You guys get a different version of what happens here than what really happens here on your news apparently. Bush wasn't responsible for ANYTHING that happened under his ownwatch using that logic... he inherited all of them from Bill Clinton. So blame Clinton...not Bush.

Everyone here in the USA would GLADLY go back to the way things were when Bush was in office... EVERYTHING was better than it is now. Obama alone spent more money than George Bush did AND every other president COMBINED. And there were several very big wars paid for during that time as well.

Hitler was no Right winger... no right winger believes in fascism or any other form of collectivism. The Nazi party was the National Socialist party...

National Socialism (political movement, Germany) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The Socialists and Communists might not always like each other... but they are birds of the same feather. And they share far more in common than they have differences.

Smoothy, don't be an ostrich Bush committed your country to a war in Afghanistan and then didn't follow through, can't see Clinton involved in that one, unless it is he didn't start it sooner. Bush committed your country to a war in Iraq, if anyone is to blame it is GHW Bush for failing to prosecute it years earlier. We would all like to go back to the days before the GFC. I think it would have been interesting to see the G. W. Bush approach, would he have looked like a stunned mullet like he did on 9/11 or declared a War on Wall Street to match the War on Terror.

Hitler was right wing, extreme right wing. There really is no difference between extreme right and extreme left in methodology, both believe in the supremacy of the state and it's right to coerce compliance. Fascism is right wing that is why it has echoes in fundamentalist Islam and you don't see them implementing socialist policies. In any case the argument is academic because your country is not socialist but there are echoes of fascism.

As far as getting a different version of the news, we sometimes get news you don't get, and of course, just like yourselves the focus of our media is local, so you have little idea of what is really happening in the world at large, but anything news worthy finds its way into our media because otherwise we would be starved of any real news, but many of us have an interest in what is happening in Europe and Asia, we even have a specialist news service providing other language news services, so we get a different perspective. I think it is perspective that makes the difference, we don't happen to think you are right and everyone else is wrong

You are being the Ostrich... the Taliban were HOSTING Al Queda in afghanistan... we had every reason in the world to go there... me of course... I would have nuked the hellhole and been over with it, I don't have my finger on the button however.

Really... OBL was offered to us on a silver platter... Clinton refused to take him... and even further back... BIll CLinton insisted on treating the first attempted bombing of the WTC as a criminal act rather than treating it what it was... it almost always starts when a Democrat is in charge..
THere was nothing right wing about hitler... the right supports NOTHING Hitler did... never has... never will. The left however does and always has.

I've had a insider perspective on a lot of these events when they were happening Joe Average didn't. If they did... they would see it the way I do. However I can't and won't go into detail why or how... thats just how it is... take my word for it or don't... but I'm no Snowden.


As I've said before...people who believe every word they hear on the news....are actually less informed than some goatherder living in the remote mountains.

I doubt the left in your country supported Hitler and the left in my country certainly didn't, as far as Afghanistan was concerned it was a stuffup, as far as Iraq was concerned it was a stuffup and the Buck must stop with Bush. what does your perspective tell you now? has your country gone to the dogs or not?

Smoothy

"Hitler was no Right winger... no right winger believes in fascism or any other form of collectivism. The Nazi party was the National Socialist party...

National-Socialism" National Socialism (political movement, Germany) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The Socialists and Communists might not always like each other... but they are birds of the same feather. And they share far more in common than they have differences."


This is not quite correct. It is a bit more complicated than that. Having made this claim will say it is very difficult to give a brief summary, but I think will be worth effort.As your link points out the National Socialist Party had its beginning long before the rise of Hitler. Its roots can be found in agrarianism. More specifically the promotion of agricultural interest associated with a particular class.

I don't think it is possible to understand National Socialism without first understanding the contribution that Bismarck made to the movement. Before such an explanation, it is important to understand that Bismarck was very active in banning some of the most important elements of the socialist movement encroaching upon Europe at the time. This is because there was rapid industrialization taking place during this time that inevitably led to an embracement of Marxism by the working class.This forced Bismarck to implement his own socialist agenda. This led Bismarck to adopt his own form of 'socialism'. This attempt at socialism has some aspects of modern socialism, but is largely an anathema to the modern movement.

Hitler can be seen as someone who took up the reins of National Socialism because he could see how it would suit his ends. Hitler's National socialism certainly had common elements shared with Bismarck's attempt, while at the some time adding some of his own flavour.As your link also says, Hitler's party had common elements with the Fascism of Mussolini. Some of the elements would be, heavy nationalistic sentiment , antisemitism (somewhat reluctantly) stateism, anti-Marxist, anti-rationalist and anti-intellectual

In the end Nazism and Fascism are no different to any other time in history. Namely, they are somewhat unique.

