Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/13/13 02:55 AM, Feoric wrote: Let's try this again. How does Obama compare to, say, Saddam Hussein? I'd love to see parallels between specific policies if you can point some out.

Well, American politicians are much more...sneaky with the way they act. Obviously, just coming out and killing you own people is a death sentence. Saying you need the capability to do so, in order to "fight terrorism" is a much better, and safer way of doing it.

You can be a tyrant and still cater to public opinion and make people think it's for their own good.

At 5/13/13 02:51 AM, Feoric wrote: Look closer, I was quoting Memorize.

You quoted me originally though.

Here's some happy far left partisans enjoying Mussolini's far left government, who they love to be murdered by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_resistance_movement#Par tisan_resistance
Here's Hitler being a leftist doing things leftists generally do, like killing communists and socialists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

Nowhere did i imply that all leftists were united in some huge army or conspiracy. I was poining out that mussolini and hitler were leftists. Whether or not they killed other ones doesn' mean much, because i wasn't implying that they didn't/wouldn't

Hirihito bad man. Hirihito bad leftist. Leftist be bad man.

I'll have to take your word for it.

You're going to have a hard time understanding how American politics works if you believe that liberal=big government; conservative=small government. It has never, ever, ever worked like that.

Well, the framers of the constitution, favored a small government based on states (except for alexander hamilton and a few other idiots). The constitution ws written with that in mind (they just fought a whole war fighting oppressive government), so anything in opposition to that is a liberal mindset, at least when it comes to american politics.

At 5/13/13 11:36 AM, LemonCrush wrote: I was poining out that mussolini and hitler were leftists.

The Doctrine of Fascism (1932) -- Benito Mussolini

"[Fascism] is opposed to classical Liberalism, which arose from the necessity of reacting against absolutism, and which brought its historical purpose to an end when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denies the State in the interest of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract puppet envisaged by individualistic Liberalism, Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be a real thing, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the state. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops, and gives strength to the whole of the people."

"Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State..."

"After Socialism, Fascism attacks the whole complex of democratic ideologies and rejects them both in their theoretical premises and in their application or practical manifestations. Fascism denies that the majority, through the mere fact of being a majority, can rule human societies; it denies that this majority can govern by means of a periodical consultation; it affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men, who cannot be leveled by such a mechanical and extrinsic fact as universal suffrage. ..."

"In the face of Liberal doctrines, Fascism takes up an attitude of absolute opposition both in the field of politics and in that of economics. ... If it is admitted that the nineteenth century has been the century of Socialism, Liberalism, and Democracy, it does not follow that the twentieth must also be the century of Liberalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Political doctrines pass; peoples remain. It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the "Right." a Fascist century. If the nineteenth was the century of the individual (Liberalism and individualism) it may be expected that this one may be the century of "collectivism" and therefore the century of the State. ..."

Nazi Propaganda Pamphlet (1930) -- Joseph Goebbels

"Why Are We Socialists?

We are SOCIALISTS because we see in SOCIALISM the only possibility for maintaining our racial existence and through it the reconquest of our political freedom and the rebirth of the German State. SOCIALISM has its peculiar form first of all through its comradeship in arms with the forward-driving energy of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a theory, a vision of air, a book. With it, it is everything, THE FUTURE, FREEDOM, FATHERLAND!

It was a sin of the liberal bourgeoisie to overlook THE STATE-BUILDING POWER OF SOCIALISM. It was the sin of MARXISM to degrade SOCIALISM to a system of MONEY AND STOMACH.

We are SOCIALISTS because for us THE SOCIAL QUESTION IS A MATTER OF NECESSITY AND JUSTICE, and even beyond that A MATTER FOR THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OUR PEOPLE.

SOCIALISM IS POSSIBLE ONLY IN A STATE WHICH IS FREE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE.

DOWN WITH POLITICAL BOURGEOIS SENTIMENT: FOR REAL NATIONALISM!

DOWN WITH MARXISM: FOR TRUE SOCIALISM!

UP WITH THE STAMP OF THE FIRST GERMAN NATIONAL SOCIALIST STATE!

AT THE FRONT THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY!"
____________________________________________________________
_________

These guys don't seem to agree with you. But what do these Liberal leftists know about it?

At 5/13/13 01:55 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: stuff

Okay but they both had big governments. Big governments only arise from liberalism. Checkmate, libtard.

