AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

parados wrote:
Quote:
Research Margaret Sanger.

Nothing in her work about wanting to depopulate all of humanity

Right, only brown people.

Even if that is true, it would make your original claim false.

0 Replies

@parados,

Well, he can quote okie.

0 Replies

It's very simple: The nazis were statists, socialists are statists. End of story.

Conservatives are small government liberals. Politics is not about "bigotry", it is about policies.
As for policies, the nazis were socialists.

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

It's very simple: The nazis were statists, socialists are statists. End of story.

Why should anyone trust or rely upon such simplistic and one-dimensional analysis? It is hardly compelling in any way, and more of an indication of your personal political philosophy than it is an accurate view of history.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

Civil rights in America was opposed by the conservatives of both parties. Many conservatives only supported the democratic party due to the historic mistrust of Republicans and the civil war. Those of both parties that occupied the liberal position or on the left of the democratic party, supported the civil rights bill. When the bill was past many conservative democrats left their party and joined the Republicans. So Nero it was the right wing position to oppose the civil rights for the black community.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:

It's very simple: The nazis were statists, socialists are statists. End of story.

Why should anyone trust or rely upon such simplistic and one-dimensional analysis? It is hardly compelling in any way, and more of an indication of your personal political philosophy than it is an accurate view of history.

Cycloptichorn

It's not compelling to you because you don't want it to be true. The left thrives on fabricated complexity, sometimes things are simple.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

The left thrives on fabricated complexity, sometimes things are simple.

I think it is exceedingly rare that things are, in fact, simple. However, I can see how simple minds wish issues to be reduced thus, so as not to be confronted with ambiguities that they cannot easily resolve.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
The left thrives on fabricated complexity, sometimes things are simple.

I think it is exceedingly rare that things are, in fact, simple. However, I can see how simple minds wish issues to be reduced thus, so as not to be confronted with ambiguities that they cannot easily resolve.

Yeah, all those many layers and nuances in statism, oh I wish I were as smart as all the leftists who get it.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

It probably would be nice for you if you were.

Tell me - what kind of research have you actually done into this topic? Be honest. Have you studied it in any depth, or do you simply rely on shallow analysis from right-wing websites to decide what is true about history?

I think the various comments above clearly show that you have no real understanding of the situation; and at one point were reduced to muttering about abortion and claiming that all modern countries are, in fact, socialist in nature.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Does anyone really care about this Nazi = Leftist or Nazi = Righty discussion.

Jesus, I'm sick of it....who's with me?

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It probably would be nice for you if you were.

Keep in mind that all children start out as leftists, some grow up, some don't. Everyone on the right used to be a leftist, we understand how you think, leftists were never on the right, you can't understand how the right thinks.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tell me - what kind of research have you actually done into this topic? Be honest. Have you studied it in any depth, or do you simply rely on shallow analysis from right-wing websites to decide what is true about history?

Was it you or someone else who asked me that before? Why always the "what's your education" line? What does that have to do with anything? If I'm totally uneducated and receive all my information from right-wing-propaganda.com, would that mean that the nazis didn't implement socialist laws? Why don't you contest what I say instead of trying to brand me as a moron to justify disregarding all I say out of hand?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think the various comments above clearly show that you have no real understanding of the situation; and at one point were reduced to muttering about abortion and claiming that all modern countries are, in fact, socialist in nature.

Argumentum ad hominem. It was other people who focused on abortion. Even if I'm wrong about the specific point of abortion, the overall argument remains: National socialism was a socialist progressive movement.

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

If I'm totally uneducated and receive all my information from right-wing-propaganda.com, would that mean that the nazis didn't implement socialist laws?

Yes, it likely would. There is a reason that original scholarship is trusted more than a dilettante's opinion - do you even know what that reason is?

It has ever been the mission of the uneducated to prove that education isn't necessary - but they, like you, are wrong and will remain wrong.

Quote:

Argumentum ad hominem.

No, it's not - I made no statement regarding your character at all, but instead described your actions. That's not an ad hominem argument.

Quote:

It was other people who focused on abortion.

You are the one who randomly brought it up at the end of a reply to me. So this is also factually incorrect.

Quote:

Even if I'm wrong about the specific point of abortion, the overall argument remains: National socialism was a socialist progressive movement.

That is not an argument, but an unproven assertion by you. There is a significant difference.

