Communists were officially internationalist while Fascists were officially nationalist. However, Stalin's proclaimed policy of "Socialism in one country" was not very different from the Fascists' proclaimed policy of national socialism"

From Chapter 4, Left and Right dichotomay, from Thomas Sowell's book, "intellectuals and Society":

"In short, the notion that Communists and Fascists were at polar opposite poles ideologically WAS NOT TRUE, even in theory, much less in practice. As for similarities and differences between these two totalitarian movements and liberalism on the one hand, or conservatism(American) on the other, there was far more similarity between these totalitarian's agendas and those ot the left than with the agendas of most conservatives. FOR EXAMPLE, AMONG THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDAS OF THE FASCISTS IN ITALY AND/OR THE NAZIS IN GERMANY WERE:

1-GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF WAGES AND HOURS OF WORK
2-HIGHER TAXES ON THE WEALTHY
3-GOVERNMENT-SET LIMITS ON PROFITS
4-GOVERNMENT CARE FOR THE ELDERLY
5-A DECREASED EMPHASIS ON THE ROLE OF RELIGION AND THE FAMILY IN PERSONAL OR SOCIAL DECISIONS
6GOVERNMENT TAKING ON THE ROLE OF CHANGING THE NATURE OF PEOPLE, USUALLY BEGINNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD....
THESE ARE OF COURSE THINGS OPPOSED BY MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED "CONSERVATIVES" IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY ARE THINGS MUCH MORE CONGENIAL TO THE GENERAL APPROACH OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED "LIBERALS" IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CONTEXT.

The list above shows that Ann Coulter is not a facist.  You could call her a capitalist, however.


----------



## CanuckMA

So the word of a right leaning economist, who tries to shoehorn fascism to the left to distance American Conservatism is to be taken over political scientists and historians whose purpose is to actually define political systems?

That Hitler chose to name his party National Socialism does not make it any more socialist than North Korea calling themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea make it a Republic or a Democracy.

There are plenty of socialist counties around. Scandinavia, most of Europe, Canada. None are anywhre near what Nazi Germany was.


----------



## granfire

capitalist is not exactly a political orientation...


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> Thomas Sowell addresses this in his book, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini are the totalitarian left.  The governments you mention are the democratic left.  Also, facist is a term coined by Mussolini as his name for his brand of national socialism.  The governments you mention, although closer to his principles, would not fall under the term facist unless they were italian, national socialism.
> 
> From earlier in this thread:  "What distinguished Fascist movements in general from Communist movements was that the Communists were officially committed to governmental ownership of the means of production,while fascists permitted private ownership of the means of production, so long as government directed the private owner's decisions and limited what profit rates they could recieve. Both were totalitarian dictatorships but Communists were officially internationalist while Fascists were officially nationalist. However, Stalin's proclaimed policy of "Socialism in one country" was not very different from the Fascists' proclaimed policy of national socialism"
> 
> From Chapter 4, Left and Right dichotomay, from Thomas Sowell's book, "intellectuals and Society":
> 
> "In short, the notion that Communists and Fascists were at polar opposite poles ideologically WAS NOT TRUE, even in theory, much less in practice. As for similarities and differences between these two totalitarian movements and liberalism on the one hand, or conservatism(American) on the other, there was far more similarity between these totalitarian's agendas and those ot the left than with the agendas of most conservatives. FOR EXAMPLE, AMONG THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDAS OF THE FASCISTS IN ITALY AND/OR THE NAZIS IN GERMANY WERE:
> 
> 1-GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF WAGES AND HOURS OF WORK
> 2-HIGHER TAXES ON THE WEALTHY
> 3-GOVERNMENT-SET LIMITS ON PROFITS
> 4-GOVERNMENT CARE FOR THE ELDERLY
> 5-A DECREASED EMPHASIS ON THE ROLE OF RELIGION AND THE FAMILY IN PERSONAL OR SOCIAL DECISIONS
> 6GOVERNMENT TAKING ON THE ROLE OF CHANGING THE NATURE OF PEOPLE, USUALLY BEGINNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD....
> THESE ARE OF COURSE THINGS OPPOSED BY MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED "CONSERVATIVES" IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY ARE THINGS MUCH MORE CONGENIAL TO THE GENERAL APPROACH OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED "LIBERALS" IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CONTEXT.
> 
> The list above shows that Ann Coulter is not a facist.  You could call her a capitalist, however.




It does not become more truthful by constant repetition....


----------



## Ken Morgan

granfire said:


> It does not become more truthful by constant repetition....


 
According to Goebbels it does.....


----------



## granfire

Ken Morgan said:


> According to Goebbels it does.....



That communist bastard!


----------



## Touch Of Death

granfire said:


> That communist bastard!


I thought he was a socialist bastard.:angel:


----------



## granfire

Touch Of Death said:


> I thought he was a socialist bastard.:angel:


It's all the same, didn't you listen?!


----------



## Steve

I'm just a little shocked that billcihak is trying to link modern Democrats to politicians from the 18th and 19 centuries.  That's as absurd as modern Republicans trying to claim some political affiliation with Abraham Lincoln, as though the two are in any way related.


----------



## granfire

stevebjj said:


> I'm just a little shocked that billcihak is trying to link modern Democrats to politicians from the 18th and 19 centuries.  That's as absurd as modern Republicans trying to claim some political affiliation with Abraham Lincoln, as though the two are in any way related.




oh, THAT is the shocking part....


I thought throwing all non Fox ones in a blender and giving it a good whirl was shocking....


----------



## Steve

granfire said:


> oh, THAT is the shocking part....
> 
> 
> I thought throwing all non Fox ones in a blender and giving it a good whirl was shocking....


----------



## billc

goebbels was a National socialist, not an international socialist.


----------



## billc

Socialism:http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/socialism

so·cial·ism    (ssh-lzm) KEY 

NOUN:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Hey guys, I get it.  Your lefty system of "social organization" kills 100 million people, that is kinda embarrassing.  So you guys think, hey, let's say the Nazis are actually "right wing" so that we can say, "you guys do it too."  Unfortunately, you are stuck with the results.  It has been a long time coming, but the truth is finally getting out.  Nationa Socialsim or international socialism, it just isn't a good way to "socially organize," especially when there are no checks on government power.


----------



## billc

As I was looking up the new book, "365 ways to drive liberals crazy"  I saw another recommendation, "The Politically incorrect guide to socialism."  You guys might want to check the two books out.  I know, if only you had known before Christmas.

Tez, 365 was written by a Brit. you might really enjoy this coming from a fellow countryman.


----------



## Touch Of Death

billcihak said:


> goebbels was a National socialist, not an international socialist.