At 5/13/13 02:28 PM, Feoric wrote

Okay but they both had big governments. Big governments only arise from liberalism. Checkmate, libtard.

Ergo, the ideal conservative world is one of where each man or woman lives in their own cave and hunts their own food, because the development of societal norms is just government imposing their liberal brand of will upon the people.

.......or am I wrong?

At 5/13/13 02:43 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Ergo, the ideal conservative world is one of where each man or woman lives in their own cave and hunts their own food, because the development of societal norms is just government imposing their liberal brand of will upon the people.

.......or am I wrong?

I want my ObamaCave.

At 5/13/13 03:04 PM, Feoric wrote:
I want my ObamaCave.

If we give them to people it's not choice then because its government handouts.
You gotta go find your own cave.

Curse you liberalism!

At 5/13/13 01:09 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Yes they do

Nu uh defense again.

Where?

I pointed it out every time I felt it was happening. I'm not going to summarize here when it's clear you didn't read/understand the first time.

Can we stick to the actual argument please, instead of just screaming "nuh uh, nuh uh, here's what the dictionary says! see see see!!"

That IS the actual argument! Are you just being willfully ignorant now? The whole argument is "does Obama fit the definition of a dictator" to do that we need to understand and be clear on what the definition of a dictator is. Seems to me you realize when we throw the actual definition up for all to see you can't tie him to it, so now the trick is to act like the dictionary isn't relevant. Which is completely dishonest debate.

That's fine if he's a troll or whatever. Doesn't make him, or me, any less correct.

Yes it does actually. It harms his character and credibility. But I forgot, the only metric that matters is whether or not someone agrees with you.

For example, the wars he mentioned were indeed started by liberals and democrats. The things you asked about are indeed leftist ideologies.

The argument was whether or not Obama is a dictator. How is anything mem brought up helping to make him fit the definition? All he did was bring up the same stuff I already discredited

As for "projection"...a first year psych student knows that that freud shit has been largely debunked lol

Largely is not the same as totally. That one still stands. That's why they're still teaching it in both psych 101 and abnormal psych. I know this because I took both classes. Try again before you resort to "lol".

He agreeed, and is factually correct in this discussion. His "trolling" was not present in this topic. I don't give a shit about it.

He resorted to the same ad hominem that you use, the fact that he followed one of his "targets" (in this case me) and looked to pick a fight with said target is the trolling. His facts, correct or not, added nothing to the central argument which you seem to more and more want to obfuscate.

We're not talking about agreement in terms of opinions, we're talking about actual facts.

Which don't support the thesis you presented.

Oh. Well, you should brush up on your skills then.

I think I'm doing just fine. I'm not the guy whose increasingly coming under fire for his unproven thesis, nor am I obfuscating and bringing irrelevant "facts" into my debating.

in this topic, they are 100% correct.

Nu uh defense again.

Obviously not. Your arguments are the equivalent to saying 3+3=46. I don't agree with you because what you're saying just isn't true.

Lol. I'm not the guy saying someone is a dictator who clearly isn't. This sentence very accurately describes how I feel about your arguments.

Great, however, we're not talking about what words mean. We're talking about a president who adopts similar viewpoints and actions to dictators.

No no, you called this president a dictator. You said he IS a dictator, not that he acts like one. Now you're changing the goal posts. When you say someone is a word, you have to bring the definition of the word into the discussion. It's only irrelevant to you now because you're realizing your position isn't defensible.

Um, no, I didn't say the dictionary was wrong. I'm saying you are wrong for citing it, because actual dictators and their actions tend to define what a dictator is.

Which was then used to go into defining the word...seriously dude, just stop already. You made a mistake, it happens, you learn and you move on. It's just foolish now that you're trying to say a dictionary has no place in an argument about whether or not a word applies to someone.

At 5/13/13 07:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Nu uh defense again.

No it isn't...you start explaining yourself first, and I'll dignify you with a response.

I pointed it out every time I felt it was happening. I'm not going to summarize here when it's clear you didn't read/understand the first time.

Nuh uh defense again

That IS the actual argument! Are you just being willfully ignorant now? The whole argument is "does Obama fit the definition of a dictator" to do that we need to understand and be clear on what the definition of a dictator is. Seems to me you realize when we throw the actual definition up for all to see you can't tie him to it, so now the trick is to act like the dictionary isn't relevant. Which is completely dishonest debate.