At this point you've become somewhat boring - you haven't done any real scholarship on the issue and you aren't interested in exploring the situation in any real depth. Unless you can come up with something more interesting, I feel safe saying that there is no further utility in knocking down your ridiculous assertions.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Does anyone really care about this Nazi = Leftist or Nazi = Righty discussion.

Jesus, I'm sick of it....who's with me?

The "nazi left or right" debate isn't going to change anyones mind, ever. But I enjoy seeing leftists scrambling for excuses when they are confronted with it. Wink

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Does anyone really care about this Nazi = Leftist or Nazi = Righty discussion.

Jesus, I'm sick of it....who's with me?

I'm also sick of it... I wouldn't mind so much if there were more scholarship and fact behind it, but there never is.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

You could put the word capitalist into the term..State capitalism. So Nazis were static capitalists, capitalists. You cant just pick a word that could partially describe both ideologies and then assume they are the same.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
If I'm totally uneducated and receive all my information from right-wing-propaganda.com, would that mean that the nazis didn't implement socialist laws?

Yes, it likely would.

The nazis implemented socialist laws no matter where I read it. You can contest that they did or not. But my education is irrelevant.

Quote:

Quote:

Argumentum ad hominem.

No, it's not - I made no statement regarding your character at all, but instead described your actions. That's not an ad hominem argument.

You stated: "the various comments above clearly show that you have no real understanding of the situation".

Why don't you contest what I say instead of trying to brand me as a moron to justify disregarding all I say out of hand, so you can maintain your beliefs?

Quote:

At this point you've become somewhat boring

Yes, at this point you people usually become really "bored". You made some personal attacks that in your head justify disregarding all I say, and then you become "bored", and disappear, your beliefs maintained.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

But my education is irrelevant.

No, it isn't, and you prove it more with every post. It's pretty obvious that you have no formal training in the study of history at all and have done no real scholarship on this issue; however, you position yourself as the opposite of that, making assertions as if you had some sort of authority on the subject. It is not compelling.

I'm sure you experience people getting bored with your posts a lot, because your arguments are basically assertions with no supporting evidence, and when challenged on them, you just retreat into repeating your assertions over and over - as if that added validity to them. You'll have to do a little better than that if you wish to keep people interested in what you are writing.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

ummmm, yeah, dear conservatives, anyone but this dolt

Word of the day: Sarah Palin invents 'refudiate'
Possible future US president says 'Shakespeare liked to coin new words too'.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/7/12/1278958595740/Sarah-Palin-006.jpg

Sarah Palin has brought the word 'refudiate' into the world. Photograph: Charles Krupa/AP

The word "refute" was one of the most misused in the English language even before Sarah Palin came along.

Now the possible next president of the US has taken incorrect use of the verb to a new level by mangling it into a whole new word – "refudiate".

At first she appeared embarrassed by the linguistic slip, but she later chose to celebrate her inventiveness by comparing herself to literary giants William Shakespeare and, er, George Bush.

Palin used the word in an interview with Fox News last week when she urged Barack and Michelle Obama to "refudiate" suggestions that the rightwing Tea Party movement was racist.

Over the weekend, she used it again on her Twitter page.

Wading into a debate about a proposal to build an Islamic centre near the World Trade Centre site in New York, she urged "peaceful Muslims" to "pls refudiate" the plans.

That tweet got deleted – but not before it had been noticed by various US bloggers.

Palin then had another go, this time incorrectly – but more conventionally – misusing the word refute. "Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real," she wrote.

That, too, got deleted and replaced by one urging "peace-seeking Muslims" to "reject" the plans.

If only she had consulted the Guardian's style guide first. Its entry on refute says: "Use this much abused word only when an argument is disproved; otherwise contest, deny, rebut."

Later, Palin decided to own up to the mistake by comparing her word to an infamous Bushism.

"'Refudiate,' 'misunderestimate,' 'wee-wee'd up.' English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!" she tweeted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/jul/19/sarah-palin-refudiate-new-word

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
But my education is irrelevant.

No, it isn't, and you prove it more with every post.

I am not going to lecture you in length about argumentation theory. My character, my sources, my education, are irrelevant, only what I say matters. If I am wrong you can make an argument. Do you want to make an argument or not?

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Do you want to make an argument or not?

No - I don't believe that you are interesting enough to discuss this with, and am going to move on to a different topic.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know