Are you hearing yourself?
Sean


----------



## Steve

billcihak said:


> Socialism:http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/socialism
> 
> so·cial·ism    (ssh-lzm) KEY
> 
> NOUN:
> Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
> The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
> 
> Hey guys, I get it.  Your lefty system of "social organization" kills 100 million people, that is kinda embarrassing.  So you guys think, hey, let's say the Nazis are actually "right wing" so that we can say, "you guys do it too."  Unfortunately, you are stuck with the results.  It has been a long time coming, but the truth is finally getting out.  Nationa Socialsim or international socialism, it just isn't a good way to "socially organize," especially when there are no checks on government power.


For the record, I've said many times that comparing anyone to h the nazis is despicable.  that includes you.


----------



## billc

From the politically incorrect guide to socialism, from the economist Ludwig von Mises:

Mises was one of the first to fully appreciate that the Stalin-Hitler, socialist-fascist, left-right split was an illusion, and that the totalitarian movement based in Berlin was substantially similar to the one based in Moscow.  "The usual terminology of political language is stupid," he wrote.  What is "left" and what is "right"?  Why should Hitler be "right" and Stalin, his temporary friend, be "left"?


----------



## granfire

incorrect would be the precise term that applies.


----------



## billc

from the politically incorrect guide to socialism.  

Putting the Socialism In National Socialism

"We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today's capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money."---Gregor Strasser, Nazi Idealogue

"The state shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens...the abolition of all incomes unearned by work... the ruthless confiscation of all war profits...the NATIONALIZATION OF ALL BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN FORMED INTO CORPORATIONS(my stress is on this part, not the books)...profit-sharing in large enterprises...extensive development of insurance for old-age...land reform suitable to our NATIONAL requirements."
---Nazi Party Platform 1920

"We are socialists, wa are enemies of today's capitalist economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
---Adolf Hitler


----------



## Blade96

billcihak said:


> Bushido, this is my point, Ann Coulter is not a facist, a facist is a socialist, and Ann Coulter is a free market capitalist, who loves the declaration of Independence and the constitution of the U.S. These three things do not even come close to being facist in nature. Also, it was the socialists who murdered the handicapped, gays and gypsies, not the free market capitalists. Henry, try to get it right next time and your bit will actually be funny. Oh, and it was the democrats who owned slaves, wanted to restart the slave trade with africa, who wanted slavery expanded into the new states, who seperated from the union over slavery, fired the first shots to keep slavery, murdered the first republican president because he freed the slaves, started the Ku Klux Klan to supress the slaves freed by republicans, started segregation, and the jim crow laws, used nightsticks and fire hoses against the freedom riders. So please Henry, try to get it right next time. thanks.
> 
> xxoxx


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> from the politically incorrect guide to socialism.
> 
> Putting the Socialism In National Socialism
> 
> "We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today's capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money."---Gregor Strasser, Nazi Idealogue
> 
> "The state shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens...the abolition of all incomes unearned by work... the ruthless confiscation of all war profits...the NATIONALIZATION OF ALL BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN FORMED INTO CORPORATIONS(my stress is on this part, not the books)...profit-sharing in large enterprises...extensive development of insurance for old-age...land reform suitable to our NATIONAL requirements."
> ---Nazi Party Platform 1920
> 
> "We are socialists, wa are enemies of today's capitalist economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
> ---Adolf Hitler



Like 6 million other idiots you fall for rhetoric


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> As I was looking up the new book, "365 ways to drive liberals crazy" I saw another recommendation, "The Politically incorrect guide to socialism." You guys might want to check the two books out. I know, if only you had known before Christmas.
> 
> Tez, 365 was written by a Brit. you might really enjoy this coming from a fellow countryman.


 
I can't thnk why I would enjoy it, the Liberals over here definitely aren't the same as American Liberals and no where near your definition.

It may not bother you but while you are randomly throwing numbers around about how many people are killed by the Nazis and blithely discussing deaths etc that some of those deaths were of family members of some of us on this board. The other point is that many, many Americans on this board have family members who fought and many have died fighting against what is accepted by all of us as the right wing fascism of the Nazis.

For you this might be an amusing little foray into winding up 'liberals', knowing that is a place that prides itself on being polite and trying to understand others points of views but for many of us you go too far and cheapen the memory of people who should be remembered with honour and respect. 

If you continue to fly in the face of conventional terms for political viewpoints you really can't expect to be taken seriously as any sort of political commentator or frankly even having a point of view that is remotely credible.


----------



## Blade96

Tez3 said:


> If you continue to fly in the face of conventional terms for political viewpoints you really can't expect to be taken seriously as any sort of political commentator or frankly even having a point of view that is remotely credible.



tez even if he didnt offending some ppl here who's relatives died in the holocaust or wwII he still wouldnt have a point of view thats remotely credible, I'd love to know who taught him this strange version of history and definitions he's talking about here on the boards!


----------



## billc

I have to point out that conservatives here in the united states are often called facists and nazis. from what I have been showing with my posts, there is no similarity between an American conservative and anything to do with either facists or Nazis. American conservatives are not racists, homophobes, nor do we hate women or foreigners. These are the accusations made against us everyday. Here on this post bushidomartialarts put on a Henry Rollins video, where he calls Ann Coulter a facist, you know Stevebjj the thing you think is so despicable, and goes on to show that he, henry rollins is the true misogynist. Guys like him are why republicans had to help women in America get the right to vote.
Socialism is a leftwing movement. Identifying it for what it is may help to keep the worst parts of it from happening again. Too many people believe in big state nannyism and central planning. Is this totalitarian befhavior, no. It is however a precursor. the socialists in Germany, Italy and Russia, China, vietnam and cambodia did not begin with the horrors of socialism first. They began by getting people to dismiss their individuality in favor of the group. American conservatives believe in the rights of all people, especially the rights of the individual. they believe in a small, tightly contstrained government so that these nightmares of socialism will not happen. A large central planning state, with no checks on power, that has people thought of as groups instead of individuals, is the recipe that led to the disasters of the 20th century. So no, I will continue to point out the socialists responsible for these acts of murder.
It continues to amaze me that communists, wether you think that National socialists are right or left, continue to exist in the open. How many people does a movement have to murder before they at least change their name. 

Are you digusted whenever you see people walking around political demonstrations carrying pro-communism sighns? If not, why? they are as bad as people walking around with nazi swastikas and yet they get a pass. Here in the states, the most anyone ever thinks about the communists is that some writers in hollywood, who were actually communist party members, were wrongly pointed out as members of the communist party and weren't allowed to write scripts for "the twighlight zone." If you see someone at a political rally, and they are proud members of the communist party, you should ask them if they are ashamed by their association with the mass murdering movement of the 20th century. The nazis are known for what they are, the communists are not. That needs to change. If you want to keep mass murder from happening again, call out the fools who support the beliefs that led to the death camps and gulags.