That isn't the argument I'm having. You using the dictionary to decide if Obama fits said description. I'm using his actions. Both are valid, and you're the only one screaming they arent'

Yes it does actually. It harms his character and credibility. But I forgot, the only metric that matters is whether or not someone agrees with you.

No, facts are the thing that matters to me.

The argument was whether or not Obama is a dictator. How is anything mem brought up helping to make him fit the definition? All he did was bring up the same stuff I already discredited

No, you asked "how is perpetual war a liberal view"? "How is persecution of political opposition a liberal view"? I pointed out that those are indeed, leftist concepts

Largely is not the same as totally. That one still stands. That's why they're still teaching it in both psych 101 and abnormal psych. I know this because I took both classes. Try again before you resort to "lol".

L.O.L.

He resorted to the same ad hominem that you use, the fact that he followed one of his "targets" (in this case me) and looked to pick a fight with said target is the trolling. His facts, correct or not, added nothing to the central argument which you seem to more and more want to obfuscate.

It wasn't ad hominem. You made statements and he rebutted. Do you not understand what a debate is?

Which don't support the thesis you presented.

They do, as I've pointed out in every single response I've addressed to you.

I think I'm doing just fine. I'm not the guy whose increasingly coming under fire for his unproven thesis, nor am I obfuscating and bringing irrelevant "facts" into my debating.

I think not. You have no defense any longer, have been proven wrong, and now are resorting to personal attacks and bullshit to divert the discussion

Nu uh defense again.

Man, talk about logical fallacies.

Lol. I'm not the guy saying someone is a dictator who clearly isn't. This sentence very accurately describes how I feel about your arguments.

Except his actions match up to historical dictators. Revocation of rights, political imprisonment, war, circumnavigation of legal processes, forced government bondage...yes he is a dictator.

No no, you called this president a dictator. You said he IS a dictator, not that he acts like one. Now you're changing the goal posts. When you say someone is a word, you have to bring the definition of the word into the discussion. It's only irrelevant to you now because you're realizing your position isn't defensible.

And I stick by that, as explained above. My position is defensible, and I have explained it several times over. If he acts like a dictator, then he is one. That's how logic works.

Which was then used to go into defining the word...seriously dude, just stop already. You made a mistake, it happens, you learn and you move on. It's just foolish now that you're trying to say a dictionary has no place in an argument about whether or not a word applies to someone.

I didn't make a mistake. You have been PROVEN to be wrong on nearly every single point you've put forth.

Obama acts like a dictator. Regardless of what any book says, that doesn't change.

At 5/13/13 01:55 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: These guys don't seem to agree with you. But what do these Liberal leftists know about it?

Hmm...propaganda or their actual actions....IdK, I'll stick to the actions that are extensively recorded throughout history and the world.

But hey, it's good to know that you take the word of mass murderers so close to heart. Really trustworthy guy, that Hitler.

At 5/13/13 11:30 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Hmm...propaganda or their actual actions....IdK, I'll stick to the actions that are extensively recorded throughout history and the world.

But hey, it's good to know that you take the word of mass murderers so close to heart. Really trustworthy guy, that Hitler.

You're pathetic.

So what Mussolini and Hitler said IN THEIR OWN WORDS is apparently not what they actually believed in and built massive movements around; in reality, they were leftist liberal socialists.

Here's a tip: enroll in a local community college and take a goddamn world history course. Maybe then you'd understand how embarrassed you ought to be over your incoherent and jumbled views.

At 5/14/13 12:13 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: So what Mussolini and Hitler said IN THEIR OWN WORDS is apparently not what they actually believed in and built massive movements around; in reality, they were leftist liberal socialists.

They were leftist liberal socialists. i'm not denying that whatsoever. in fact, that's what I've been saying the whole time

Here's a tip: enroll in a local community college and take a goddamn world history course. Maybe then you'd understand how embarrassed you ought to be over your incoherent and jumbled views.

I did take one. It was taught by a retired 3-star general and West Point grad. How about yours?

At 5/14/13 12:34 AM, LemonCrush wrote: They were leftist liberal socialists. i'm not denying that whatsoever. in fact, that's what I've been saying the whole time

And that is why you fail.

Here's a tip: enroll in a local community college and take a goddamn world history course. Maybe then you'd understand how embarrassed you ought to be over your incoherent and jumbled views.

I did take one. It was taught by a retired 3-star general and West Point grad. How about yours?

So, pray tell, did he lend much credence to your wildly inaccurate views on Hitler and Mussolini?