I completely disagree... there were groups (all leftists) that actually did support Hitler before out entry into the war... they were never a majority.

Iraq was no more Bushes fault than Korea was... yes remember that one... same deal... cease fire agreement in both cases... onlt despite the pilsbury dogh boys near constant chest beating... and trying to appear manly just Justine Beiber... they are both just pompus asses. Saddam however actually did repeatedly violate the cease fire over and over again... He Did use Chemical Weapons against the Kurds... (proven fact). Taking him out was justified by every international law.

And Afghanistan hy hosting and supporting Al Queda when they committed an act of war... opened them up to a very legal and very moral attack. THey started that... not us. The fact 90% of that countries inhabitants aren't worth the sheep they sodomize is immaterial.

Tutty... as a lefty... you really don't grasp reality as well as you think you do.

I'm a right winger... I know what the right likes and doesn't like... there is NOTHING Hitler stood for that the right stands for... despite what you might think. Everything Hitler stoof for has far more in common with Obamas Democrat party than you might want to admit... becasue the Republican party shares nothing that Hitlers Nazi party or any Facists party.

THerefore no rational educated person can make the claim the Republicans are right wingers... then in the same breath claim Nazis and Fascists are right wingers when they share absolutely nothing in common, they do however share a lot in common with the American Democrat party of today. If you wasn't on the opposite side of the planet getting all your information from factualy questionable sources....this would be more clear to you.

Quote:

---

The fact 90% of that countries inhabitants aren't worth the sheep they sodomize is immaterial.

---

You really do have some racial hangups just as you apparently don't believe the evidence. You can fly the flag of convenience as much as you like, GHW Bush left the Iraqi to the tender mercies of Saddam, meaning that GW Bush had unfinished business in Iraq, and he started a war to finish it, no doubt egged on by GHW Bush's Saudi buddies. I didn't see any one being concerned about the Kurds

I'm a patient man. Lets start at the top and slowly work our way down.

"I completely disagree...these were groups (all leftist) that actually did support Hitler before our entry into the war...they were never a majority"

First of all your above sentence doesn't make sense. Who were never a majority?

Secondly, are you talking about political parties from the Weimar Republic? Is so are you in all seriousness suggesting these numerous political parties were all leftist?

Quote:

---

THerefore no rational educated person can make the claim the Republicans are right wingers... then in the same breath claim Nazis and Fascists are right wingers when they share absolutely nothing in common,

---

Even within the ranks of the Republicans today there are individuals who have a different agenda and may have little in common with others. You don't like the connotations when comparisons are drawn between fascists of the past and right wingers today

Tuttyd... its well known there were groups in the USA at that time very sypathetic to the Nazis... many were investigated... some were even sent to jail... a few executed. THOSE are who I was talking about... in Germany the Majority even if they weren't hard core Nazi's at least supported them... caused mostly from the punative measures after WW1. Not saying they didn't deserve them because they did, but I can understand where the resentment came from that fostered the rise of the Nazi party.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Even within the ranks of the Republicans today there are individuals who have a different agenda and may have little in common with others. You don't like the connotations when comparisons are drawn between fascists of the past and right wingers today

---

There is a huge difference between not agreeing with everything... and not agreeing with ANYTHING.

THere is nothing the Fascists ever stood for that that the Right wingers here have ever stood for.....the Lefties are who share many of the same objectives......not the right. If you think otherwise then you really don't know much about the American Right.

THere are disagreements in every political party in the world... even in North Korea , but they keep it to themselves or they get fed to the dogs.

You see missinformation again, the dogs story was a hoax, but your Tparty actually shut down government, I'm surprised they weren't wearing Brown Shirts. The american right is dangerous, fortunately you don't have the american people with you

yes I think the german people were complicit in nazism, just like the japanese people were complicit in their part of WWII and the people of North Korea are complicit in the actions of their regime today, you like to blame the left, but not all error lies in the left camp

"...inGermany the Majority even if they weren't hard core Nazi's at least supported them..caused mostly from punitive measures after WW!..."


Ok, so it looks like you are talking roughly about the time Hitler dismissed the Reichstag and his consolidation of power. About the time of the 1933 elections:

Hitler unleashed a rein of terror Storm troopers began ATTACKING TRADE UNION AND COMMUNIST(KPD) PARTY OFFICES AND HOUSES OF LEFT WINGERS. Wikipedia

Here is the whole article from wikipedia:



Hitler gained his support from the left or the right, depending on what suited his purpose at the time. He quickly turned on anyone or any group he thought would provide opposition to his nationalistic agenda.