----------



## Tez3

Do you really think we are so stupid that we don't know about the Soviets and the Gulags? 
We aren't as poorly educated as you seem to think we are and pointing all this out as if we'd never heard of anything that went on in the Soviet Union is insulting our intelligence . 

You seem to have a knack of mixing up history to make it seem what you want it to be, the problem is that you have some idea of what went on but the picture is very blurry. You fudge things together to make the history say what you want it to say.

No one here is an apologist for the Soviet era, no one here is saying it was the ideal place to be but we do know the differences between the Soviets and the  Nazis, you do not seem to and lump them altogether. That is a dangerous thing to do, once you start making history fit your ideas you are in all sorts of trouble.


Years ago the British Empire was seen as a good thing, it was taught that the British brought civilisation, law, order and education to places that had never had them before. It could never be a bad thing. Then came a time when everything about the Empire was demonised, it was the worst thing ever. Now it's looked at properly and it's realised that those days had good and bad things about them. We must look at things properly, face things that are bad about our countries as well as looking at the good things. We have to look at things objectively if we are to understand history and not to be make the mistakes of the past.  

You also need to understand the character of countries, claiming that in China the communists got rid of the people's individuality is incorrect, you need to understand what life was and is like in China first. You are simply drawing with a very broad brush a picture of half the world and demonising it as being 'socialist' and therefore bad.


When you are whinging on about communists, you need to understand what communism is. In itself it's an inanimate political system which is idealistic, it's not worse or better than conservatism. The problem comes in any political idealogy when people put things into practice.  It's the inherant human flaws that makes political systems go awry. If you had perfect people, communism and capitalism would both work fine. However when you have power hungry tryranical egotistical men no system would work well. It's not the systems that are at fault it's the humans.

Now you really should stop being a big girl's blouse and admit you have things **** about face, oh and stop treating us as if we are thick as two short planks. History is a favourite subject of mine and I have qualifications to prove it, I also believe in being objective and looking at all the facts good and bad so don't generalise and tell me that American conservatives are perfect, they aren't, they are human, just like the rest of us with all that means, warts and all.  

There's no reason why people who believe in communism should hide what they believe and there's no reason for an Italian, American or British communist to be ashamed at what when on in the USSR, they could be ashamed or sad that it all happened in the name of communism, as we in the UK can be ashamed of what went on in the name of our country, the Americans can say the same.  Communists are no more inherently bad than anyone else. You are in danger of being a bigot if you demonise them.


----------



## Ken Morgan

billcihak said:


> It is however a precursor. the socialists in Germany, Italy and Russia, China, vietnam and cambodia did not begin with the horrors of socialism first. They began by getting people to dismiss their individuality in favor of the group.


 


Well these countries didn&#8217;t have any tradition of democracy at all, the people living there had always lived under totalitarian regimes of one stripe or another. They had no concept of individual rights as we know them.

To say that the people in these countries voluntarily gave up their individual rights is an erroneous hypothesis at best, any rights they may have had were taken away at the point of a gun, a very big gun targeting themselves, their families and everyone they knew. When someone is threatening to kill your children unless you behave, you will fall in line pretty damn quickly. 

May I ask where all this is going? We know totalitarianism is bad, be it an absolute monarchy, fascism or any of the various forms of communism. We know democracy is not perfect but it seems to work reasonably well. We know liberal, conservative, democratic, and socialist have different meanings in different parts of the world.

So what? What is the point to the discussion?


----------



## Tez3

At the time of the Russian Revolution, there were no countries that had universal suffrage or recognised a persons 'individuality', there were class systems in most countries, the UK and the USA among them. Even in many countries that were considered 'democratic' only certain people were allowed to vote. 

Conditions in China under the power of non communists before the revolution there was so appaling, so medieval that the communists in fact could only make things better, it needed something like the communist machine to drag China into the 20th century from what was basically the dark ages. The people despite what non communists think have actually done better under even Chairman Mao than they ever did under the 'capitalists'. You need to understand what conditions were like in China pre revolution to see why Chairman Mao and his cronies were a better option! It says something when the citizens of a country have more rights under someone like Mao than they had before. The Russian peasants weren't in much of a better postition, if they had of been perhaps the communists wouldn't have been able to take over. 

The ideas we have today about democracy are relatively new, it's probably only since the end of the last war have we started thinking about everyone having the vote, free elections and the idea of people being individuals.


----------



## granfire

> Now you really should stop being a big girl's blouse and admit you have things **** about face, oh and stop treating us as if we are thick as two short planks.



what does the girl blouse thing mean? :lfao:

Anywho...

China: Mao upgraded the peasants from being worth no more than a crock to being ants and gave them the blue suit to go with it. Hard to believe, it was a big step up.

Russia: Lenin upgraded the peasants from being illiterate and dependent on the landowner to being people. As minimal as it looks, it's still a huge step.

One just can't judge history from our current ventage point. It just does not work. 
You could not rouse people these days to walk across the continent to 'retake' a fast food joint, much less conquer a country. Though sadly if you have the right galvanization point you can still send them across town to beat on their fellow man...

Yeah, and Germany....that's what happens when you forse a political system on people who don't want it and are not ready for it....It should be a lesson to all those peace bringers of the world: You can't force democracy on the people. Or, if you do, don't complain when they elect officials that are not democratic.


Also, Dearest Bill: In the elections of 1930 that brought Adolf Hitler into power (you knew he hitched his cart to v.Hindenburg, an old revered General under the Kaiser, right) the streets were not safe:
Hitlers SA troops beat mercilessly on the voters for the socialist and commiunist parties. They had at that time a pretty good cace to be a driving force in parlament. 
Also, candidates for the 2 left parties were attacked and in some cases assassinated. 
So much for your theory that Hitler had red shirts. His Brown Shirts fought street battles with the Red Shirts to intimidate the common man to go to vote, and it worked.

But you knew that, if you would bother to actually read *sources* instead of the political fiction you have been keeping on your night stand.


----------



## Tez3

Big girl's blouse, ah well, that would be telling lol.it's not a bad insult, just means well he's a big girls blouse, flapping around. 

If we judge how countries were to how we are now, there's not a country would have passed muster in terms of democracy. I think sometimes we don't realise how lucky we are even though people moan about governments etc, we are extraordinary lucky to be alive when and where we are.


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> Big girl's blouse, ah well, that would be telling lol.it's not a bad insult, just means well he's a big girls blouse, flapping around.
> 
> If we judge how countries were to how we are now, there's not a country would have passed muster in terms of democracy. I think sometimes we don't realise how lucky we are even though people moan about governments etc, we are extraordinary lucky to be alive when and where we are.