At 5/14/13 01:03 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: And that is why you fail.

i didn't "fail".

So, pray tell, did he lend much credence to your wildly inaccurate views on Hitler and Mussolini?

Well yes.

As does the things you posted. For shit's sake, the citations are "propaganda pamphlet"! The one written by goebels even says they are socialists several times! Be honest. did you even read them?

At 5/14/13 01:22 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 5/14/13 01:03 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: And that is why you fail.

i didn't "fail".

You have a novel definition of the word "fail" if that's the case.

So, pray tell, did he lend much credence to your wildly inaccurate views on Hitler and Mussolini?

Well yes.

As does the things you posted. For shit's sake, the citations are "propaganda pamphlet"! The one written by goebels even says they are socialists several times! Be honest. did you even read them?

I did, but apparently you didn't.

"It was a sin of the liberal bourgeoisie to overlook THE STATE-BUILDING POWER OF SOCIALISM. It was the sin of MARXISM to degrade SOCIALISM to a system of MONEY AND STOMACH."

"DOWN WITH POLITICAL BOURGEOIS SENTIMENT: FOR REAL NATIONALISM!

DOWN WITH MARXISM: FOR TRUE SOCIALISM!"

Similarly to how Darwinism has absolutely no connection to the ideology known as Social Darwinism, the only connection that National Socialism has to Socialism is that they have a similar sounding name. The Nazi's borrowed words and symbols from everywhere and adopted them as their own. For example, the swastika was originally an Indian sign for peace, the "Aryans" was a tribe of people with light skin who invaded India and had absolutely no connection to the Germans, they took the famous Nazi salute from the Italian Fascists. etc etc.

The Nazis took the socialist label and redefined it into something unrecognizable from what it was originally, AS THE ABOVE PAMPHLET FUCKING SAYS.

At 5/14/13 02:24 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: I did, but apparently you didn't.

"It was a sin of the liberal bourgeoisie to overlook THE STATE-BUILDING POWER OF SOCIALISM. It was the sin of MARXISM to degrade SOCIALISM to a system of MONEY AND STOMACH."

"DOWN WITH POLITICAL BOURGEOIS SENTIMENT: FOR REAL NATIONALISM!

DOWN WITH MARXISM: FOR TRUE SOCIALISM!"

Similarly to how Darwinism has absolutely no connection to the ideology known as Social Darwinism, the only connection that National Socialism has to Socialism is that they have a similar sounding name. The Nazi's borrowed words and symbols from everywhere and adopted them as their own. For example, the swastika was originally an Indian sign for peace, the "Aryans" was a tribe of people with light skin who invaded India and had absolutely no connection to the Germans, they took the famous Nazi salute from the Italian Fascists. etc etc.

The Nazis took the socialist label and redefined it into something unrecognizable from what it was originally, AS THE ABOVE PAMPHLET FUCKING SAYS.

Socialists wanting to kill communists does not preclude the from being socialists. Leftists tend to be bloodthirsty, so I wouldn't put it past them to kill people on the same side of their spectrum.

Hitler and Mussolini weren't just socialists by name, they were in practice as well. Their primary goals, from an econ. standpoint, was to merge governmental and corporate power combined with a strong authoritarian governing style. Kind of like what our presidents of the past few decades have believed as well.

At 5/14/13 02:37 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Hitler and Mussolini weren't just socialists by name, they were in practice as well. Their primary goals, from an econ. standpoint, was to merge governmental and corporate power combined with a strong authoritarian governing style.

This is the historical equivalent of being a creationist. In theory, socialism simply means that the means of production are democratically owned by everyone, rather than by the state or private hands. There have been many attempts to accomplish this goal with great variety, but the aim of instilling a socialist society has always been to have worker ownership of production. That being said, I'm dying to hear what policies Hitler and Mussolini implemented to accomplish this goal. Don't even bother, because it's impossible. To say Hitler and Mussolini were socialists demonstrates such a profound display of ignorance that I seriously have to wonder where you were fed this nonsense.

