Quote:

---

there was nothing progressive about National Socialist Germany, it was hard core right wing and the enemy of Communist Russia, a somewhat progressive socialist state.

---

Quote:

---

You guys think the further right you go brings you closer to God, instead of the forces of evil...

---

no ;the closer to liberty . I reject the left right axis in the doctrination.The left drew it. Socialism is socialism and it doesn't matter a bit if it's national socialism or international socialism . I've yet to see a Communist state that did not adopt the same methods of tyranical control that the Nazis used. It really is a distinction without a difference and they are both on the same side of the spectrum I recognize Tyranny on one side and Liberty on the other .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

no ;the closer to liberty . I reject the left right axis in the doctrination.The left drew it. Socialism is socialism and it doesn't matter a bit if it's national socialism or international socialism . I've yet to see a Communist state that did not adopt the exact same methods of tyranical control that the Nazis used. It really is a distinction without a difference and they are both on the same side of the spectrum I recognize Tyranny on one side and Liberty on the other .

---

Hi Tom,

We've been through this before a while ago.

What you are saying is reductionism that doesn't make any sense. It is a gross oversimplification. I expanded on this last time and you didn't refute my argument. Have you developed your argument any better this time?

Tut

No my argument is essentially the same. Except for the Fascists' unwillingness to completely destroy capitalism by socializing industries (instead they allowed cartels of businesses the state approved of ,and destroyed any competition these companies had ) , it is hard to overlook the many similarities between the Stalinist Soviet Union on the one side and fascist Germany and Italy on the other. Looking at the workings of these regimes ;both Hitler and Stalin established a cult of his personality.Both the Soviet Union and Germnay were repressive, anti-democratic police states with camps for political prisoners .Stalin espoused a strong Russian nationalism under the mantle of socialist internationalism. Hitler espoused a strong German nationalism .Strong anti-Semitism can be found in both nations. Both became militaristic demanding from the people a fidelity to the state; had a monopoly on the media and propaganda, and persecuted minorities and dissenters.

Like I said... there is a distinction without a difference between the two systems.

Flawed logic. Because corporations are people too, then so are churches, but the government is NOT!? That idea won't bring us liberty. If your idea of a smaller, less central government is the way to form a more perfect union, then you go against the original intent of the constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Stalin, and Hitler were dictators, and our dictators are voted in, and are limited until the next election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I recognize Tyranny on one side and Liberty on the other .

---

Hello again, tom:

Wow. I thought we at least shared SOME visions of what freedom is... Guess not, huh? Apparently, you think allowing the cops to STOP people from moving about freely, is MOVING in the direction of liberty??

Interestingly, I see it as a march toward fascism... I'll bet the SS thought they were keeping Germany free...

excon

Only when you think in absolutes could you make that statement . One of the few legitimate roles of the government is secure the nation. You think being asked to produce a license when it is a requirement for the privilege of driving is a moving in the direction of tyranny ? Oye vey

What's with the sudden attraction to Godwin's Law, ex?

To be honest I think you're just panicking at the prospect of Obama losing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You think being asked to produce a license when it is a requirement for the privilege of driving is a moving in the direction of tyranny ? oye vey

---

Hello again, tom:

Again, you mis-characterize my position... I don't object to being asked for a drivers LICENSE.. I object to being asked what my citizenship is. It's "show me your papers". It's NOXIOUS. It's reminiscent of Nazism, EVEN if you can't make the connection.

I don't know HOW you didn't get that, but you didn't.. It's pretty simple. Maybe you don't want to TALK about that, because if you did, you'd LOOSE.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What's with the sudden attraction to Godwin's Law, ex?

---

Hello again, Steve:

I'm not an expert in Godwin's law. I don't even know what it is. I AM, however, an expert in the United States Constitution. But, you don't have to be an expert to understand it.. That's why they wrote it like they did. So even dummy's like me could understand it...

And, I DO understand freedom... You don't. You think freedom is something the cops MIGHT let you have, or MIGHT not. And, that's FINE with you...

excon

FYI...

Quote:

---

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

---

And you think forcing churches to furnish contraceptives is liberty, forcing people to buy health insurance or pay a tax is liberty, that liberty is allowing unelected bureaucrats to manage my health care I can get which is insane.