Exactly. 

The people who made history were a product of their times. I don't think one can follow the path of Marx and them without knowing about the conditions he faced. 
We can watch the recreation in the movies, some make a good visual impression, but in the end it's a movie and not the real deal. 

Our times are not perfect, but neither are we.


----------



## billc

According to you Granfire, Hitler made the trains run on time as well, and it only took him about 12 million dead.  Heck, we could have shipped over blue clothes to the chinese and they wouldn't have had to murder anyone.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> According to you Granfire, Hitler made the trains run on time as well, and it only took him about 12 million dead. Heck, we could have shipped over blue clothes to the chinese and they wouldn't have had to murder anyone.


 

They say G-d loves a trier and dear me, you are trying.


----------



## billc

Yes, Jonah Goldberg talks about the german communists who became national socialists.  The saying sometimes was "first brown then red."


----------



## Blade96

I did a major in history and most of my studies focused upon russian history. And of course Marx and engels and the russian nihilist movements of the later half of the 19th century (people who lenin and stalin admired far more like Tkachev and Nechayev and Chernyshevsky his actions were based more upon their ideas than on Marx's) so I know that the 'history' and definitions bill spouts are pretty much bollocks.


----------



## Darksoul

-Best thing I ever did was put a certain someone on IGNORE! ;-)

Andrew


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> Yes, Jonah Goldberg talks about the german communists who became national socialists. The saying sometimes was "first brown then red."


 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/nsdap.html

_In April, 1920, __Hitler__ advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). _*Hitler*_* had always been hostile to socialist ideas,* especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany._

_When __Hitler__ was released, he formed his own private army called Sturm Abteilung (Storm Section). The SA (also known as stormtroopers or brownshirts) were instructed to disrupt the meetings of political opponents and to protect __Hitler__ from revenge attacks. __Captain Ernst Röhm__ of the Bavarian Army played an important role in recruiting these men, and __Hermann Goering__, a former air-force pilot, became their leader._
_Hitler's__ stormtroopers were often former members of the *Freikorps (right-wing private* *armies* who flourished during the period that followed the First World War) and had considerable experience in using violence against their rivals. _
_The SA wore grey jackets, brown shirts (khaki shirts originally intended for soldiers in Africa but purchased in bulk from the German Army by the Nazi Party), swastika armbands, ski-caps, knee-breeches, thick woolen socks and combat boots. Accompanied by bands of musicians and carrying swastika flags, they would parade through the streets of Munich. At the end of the march __Hitler__ would make one of his passionate speeches that *encouraged his supporters to carry out acts of violence against Jews and his left-wing political opponents.*_
_*As this violence was often directed against Socialists and Communists, the local* *right-wing Bavarian government* *did not take action against the Nazi Party.* However, the national government in Berlin were concerned and passed a "Law for the Protection of the Republic." __Hitler's__ response was to organize a rally attended by 40,000 people. At the meeting __Hitler__ called for the overthrow of the German government and even suggested that its leaders should be executed. _



*Hitler*_* believed that the Jews were involved with Communists in a joint conspiracy to take* *over the world.* Like Henry Ford, __Hitler__ claimed that 75% of all Communists were Jews. __Hitler__ argued that the combination of Jews and Marxists had already been successful in Russia and now threatened the rest of Europe. He argued that the communist revolution was an act of revenge that attempted to disguise the inferiority of the Jews._

_The behaviour of the NSDAP became more violent. On one occasion, *167 Nazis beat up* *57 members of the German Communist Party in the Reichstag.* *They were then physically thrown out of the building. *_
_*The stormtroopers also carried out terrible acts of violence against socialists and communists.* In one incident in Silesia, a young member of the KPD had his eyes poked out with a billiard cue and was then stabbed to death in front of his mother. Four members of the SA were convicted of the rime. Many people were shocked when __Hitler__ sent a letter of support for the four men and promised to do what he could to get them released._
_Incidents such as these worried many Germans, and in the elections that took place in November 1932 the support for the Nazi Party fell. The German Communist Party made substantial gains in the election winning 100 seats. __Hitler__ used this to create a sense of panic by claiming that German was on the verge of a Bolshevik Revolution and only the NSDAP could prevent this happening. _
_A group of prominent industrialists who feared such a revolution sent a petition to Paul von Hindenburg asking for __Hitler__ to become Chancellor. Hindenberg reluctantly agreed to their request and at the age of forty-three, __Hitler__ became the new Chancellor of Germany._



There are always a number of people who for various reasons change political alliances, if it were threats of violence against them and their families I wouldn't blame them, however a few changing doesn't make it all or that the communists and Nazis were the same thing.

Bill, you are circling around being offensive here when you talk of railways etc. Don't push it too far.


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> According to you Granfire, Hitler made the trains run on time as well, and it only took him about 12 million dead.  Heck, we could have shipped over blue clothes to the chinese and they wouldn't have had to murder anyone.




Kid, you got just enough brain cells to rub together to be extremely dangerous in your ignorance and insistence that the sun revolves around the red planet...

Throw away your 3rd hand fairy tales and read some actual historic sources for a change. 

And instead of reading somebody else's 365 ways to irritate people who have in essence done nothing to you, you should probably read what the people you lump together without any knowledge are actually about.


And no, I think the Germans had the deal with punctuality down long before Hitler.


----------



## Blade96

granfire i agree with you.

as one of my fb friends said once

que-est-ce que     F.?
*
*


----------



## billc

China: Mao upgraded the peasants from being worth no more than a crock to being ants and gave them the blue suit to go with it. Hard to believe, it was a big step up.

Russia: Lenin upgraded the peasants from being illiterate and dependent on the landowner to being people. As minimal as it looks, it's still a huge step.

Tez, Granfire is saying 100 million deaths is worth what mao and stalin did.  I am pointing out that silly thinking like that is also applied to the socialists in germany, all of which is a stupid way to look at mass murder.

After WW2 America, the country everyone likes to kick around right now, didn't do the things that Mao did or what Stalin did or what hitler did after world war one.  America rebuilt its former enemies, Germany, Italy, Japan, and aided the other countries like Greece.  The socialists in Russia and China, at the same period, locked down europe, and went on to slaughter millions of chinese.  The socialists had east germany, north korea, north vietnam, cambodia the rest of the eastern block, and they were slaughter houses at their worst and prisons at their best.  Mao, and the soviets did not have to do what they did.  the western capitalist powers brought freedom, the eastern socialist powers brought grief.   So you might want to ask granfire to stop comparing the deaths of millions as a price for literacy and being ants, and look at what I was actually trying to do.