Mussolini is easy; he was a fascist. There, the end. Now for Hitler. Nazi Germany was never, in practice and by definition, a socialist state. It was socialism in name only, much like North Korea is a Democracy in name only. From nearly the very beginning, Nazi rule not only violated the rights of the worker, but also enacted policies than were the antithesis of socialism. For example, the Law Regulating National Labor (1934), which wrote:

"The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise"

It's obvious to see how this is the direct opposite of socialist ideals. The charter gave all employers complete control over its workers. The most egregious violation of socialist principles is that of labor unions. As we all know, Germany was experiencing a depression prior to Nazi rule. There had been massive worker strikes and protests all across the country, and Hitler took complete advantage of the situation. He had promised the dissatisfied German workers to both strengthen the labor unions and increase the standard of living; however, while he was doing this, at the same time he was privately talking to German businessmen, ensuring that he would crack down and outlaw labor unions once he ascended to power:

"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists'and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it." [William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (p.143)]

Once Hitler got into power he immediately broke every promise he made to the German workers. He abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. Funds belonging to trade unions were confiscated and German police raided union HQs and arrested union officials -- some were even sent to concentration camps. The farcical justification for this was that Hitler saw the trade unions as having too much power over workers, yet only one year later he would allow employers to have complete control over employees as demonstrated previously. Hitler was now safe from the working class organizing itself, but he knew he would have to give the workers something back to eliminate any possibility of worker revolt. In traditional Nazi fashion, Hitler had duped the people of Germany and replaced the previously existing labor unions with a Nazi one: the German Labour Front, which, by definition and in practice, was to replace the previously existing liberal unions and liberalism in general. It is no coincidence that Hitler outlawed the KPD and then suppressed the ADGB trade unions only one month apart from another.

Socialists wanting to kill communists does not preclude the from being socialists.

It's hard to argue this point because you framed it in such a way that it is a given that Hitler's regime was socialist. It wasn't. Sure, socialists can kill socialists, but instead we saw not just a purge of socialists, but also the presecution of socialist ideals and anyone who preached them. What we insetad saw in Germany was a fascist extreme far-right government combating liberalism. The nazis were supported by the ruling conservatives (who helped Hitler into power as a way of preventing the socialists from coming in), were friendly with German conservative parties, were highly hierarchical and elitist, and had vicious hatred for anybody advocating collective ownership of the means of production. The party was syndicalist and corporatist (in that it advocated cooperation between capitalists and labor for the good of the nation), but not remotely anti-capitalist -- far from it, they loathed the entire idea of class conflict. All these things imply fascism, not socialism. They're similar to the nationalist capitalist development in Japan that "rich nation, strong army" represented, and certainly similar to the Italian fascists. Calling themselves "fascists" wouldn't make sense, considering the fasces was an Italian symbol and borrowed symbols would be ludicrous for a nationalist regime, but they were fascist nonetheless.

"The Nazis came to power through an alliance with traditional conservative forces. Franz von Papen, a very conservative former German Chancellor and former member of the Catholic Centre Party supported Hitler for the position of Chancellor and later became an important Nazi official. The Enabling Act which gave the Nazis dictatorial powers passed only because of the support of conservative and centrist deputies in the Reichstag, over the opposition of Social Democrats and Communists.

When the Nazis were still an opposition party some leaders, particularly Gregor Strasser, espoused anti-big business stances and advocated the idea of the Nazis as a workers' party. In spite of this, most workers continued to vote for the SPD or the KPD as late as the March 1933 elections held shortly after Hitler's appointment as chancellor.
...
In power, the Nazis jettisoned practically all of the socialistic aspects of their program, and worked with big business, frequently at the expense of both small business and the working classes. Gregor Strasser was murdered, as was Ernst Röhm while Otto Strasser was purged from the party. Independent trade unions were outlawed, as were strikes. In place of the unions, the Nazis created the Deutsche Arbeitsfront. The Nazis took other symbolic steps to co-opt the working classes' support, such as the introduction of May Day as a national holiday in 1933. These were described by socialists as superficial moves designed to win the allegiance of workers rather than grant them any material concessions at the expense of capital." [http://www.nazism.net/about/relation_to_other_concepts/]

I'll be fair, and say that it is theoretically possible that despite their friendly relations with conservatives, vicious hostility towards socialists and communists, opposition to class conflict, trade unions and strikes, lack of nationalization of non-Jewish private property, enormous support towards hierarchy (which is in direct odds with Marxism and any variant of socialism I've ever heard of) and embrace of capitalism once coming into power...that they could actually have been legitimately socialist. Hitler's 'national socialist program' would certainly imply so. On the other hand, their actions after taking control imply that they never took this seriously, and that socialists have never claimed them (even when Hitler was successfully rebuilding the Germany economy before WWII). Socialists have always considered nationalism to be "false consciousness" and attempting to co-opt socialism would have made enormous sense for a political movement that was trying to discredit socialism while at the same time keeping Wiemar conservatives happy.

tl;dr you're wrong, stop.