As I said right at the beginning Nazism has elements that make it a unique time in world history.

Federal elections were held in Germany on 5 March 1933. The Nazis registered a large increase in votes, again emerging as the largest party by far. Nevertheless they failed to obtain an absolute majority (despite the massive suppression against Communist and Social Democratic politicians) in their own right, needing the votes of their coalition partner, the DNVP German National People's Party, or "Black-White-Red-Struggle-Front," for a working majority. Due to the success in the poll, party leader Adolf Hitler – Chancellor since 30 January – was able to pass the Enabling Act on 23 March, which effectively made Hitler dictator of Germany. As a result, while three more elections (with only a Nazi party list) were held in the Nazi era, this was the last free election held in Germany before the end of World War II and the formation of the German Bundestag in 1949, and the last for the whole country before reunification in 1990.

The election took place after the Nazi Machtergreifung of 30 January when President Paul von Hindenburg had appointed Hitler Chancellor, who immediately urged the dissolution of the Reichstag and the arrangement of new elections. In early February, the Nazis "unleashed a campaign of violence and terror that dwarfed anything seen so far." Storm troopers began attacking trade union and Communist Party (KPD) offices and the homes of left-wingers.^[1] In the second half of February, the violence was extended to the Social Democrats, with gangs of brownshirts breaking up Social Democrat meetings and beating up their speakers and audiences. Issues of Social Democratic newspapers were banned.^[2] Twenty newspapers of the Centre Party, a party of Catholic Germans, were banned in mid-February for criticizing the new government. Government officials known to be Centre Party supporters were dismissed from their offices, and stormtroopers violently attacked party meetings in Westphalia.^[3]
Six days before the scheduled election date, the German parliament building was set alight in the Reichstag fire, allegedly by the Dutch Communist Marinus van der Lubbe. This event reduced the popularity of the KPD, and enabled Hitler to persuade President Hindenburg to pass the Reichstag Fire Decree as an emergency decree according to Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. This emergency law removed many civil liberties and allowed the arrest of Ernst Thälmann and 4,000 leaders and members of the KPD^[4] shortly before the election, suppressing the Communist vote and consolidating the position of the Nazis. The KPD was "effectively outlawed from 28 February 1933", although it was not completely banned until the day after the election.^[5] While at that time not as heavily oppressed as the Communists, the Social Democrats were also restricted in their action


The wikipedia link didn't work so I cut and pasted

In the book The Bell Curve, the authors rated groups according to IQ. The highest average IQ group was Ashkenazi Jews, then East Asians, followed by Whites, Hispanics and African- Americans.

The question then became why?

My opinion only - I believe the differences are due to environment (nurture). The "nature/nurture" argument is, in my opinion, a false one. Nature, after all, is simply nurture writ large over hundreds of generations.

The group living in a temperate climate, for example, (whites) has a greater challenge to provide food and shelter than a group (Blacks) living in a tropical climate where food and shelter are relatively easier to obtain. Hence, the former group develops greater technology to survive. This leads to higher IQs over time.

There are many other factors/examples, all relying on environment (nurture).

Over many generations, the lower IQ group will ultimately fit in with the higher group if they share the same environment. African Americans, for example, have increased IQs when measured over time (and living in a temperate climate).

This issue is a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion. Unfortunatley, the Nazis tainted the discussion so badly that it is still, in many circles, hard to have a non-heated discussion.

The Nazis, of course, believed, quite erroneously, that nature (genetics) determined "superiority".

intersting argument but it doesn't explain the Jews and whilst climate might explain some characteristics, skin, height it doesn't explain intelligence excepting that in harsh climates the lower intelligent part of the society doesn't survive. What does make a difference is the quality, not quantity of food

Another Dem reveals his racism...on the House floor.

Attachment 45653

might as well say you don't like michelle she is married to a white man

Republican turned Democrat Charlie Crist has found the secret to being a good Dem, play the race card on the reaction to his 2009 hug of Obama.

Quote:

---

"Sadly, I think another part of it was that he was a Democrat. But not just a Democrat, an African American," Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said on "The Colbert Report."

---

Uh yeah right. Personally I don't care if you hug Obama, hold his hand or kiss him smack on the lips. Republicans don't like your political embrace of Obama, you conveniently abandon the party for political expediency and you should expect some backlash, much like Alan Specter.

By the way, no one has complained that Tom Coburn has embraced Zero as a good friend, I think that's because he has principles and integrity unlike you. And your shameless race baiting is just more proof you're a lowlife who'll do anything to get elected. Get a spine Democrats and practice what you preach instead of stoking the fire.