----------



## Blade96

billcihak said:


> Tez, Granfire is saying 100 million deaths is worth what mao and stalin did.  I am pointing out that silly thinking like that is also applied to the socialists in germany, all of which is a stupid way to look at mass murder.
> 
> .



Not necessarily, Bill. Gran's not saying that. Gran's saying there was some good things like the mass literacy programs and the industrialization. And the stalin saving our butts in WWII. Gran's not saying the deaths were worth it or that all those deaths had to happen.


----------



## billc

From "liberal facism":

Insight into the mind-set of early members of the Nazi Party comes in the form of a series of essays written for a contest conducted by Theodore Abel, an impressively clever American Sociologist. In 1934 Abel took out an ad in the Nazi Party journal asking "old fighters" to submit essays explaining why they had joined. He restricted his request to "old fighters" because so many opportunists had joined the party after Hitler's rise. The essays were combined in the...book "Why Hitler came to power. One essayist, a coal miner, explained that he was "puzzled by the denial of race and nation implicit in Marxism,. Though I was interested in the betterment of the workingman's plight, I rejected [marxism]unconditionally. I often asked myself why socialism had to be tied up with internationalism-why it could not work as well or better in conjunction with nationalism." A Railroad worker concurred, "I shuddered at the thought of Germany in the grip of Bolshevism. the slogan 'workers of the world unite!' made no sense to me. At the same time however, National Socialism, with it's PROMISE OF COMMUNITY...BARRING ALL CLASS STRUGGLE, ATTRACTED ME PROFOUNDLY." A third worker wrote that he embraced the Nazis because of their "uncompromising will to STAMP OUT THE CLASS STRUGGLE, SNOBBERIES OF CASTE AND PARTY HATREDS. THE MOVEMENT BORE THE TRUE MESSAGE OF SOCIALISM TO THE GERMAN WORKING MAN."

Here you have low level party members talking about joining a socialist movement.

More:  

The notion that communism and Nazism are polar opposites stems from the deeper truth that they are in fact kindred spirits. Or, as Richard Pipes has written, "Bolshevism and Facism were heresies of socialism."  Both ideaologies are reactionary in the sense that they try to re-create tribal impulses.  Communists champion class, Nazi race, Facists the nation.  All such ideaologies-we can call them totalitarian for now-attract the same TYPES of people.  

HITLERS HATRED OF COMMUNISM HAS BEEN OPPORTUNISTICALLY EXPLOITED TO SIGNIFY IDEOLOGICAL DISTANCE, WHEN IN FACT IT INDICATED THE EXACT OPPOSITE.     TODAY THIS MANEUVER HAS SETTLED INTO CONVENTIONAL WISDOM.  BUT WHAT HITLER HATED ABOUT MARXISM AND COMMUNISM HAD ALMOST NOTHING TO DO  WITH THOSE ASPECTS OF COMMUNISM THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER RELEVANT, SUCH AS ECONOMIC DOCTRINE OR THE NEED TO DESTROY THE CAPITALIST AND BOURGEOISIE.    IN THESE AREAS HITLER LARGELY SAW EYE TO EYE WITH SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS.  HIS HATRED STEMMED FROM HIS PARANOID CONVICTION THAT THE PEOPLE CALLING THEMSELVES COMMUNISTS WERE IN FACT IN ON A FORIEGN, JEWISH CONSPIRACY. ....HE STUDIED THE NAMES OF COMMUNISTS AND SOCIALISTS AND IF THEY SOUNDED JEWISH, THAT'S ALL HE NEEDED TO KNOW.  IT WAS ALL A CON JOB, A RUSE, TO DESTROY GERMANY.

Only "authentically" German ideas from authentic Germans could be trusted.  AND WHEN THOSE GERMANS, LIKE FEDER OR STRASSER, PROPOSED SOCIALIST IDEAS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MARXIAN PLAYBOOK, HE HAD VIRTUALLY NO OBJECTION WHATSOEVER.   HITLER NEVER CARED MUCH ABOUT ECONOMICS ANYWAY.  HE ALWAYS CONSIDERED IT SECONDARY.


----------



## Blade96

you mean what they thought was a socialist movement.


----------



## billc

granfire, those people who you say are not doing anything to me are:

-telling us what kind of lightbulbs we can use, and requiring us to use mercury based bulbs
telling us what kind of toilet we can own
what kind of cars we can drive
how much money we can keep from what we earn
can now take one persons private property to give it to another person simply to increase the tax base
and on and on.


----------



## billc

Most countries can manage mass literacy programs without murdering people.  Same goes for industrialization, the Japanese industrialized from the start point of a feudal society and they did not mass murder their people.  there is something seriuosly wrong with socialism, especially its extreme forms.


----------



## SensibleManiac

I think it's time many people discovered the ignore feature, if anyone would like to know how to use it let me know. :uhyeah:

My :BSmeter: has reached it's limit.


----------



## granfire

SensibleManiac said:


> I think it's time many people discovered the ignore feature, if anyone would like to know how to use it let me know. :uhyeah:
> 
> My :BSmeter: has reached it's limit.



I heard ya, however, some falsehoods need to be corrected...if not for the benefit of the spreader but very much so for the innocent bystander who is seeking to learn...


----------



## Blade96

Are we quite sure Senator Joe McCarthy wasn't reincarnated? :idunno:


----------



## billc

Joe Mccarthy was concerned about international socialists who claimed to be communists.


----------



## Blade96

billcihak said:


> Joe Mccarthy was concerned about international socialists who claimed to be communists.



yeah well you're calling people and movements communists and socialists when they clearly werent. McCarthy used to do that. I thought I'd make a joke.......cause he used to find commies in the most unlikely places...


----------



## billc

He actually found quite a few real commies as well.


----------



## billc

which ones have I misnamed communist and socialist.  Thanks for coming over to this thread.


----------



## Ken Morgan

So that makes it OK?

Even though he destroyed hundreds if not thousands of innocent lives? Just to nail a small handful of communists? 

It was not and it is not against any law in the USA or the western world to be a member of the communist party.

He prosecuted people for what amounts to thought crimes. Sounds very communist/fascist/socialist to me.


----------



## Blade96

billcihak said:


> He actually found quite a few real commies as well.



he did find some yeah



billcihak said:


> which ones have I misnamed communist and socialist.  Thanks for coming over to this thread.



calling hitler a communist. I think he'd be offended.  And you're welcome, btw. I do like your threads like I said thread that go off topic as this one did at times is fun. Also the talk about fascism, communism, and socialism.



Ken Morgan said:


> So that makes it OK?
> 
> Even though he destroyed hundreds if not thousands of innocent lives? Just to nail a small handful of communists?
> 
> It was not and it is not against any law in the USA or the western world to be a member of the communist party.
> 
> He prosecuted people for what amounts to thought crimes. Sounds very communist/fascist/socialist to me.