At 5/14/13 10:07 AM, Feoric wrote: This is the historical equivalent of being a creationist.

That comparison is unfair to creationists. They at least make an effort to make their arguments using sciency sounding arguments and some kind of made up figures. This guy's argument is basically "it just is, look up the definition, but don't use a dictionary".

At 5/14/13 10:07 AM, Feoric wrote: tl;dr you're wrong, stop.

That doesn't change the historical fact that Hitler and Mussolini acted as leftists, and claimed themselves as such (kind of like how Bush called himself conservative). Therefore it's only fair to call them that.

You can try to cover up the fact that heinous dictators aren't leftist. But they were. Leftism is also the party of revisionism. Kind of like when they pretend that democrats are champions of women's or minority rights, when in reality, they fought (and still do) fight against civil rights.

You can scream up and down that they weren't leftists. it doesn't change anything.

At 5/14/13 12:45 PM, LemonCrush wrote: You can try to cover up the fact that heinous dictators aren't leftist. But they were.

Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

At 5/14/13 12:48 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 5/14/13 12:45 PM, LemonCrush wrote: You can try to cover up the fact that heinous dictators aren't leftist. But they were.

Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

See?

At 5/14/13 01:11 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: See?

Yeah, hard to argue with that! That being said:

At 5/13/13 11:30 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Hmm...propaganda or their actual actions....IdK, I'll stick to the actions that are extensively recorded throughout history and the world.

Well I've already demonstrated that Hitler was most assuredly not a socialist, and was openly hostile towards leftist thought. So, going with this, I guess you'd have to at the very least tacitly concede your point. Unless you can describe in detail how I'm wrong, but if you had the capacity to so I'd think you would have by now.

But hey, it's good to know that you take the word of mass murderers so close to heart.

Now that's strange:

As does the things you posted. For shit's sake, the citations are "propaganda pamphlet"! The one written by goebels even says they are socialists several times!

Weird! So, when the very people you claim to be liberals (AND leftists AND socialists, as if those terms should be used interchangeably) hand out pamphlets which aggressively outline how they are opposed to Marxism and other far left schools of thought, it shouldn't be taken at face value on virtue of it being propaganda. Yet when they mention that they are socialists in the same text (which they have been demonstrated to be the complete opposite of) then it's all well and good to take it at face value. Only when it doesn't run counter to your inane argument. Well alright, then. "It's good to know that you take the word of mass murderers so close to heart."

What other doubleplusungoods do you want to attribute to liberals/leftists? Typhoid Mary? The Clock Crew?

At 5/14/13 02:04 PM, Feoric wrote: Well I've already demonstrated that Hitler was most assuredly not a socialist, and was openly hostile towards leftist thought. So, going with this, I guess you'd have to at the very least tacitly concede your point. Unless you can describe in detail how I'm wrong, but if you had the capacity to so I'd think you would have by now.

socialist or not, he was a leftist. Every ideology he held, like government control of industry, to execution of political enemies, to the holocaust, are all leftist ideologies.

Weird! So, when the very people you claim to be liberals (AND leftists AND socialists, as if those terms should be used interchangeably) hand out pamphlets which aggressively outline how they are opposed to Marxism and other far left schools of thought, it shouldn't be taken at face value on virtue of it being propaganda. Yet when they mention that they are socialists in the same text (which they have been demonstrated to be the complete opposite of) then it's all well and good to take it at face value. Only when it doesn't run counter to your inane argument. Well alright, then. "It's good to know that you take the word of mass murderers so close to heart."

Just because you're opposed to a specific brand of leftist thought, like Marxism, doesn't mean you aren't a leftist. for example, I wouldn't call George Bush a marxist. however, I would stay say, because of his aggressive military leadership, statism, religious indoctrination, and anti-capitalist tendencies, that he is a leftist. Sure, he wasn't as extreme as someone like Mao, but he still was a leftist, because he opposes conservative and/or capitalist values.

To be fair, they were the National SOCIALIST Worker's Party. I mean the title itself screams left leaning, but again that's only name and doesn't mean that the man's action's were particularly left leaning, although some of his actions did fall in line with liberal agenda's whether or not he personally agrees with them doesn't make it any less so.