I for one have no problem moving freely about the country so I don't know what your beef is other than are rules to drive on the roads. I thought you liked rules, like the kind that keeps Tyson from selling me tainted chickens or say rules against texting while driving.

Your message is awfully mixed, buddy.

White guys don't get racially profiled and asked for citizenship papers. And the courts have ruled that churches are limited by state and federal laws, settled law.

That's why states attempts at an end run around the abortion rights law just went to court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No my argument is essentially the same. Except for the Fascists' unwillingness to completely destroy capitalism by socializing industries (instead they allowed cartels of businesses the state approved of ,and destroyed any competition these companies had ) , it is hard to overlook the many similarities between the Stalinist Soviet Union on the one side and fascist Germany and Italy on the other. Looking at the workings of these regimes ;both Hitler and Stalin established a cult of his personality.Both the Soviet Union and Germnay were repressive, anti-democratic police states with camps for political prisoners .Stalin espoused a strong Russian nationalism under the mantle of socialist internationalism. Hitler espoused a strong German nationalism .Strong anti-Semitism can be found in both nations. Both became militaristic demanding from the people a fidelity to the state; had a monopoly on the media and propaganda, and persecuted minorities and dissenters.

Like I said ... there is a distinction without a difference between the two systems.

---

Here is where we should be starting the discussion:

There is some dispute among scholars about where along the left/right divide Fascism resides. Fascism is commonly described as the extreme right, conservative, and anti-conservative, national and international, rational and anti-rational. A number of historians regard Fascism as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which unites philosophies of the left and right, or as both of these things. Fascism was founded during World War 1 by national syndicates who combined both left and right wing political views.

Taken from wikipedia.

In other words, there is no generic Fascism. The other things you have mentioned are subject to volumes of debate as well- yet you seem to be able to sum up everything in a few paragraphs. Why is this?

I would have said these concepts are not subject to some simple reductionalist explanation. You seem to disagree.


Tut

Yes we disagree . I look beyond the words and see how they govern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes we disagree . I look beyond the words and see how they govern.

---

I see, so you know some other way that language works?


Tut

As the adage goes 'actions speak louder than words' . Persecution. Violent. Oppressive. Excessive government control is the signature of both ends of the classic political spectrum... and on either end of the classic political spectrum is socialist models .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

As the old adage goes 'actions speak louder than words' . Persecution. Violent. Oppressive. Excessive government control is the signature of both ends of the classic political spectrum....and on either end of the classic political spectrum is socialist models .

---

I see, after having read the wikipedia quote you now see socialism as occupying both ends of the spectrum. I assume you are occupying the middle?

Seems to me that when you presented the original classical political spectrum socialism, fascism totalitarianism etc were all on the left and nothing on the right except conservatism.

I think I said back then that no one uses the classical model any longer.Except to push an outdated view of the concepts.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Seems to me that when you presented the original classical political spectrum socialism, fascism totalitarianism etc were all on the left and nothing on the right except conservatism.

---

Hello TUT:

You got him pegged.. I AM blown away with his revelations, though, although this view CAN be detected from his posts...

If you move leftward, EVERYTHING bad (Nazism, Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, and no garbage pickup on Thursday) lies over there... But, if you move RIGHTWARD, only wonderful things await...

That's scary.

excon

Quote:

---

see, after having read the wikipedia quote you now see socialism as occupying both ends of the spectrum. I assume you are occupying the middle?

Seems to me that when you presented the original classical political spectrum socialism, fascism totalitarianism etc were all on the left and nothing on the right except conservatism

---

I already said I reject the classic spectrum . Yes I see one extreme end as totalitarianism ,and the other end as liberty ;and yes I see Conservatism as a pilosophy closer to liberty than progressivism .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I already said I reject the classic spectrum . Yes I see one extreme end as totalitarianism ,and the other end as liberty ;and yes I see Conservatism as a pilosophy closer to liberty than progressivism .

---

That should be obvious, but they think trying to protect an unborn child is trampling on liberty beyond measure as opposed to forced mandates on the church in violation of the first amendment, forced purchasing of health insurance, banning Cokes and Happy Meals, income redistribution...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

trying to protect an unborn child

---

That unborn child is safe and happy inside Mommy's tummy, but then it gets born and Mommy is only 14 and her parents kick her out. Then what?