Billcihak didnt say it was ok. He just said mcCarthy had found some real commies. Which he found a few.


----------



## Tez3

Billchihak, I'm not totally convinced you aren't sitting at your computer winding people up and laughing over your coffee because surely no one can mix history up the way you do and be for real. 

The pieces I post up from Jewish sites is from eye witness reports, you know, the people who were there at the time. these would include my parents, now unless you are willing to actually call them liars I'd suggest you do some reading and investigation to find out what the history actually is. You seem to forget that for many people this is still something that is within living memory, it's not just in books or films, it's in people's minds. You read it in books, my parents generation lived through it. My mother's entensive family died in the camps, she was the only survivor we've found. She knew what was going on, who were communists, who wasn't, she was there. Likewise the people who wrote up the pieces I've presented to you. Before you ask btw, there is all shades of political thought among the writers so there isn't a bias one way or the other.The other thing you don't seem to be able to do is to separate a political system from those who are dictators and tyrants. Somewhere such as Korea isn't a socialist state, it's a dictatorship through and through. There's nothing socialist, communist or anything else about it, it's one man who has taken control of the country and he will pass that on to his son. It can call itself whatever it wants but it's a dictatorship run by an evil man. 

You need to widen your political education to encompass all aspects of political thought and to really understand how wide the spectrum of political thought is. You need to understand too that there are a great many people on all sides of the political divide that want to tell you how to run your life, it's a well known fact that politicians of all stripes think they know better than the electorate.

Both SensibleManiac and Granfire are correct, you need to be ignored until you can study your subject but you also need to be refuted because I'd hate for anyone to learn history from you, it's twisted and revisionist.


----------



## CanuckMA

Tez3 said:


> Somewhere such as Korea isn't a socialist state, it's a dictatorship through and through.


 
But how can that be? The name of the country says it's democratic. Surely, they wouldn't lie about something like that... :idunno:


----------



## billc

Thanks blade 96.


----------



## billc

From a link in a Bighollywood.com story. It talks about throwing around the term facist and nazi and why it is done.

Nonetheless, the way contemporary Western Leftists constantly hurl the labels Nazi and Fascist at anybody they disagree with suggests almost an obsession with Nazism. Such an obsession is also suggested by the way TV programs about Hitler and Nazism always seem to be available from our Left-dominated media. Programs about Stalins Russia are as rare as hens teeth by comparison. 
This continuing Leftist obsession with Nazism might make some sense if Nazism were uniquely evil but, horrible and massive though the Nazi crimes were, they were anything but unique. For a start, government by tyranny is, if anything, normal in human history. And both antisemitism and eugenic theories were normal in prewar Europe. Further back in history, even Martin Luther wrote a most vicious and well-known attack on the Jews. And Nazi theories of German racial superiority differed from then-customary British beliefs in British racial superiority mainly in that the British views were implemented with typical conservative moderation whereas the Nazi views were implemented with typical Leftist fanaticism and brutality (cf. Stalin and Pol Pot). And the Nazi and Russian pogroms differed mainly in typically greater German thoroughness and efficiency. And waging vicious wars and slaughtering people en masse because of their supposed group identity have been regrettably common phenomena both before and after Hitler (e.g. Stalins massacres of Kulaks and Ukrainians, the unspeakable Pol Pots massacres of all educated Cambodians, Perus Shining Path, the Nepalese Marxists, the Tamil Tigers and the universal Communist mass executions of class-enemies). Both Stalin and Mao Tse Tung are usually credited with murdering far more class enemies than Hitler executed Jews.

The money quote:

It seems an obvious conclusion, then, that the constant Leftist excoriation of Hitler and the Nazis stems not from the unique horribleness of Nazism but has as its main aim an effort at camouflage  an effort to disguise or hide from public awareness the real kinship that exists between Nazism and other forms of Leftism. They just cannot afford to have people realize that ALL the great mass-murders of the 20th century were the product of Leftism.


----------



## billc

the article from my last post finally explains what it is to be a "right" winger. Finally.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22626

Historically, most of the world has been ruled by military men and their successors (Sargon II of Assyria, Alexander of Macedon, Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, Frederick II of Prussia etc.) so it seems unlikely but perhaps the main point to note here is that the Hispanic dictatorships of the 20th century were very often created as a response to a perceived threat of a Communist takeover. This is particularly clear in the case of Spain, Chile and Argentina. They were an attempt to fight fire with fire. In Argentina of the 60s and 70s, for instance, Leftist "urban guerillas" were very active &#8212; blowing up anyone they disapproved of. The nice, mild, moderate Anglo-Saxon response to such depredations would have been to endure the deaths and disruptions concerned and use police methods to trace the perpetrators and bring them to trial. Much of the world is more fiery than that, however, and the Argentine generals certainly were. They became impatient with the slow-grinding wheels of democracy and its apparent impotence in the face of the Leftist revolutionaries. They therefore seized power and instituted a reign of terror against the Leftist revolutionaries that was as bloody, arbitrary and indiscriminate as what the Leftists had inflicted. In a word, they used military methods to deal with the Leftist attackers. So the nature of these regimes was only incidentally conservative. What they were was essentially military. We have to range further than the Hispanic generals, therefore, if we are to find out what is quintessentially conservative

He also explains the idea of leftism in this article:

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24245

My answer may seem at first paradoxical but it is that attitude to the status quo defines Leftists rather than Rightists. It is not Rightists who are in favour of the status quo. They are in fact indifferent to it and may equally favour it or oppose it according to circumstances. It is Leftists, on the other hand, who are always _against_ the status quo, no matter what. Whatever else the Leftist may be, the bedrock of Leftism is a strong desire or even a need for political change, often extreme change. This does not, of course, mean that Leftists will favour all sorts of change equally. What sort of change the Leftist favours will depend on the needs that drive his/her desire for change.


----------



## Ken Morgan

The slow, mild Anglo Saxon way of dealing with terrorists? You obviously have zero understanding as to how the British dealt with terrorism in Northern Ireland then.

The Argentine generals committed a reign of terror against everybody, not just the leftist terrorists. They arrested, tortured and made many thousands of innocents disappear. Sure they got some terrorists, but the vast majority were innocents from the left and the right. 

Seriously Bill? Im a Conservative and Im finding a great deal of what you say quite embarrassing. Please go read some unbiased history.


----------



## billc

You read the article Ken? At least it explains the difference between right and left and covers why facism and nazism are left rather than right. there is no condoning the actions of the right wing, I will leave that to the left. Here is finally an article that clearly explains how the right and left are actually different. 

Oh, and socialism has still murdered more people, regardless of what the "right wing" may have done.  Hitler belongs to the left as does Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Che and the others.