-He was vegan and anti-smoking
-Enacted Gun control
-He instituted numerous public works projects in the style of FDR, who by the way was condemened for such actions as the m.o. of the day was 'rugged individualism' laissez faire, etc.

That being said I'm not saying the man was, I mean being a dictator on the whole after all is as Conservative as you can get.

At 5/14/13 02:16 PM, LemonCrush wrote: socialist or not, he was a leftist. Every ideology he held, like government control of industry, to execution of political enemies, to the holocaust, are all leftist ideologies.

gahahaha yeah, oh! I was not aware it was against the laws that govern the universe for a far right government to control industry and/or execute political enemies, lol. That would be against their ideals. Only leftists do such a thing, I forgot. Only they can do evil.

Just because you're opposed to a specific brand of leftist thought, like Marxism, doesn't mean you aren't a leftist.

Let's take this one step at a time. You called Hitler and Mussolini socialists. Socialist is not synonymous for leftist. Are Hitler and Mussolini socialists or not? Leave leftist out of the equation for now, I'll get to that part later.

At 5/14/13 02:31 PM, Feoric wrote: gahahaha yeah, oh! I was not aware it was against the laws that govern the universe for a far right government to control industry and/or execute political enemies, lol. That would be against their ideals. Only leftists do such a thing, I forgot. Only they can do evil.

Well those things are not rightist ideologies or concepts. The fact that they oppose right-leaning actions and concepts makes them leftist by default...

Let's take this one step at a time. You called Hitler and Mussolini socialists. Socialist is not synonymous for leftist. Are Hitler and Mussolini socialists or not? Leave leftist out of the equation for now, I'll get to that part later.

dictionary socialist, no. Practically though, yes. i mean, if they're claiming to be socialist and most socialists adopt their methodology, then that makes them so by default. Those practices are now the standard for socialist dictatorships

At 5/14/13 02:27 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: To be fair, they were the National SOCIALIST Worker's Party. I mean the title itself screams left leaning, but again that's only name and doesn't mean that the man's action's were particularly left leaning, although some of his actions did fall in line with liberal agenda's whether or not he personally agrees with them doesn't make it any less so.

-He was vegan and anti-smoking
-Enacted Gun control
-He instituted numerous public works projects in the style of FDR, who by the way was condemened for such actions as the m.o. of the day was 'rugged individualism' laissez faire, etc.

That being said I'm not saying the man was, I mean being a dictator on the whole after all is as Conservative as you can get.

Hitler did not enact gun control.

And there is no such thing as a conservative dictatorship, as dictatorship and govt control/slavery and the like are not part of conservative ideologoy.

At 5/14/13 03:23 PM, LemonCrush wrote: And there is no such thing as a conservative dictatorship, as dictatorship and govt control/slavery and the like are not part of conservative ideologoy.

There is no such thing as a rigid definition of "conservative" ideology, as the term "conservative" changes depending on which country you look at. A conservative in Ireland is not going to see eye to eye with a conservative from India. Conservatives favor keeping cultural traditions, and some traditions in some cultures are markedly authoritarian.

Take the French revolution. The liberals were the ones favoring overthrowing the monarchy and instituting a democratic form of government, whereas the conservatives (in the tradition of Edmund Burke) favored a return to the monarchy (i.e. an hereditary and absolute ruler - aka a dictator).

The notion that conservatives anywhere cannot favor dictatorship just shows how your world view is tinted by the cultural goggles that you wear.

Right, and a conservative German would be (or at the very least FAAAAAAAAR right) for dictatorships considering their history where power was hold to a certain individual, aka Hitler or the NAZI's

At 5/14/13 03:20 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Well those things are not rightist ideologies or concepts. The fact that they oppose right-leaning actions and concepts makes them leftist by default...

Oh, I'll get to that, but first:

dictionary socialist, no. Practically though, yes.

So, for all practical purposes, they were both socialist according to you (but not the dictionary kind). Well there's a real big post not too far up describing in moderate detail why that's not the case based on policy and actual events that happened, so if you're going to make the claim that they were in fact socialist in practice then the onus is on you to show me policy and actual events which happened which seems to coincide with the philosophy of Marx and Engels et al. Either that or just drop the socialist argument and continue to insist that they were leftists and we'll continue from there.

i mean, if they're claiming to be socialist and most socialists adopt their methodology

Not a single socialist has come out in support of either of the two.