----------



## Blade96

I'm not gonna ignore Bill or his twin Ball. whatever their views on history (and maybe Ball isnt as judgemental as he portrayed himself, he did say that the abortion  issue is near and dear to him personally so it showed in his posts about it I'm willing to give him a benefit of the doubt) I'd only ignore someone if they was harrassing me or something. But these two do none of that. I'm willing to just refute what he says about history. Actually I'm curious as to why he keeps calling Hitler and Mussolini leftists despite massive evidence to the contrary.


----------



## billc

I appreciate that blade 96.  If you look at my posts on my new thread lefts and rights or was it rights and lefts, the first article has a history of the right inside of an article on the left.  It shows that nazism and facism are leftist in their leanings.  the author tracks "right" down through the early history of Britain and Germany to the present.   He points out that the supposed "right" dictatorships of latin america had more to do with the military than actual conservative(american conservative) belief systems.  IT is all covered in the article.  Thanks for coming over Blade 96,  we may not agree but we can always discuss.


----------



## billc

Actually, part of the article is a few posts up.


----------



## Blade96

I'm open to reading it. to see what it says.


----------



## billc

Blade 96, before I end up offending you in the way I seem to offend people, I would like to say thank you for  being polite and for your responses to my posts.  It has been nice.  thanks.

I still enjoy talking to you Tez.


----------



## Blade96

billcihak said:


> Blade 96, before I end up offending you in the way I seem to offend people, I would like to say thank you for  being polite and for your responses to my posts.  It has been nice.  thanks.
> 
> I still enjoy talking to you Tez.



Its harder to offend me  A person would have to have done something to me like my ex did (i hate him) and not apologize for it. Now I do talk to my ex's now gf, its kind of hard to avoid it as we go to the same dojo and have to train together, I do think she's nuts for moving in with the guy immediately and going on a trip with him only 3 months into their relationship and as they seem to be remarkably alike but one thing she has never been to me is mean. and i do think they deserve each other,  and my problems with my ex began long before she even came into the picture, so it wasnt her fault my ex is who he is. But I do not have my ex on fb and i try to avoid him in the dojo. But Her I can deal with.

and I'm pretty friendly and i'm the kind of person who likes to say hi to random people and do nice things for strangers. 

But your views on history and who's left and who's right politically - they and you don't do anything to me. They are just your views on things.


----------



## aedrasteia

Blade96 said:


> Actually I'm curious as to why he keeps calling Hitler and Mussolini leftists despite massive evidence to the contrary.



Blade96

just a guess. 

Neither of them appear to know/understand the term "authoritarian" regarding governments and social/political movements.  There can be authoritarian-ism both of the right and of the left. The construct is rarely used in general discussions but its indispensible when analyzing political movements. As a political system in the Soviet Union or Mao's China, one finds hideous, bloody authoritarianism of the "left". In Franco's Spain or the generals' Argentina and Chile in the 20th century, one finds hideous, bloody authoritarianism of the right. 

I notice when the perpetual argument occurs, as currently on MT, with significant verbal heat, little light and great confusion regarding social-ism, fasc-ism, marx-ism with no mention of authoritarianism and its cousin totalitarianism. Seems to always indicate poor thinking and inadequate undergraduate education.
A


----------



## Blade96

Absolutely. A leftist can be authoritarian (although then i have to question how 'leftist' are they really because they want you to submit to authority, not free people from oppressive rule) and no doubt ties into why Billcihak believes as he does about who's right and who's left.

But leftism and rightism do differ, especially in theory and as do fascism/Nazism, and communism/socialism. No matter how much different groups claiming to be leftist/rightist came to sometimes resemble each other especially later on.


----------



## billc

Adresteia, exactly what made hitler "right" when all of his beliefs mirror the beliefs of the left. Did you read the articles at the Rights and Lefts thread. there is a an explanation of the right, its association with the hispanic military dictators of Spain, Argentina and Chile and why hitler was a lefty. There is a nice rundown on the history of the "right" there as well.

The left is all about oppressive rule.  The right about individual rights and limited government.


----------



## Blade96

billcihak said:


> Adresteia, exactly what made hitler "right" when all of his beliefs mirror the beliefs of the left. Did you read the articles at the Rights and Lefts thread. there is a an explanation of the right, its association with the hispanic military dictators of Spain, Argentina and Chile and why hitler was a lefty. There is a nice rundown on the history of the "right" there as well.
> 
> The left is all about oppressive rule.  The right about individual rights and limited government.



Thats a good question. why is hitler considered 'right' when traditional right wing conservative views are about minimalizing the role of government and such. And Hitler had a huge government = very oppressive. I think Billcihak has asked a good question there. 

These might help.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110109144106AA1jpTr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

http://jyte.com/cl/nazism-is-a-form-of-right-wing-extremism

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html


----------



## aedrasteia

Blade96 said:


> Thats a good question. why is hitler considered 'right' when traditional right wing conservative views are about minimalizing the role of government and such. And Hitler had a huge government = very oppressive. I think Billcihak has asked a good question there.
> 
> Blade
> 
> I did not place the Nazi political movement on the right, Billc, I believe did so. I would place that regime in a separate category, if that matters; it was such a hodge-podge of insanity, contradiction, cult, bureaucracy, militarism, hatred and efficiency. I think there is enormous confusion here. Authoritarian and totalitarian governments and movements both advocate regime controls, just over different aspects of life, social organization and institutions, dimensions of personal life, economics, business and trade, etc.  Left and right denote more about which aspects are emphasized and to what degree.
> 
> Just as a thought experiment, temporarily suspend thinking in terms of right and left - those terms are thoroughly bolloxed up. Look at some helpful and wide-ranging definitions of authoritarian and totalitarian.
> 
> Two funnies: search 'playing the Hitler card' at Urban Dictionary and Google
> Dave Barry - Hitler.
> 
> *A long enough debate means that the probability of someone resorting to "Hitler" becomes 100%.
> 
> And at that point the discussion becomes irrational and worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> A


----------



## Tez3

aedrasteia said:


> Blade96
> 
> just a guess.
> 
> Neither of them appear to know/understand the term "authoritarian" regarding governments and social/political movements. There can be authoritarian-ism both of the right and of the left. The construct is rarely used in general discussions but its indispensible when analyzing political movements. As a political system in the Soviet Union or Mao's China, one finds hideous, bloody authoritarianism of the "left". In Franco's Spain or the generals' Argentina and Chile in the 20th century, one finds hideous, bloody authoritarianism of the right.
> 
> I notice when the perpetual argument occurs, as currently on MT, with significant verbal heat, little light and great confusion regarding social-ism, fasc-ism, marx-ism with no mention of authoritarianism and its cousin totalitarianism. Seems to always indicate poor thinking and inadequate undergraduate education.
> A


 

A good post. It's hard however to get to authoritarianism when you can't get pass the 'Hitler was communist' argument. if we can't agree on the very basics we are never going to progress to the real nub of the discussions. There are such sweeping generalisations made that have to be addressed that we will never get to the meat of the discussion. 

I agree that things aren't as clear cut as totally left and totally right but we have to agree broadly on terms that we can all understand to start our discussions off. Statements like 'all the left are violent and unhappy while the right are serene and peaceful' aren't going to get us anywhere. To be honest to get to where you are in the discussion we'd have to cover a lot of ground and frankly I've been trying to keep it simple. There has been so many sweeping statements made and opinions of media types quoted I fear we will never get to the point you are in the argument. It would be pleasant I must admit, to actually get to the meat of the discussion.

'The soft Anglo -Saxon approach to terrorism', well that's something I've never heard before considering some say Obama is blaming the British for the way they handled terrorism in Kenya, we've also dealt with it in Aden, Malaya, Cyprus as well as the more well known Northern Ireland terrorists, no one has ever accused us of being 'gentle' before.

Anyway, I shall come back to this, my new cross trainer has been just delivered ( at 0715 in the morn ugh) so I'm off to put it together!


----------



## Blade96

aedrasteia said:


> Blade96 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a good question. why is hitler considered 'right' when traditional right wing conservative views are about minimalizing the role of government and such. And Hitler had a huge government = very oppressive. I think Billcihak has asked a good question there.
> 
> Blade
> 
> I did not place the Nazi political movement on the right, Billc, I believe did so. I would place that regime in a separate category, if that matters; it was such a hodge-podge of insanity, contradiction, cult, bureaucracy, militarism, hatred and efficiency. I think there is enormous confusion here. Authoritarian and totalitarian governments and movements both advocate regime controls, just over different aspects of life, social organization and institutions, dimensions of personal life, economics, business and trade, etc.  Left and right denote more about which aspects are emphasized and to what degree.
> 
> Just as a thought experiment, temporarily suspend thinking in terms of right and left - those terms are thoroughly bolloxed up. Look at some helpful and wide-ranging definitions of authoritarian and totalitarian.
> 
> Two funnies: search 'playing the Hitler card' at Urban Dictionary and Google
> Dave Barry - Hitler.
> 
> *A long enough debate means that the probability of someone resorting to "Hitler" becomes 100%.
> 
> And at that point the discussion becomes irrational and worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good post. It's hard however to get to authoritarianism when you can't get pass the 'Hitler was communist' argument. if we can't agree on the very basics we are never going to progress to the real nub of the discussions. There are such sweeping generalisations made that have to be addressed that we will never get to the meat of the discussion.
> 
> I agree that things aren't as clear cut as totally left and totally right but we have to agree broadly on terms that we can all understand to start our discussions off. Statements like 'all the left are violent and unhappy while the right are serene and peaceful' aren't going to get us anywhere. To be honest to get to where you are in the discussion we'd have to cover a lot of ground and frankly I've been trying to keep it simple. There has been so many sweeping statements made and opinions of media types quoted I fear we will never get to the point you are in the argument. It would be pleasant I must admit, to actually get to the meat of the discussion.
> 
> 'The soft Anglo -Saxon approach to terrorism', well that's something I've never heard before considering some say Obama is blaming the British for the way they handled terrorism in Kenya, we've also dealt with it in Aden, Malaya, Cyprus as well as the more well known Northern Ireland terrorists, no one has ever accused us of being 'gentle' before.
> 
> Anyway, I shall come back to this, my new cross trainer has been just delivered ( at 0715 in the morn ugh) so I'm off to put it together!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting and thoughtful too.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tez3

My son is going to have to put my cross trainer together far too many bits and bobs for me lol.

Okay, to have a meaningful political discussion we have to agree on what we are talking about and to get rid of absolutes, like 'all conservatives/right wingers' are good people, all 'socialists/leftwingers are bad'. We can agree terms first such as socialism is broadly left and conservatism is broadly right. We'd probably had better agree on what liberals are because they are very different beasts in the States from what they are here. 

In the UK we don't seem to have such a vast difference between political views as the States, we certainly don't have such vitriol in either our media or our politics, we have arguments of course but I think the politicians worked out a while back that name calling and dirty tactics turned the electorate off all parties. All our parties with exception of the National Front are broadly central with the Conservatives/Tories on the right of centre and the Labour/socialists on the left of centre. That's the accepted description here of the parties and how they describe themselves. The Liberal Democrats are bang in the middle so much so that most think they sit on the fence lol. The government at the moment is a Conservative and Lib Dem coalition.

Accepting this description of our political parties enables us to discuss politics on the same level. You can look at the Labour Party and the Labour movement and understand where they come from, you can investigate the various thoughts on socialism and communism but if you have a closed mind and all socialism is 'bad' it's going to make a frustrating discussion. The history of the Labour movement in the UK is an interesting one and to be honest we here have a lot to be thankful to the early pioneers of the movement.

We can't have a proper discussion if statements like socialism killed millions comes up, it's meaningless. It's as meaningless as saying 'the army killed millions', whose army? where? when? why? Nor can we go with the statements about conservatives being happy and socialists not, far too sweeping and doesn't contribute anything to a discussion on politics.


The subject of the Nazis is a complicated one but to insist the Nazis were communists through and through and nothing more, is just silly to my mind. Hitler didn't see himself or his party as such, there were many often terrifying ideas in there which can be explored but not if the discussion is going to be 'Hitler was a communist/socialist' end of subject. It can't be put aside with that much simplicity. You can't dismiss Nazi Germany, China, USSR either in one sentence saying that socialism kills millions.

This thread has been hugely frustrating right from the beginning, comments about Scrooge are meaningless unless one takes into account that Scrooge is cast as a Victorian Englishman in the time of the Empire whose ideas and beliefs were that of a man of his time. He and his real life contempories would have no idea of the meaning Americans put to the word 'liberal'. When Dickens wrote Christmas Carol, the country was in a very similiar state to it is now, a world recession and the country had a huge deficit. Dickens was part of a Victorian movement that felt the wealthy should be charitable and it was _their duty_ to improve the lot of the workers and the poor. It was the age of the great reformers to whom we have much to be thankful for.
Look up Robert Owen, Thomas Wakely, George Dawson, Charles Trevelyan, Octavia Hill and Lady Henry Somerset for a start. To say Scrooge was a 'liberal' is to misunderstand so much and from there the thread has proved it carried on from where that started. 

Look up the great reforming movement of the Victorians, it's an eye opener.


----------

