THE WAR IN GAZA

H2Oman wrote:

I'd take you on in an intelligence test with my house as the bet!

By the way, if you are going to question someone’s intelligence, best you do it in a sentence that is grammatically correct. Your comment, "...to anyone that's interested..." should be "...to anyone who's (who is) interested...!"

Talk about dim bulbs!!!

Your attempts at correcting grammar are hilarious and do nothing to hide your ignorance.

The UN has denied any militants being inside the compound.



source

No kidding!

When has the UN ever admitted a mistake?

How about this question to get to the point, because your question does not, was the Nazi party a socialist based party, and what was Hitler's politics? Did you read the link that I posted evaluating Hitler and his politics? In case you missed it:

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

And I quote from it again:

"He championed the rights of workers, regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market. In this regard, he and his associates greatly admired the strong steps taken by President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to take large-scale economic decision-making out of private hands and put it into those of government planning agencies. His aim was to institute a brand of socialism that avoided the inefficiencies that plagued the Soviet variety, and many former communists found his program highly congenial. He deplored the selfish individualism he took to be endemic to modern Western society, and wanted to replace it with an ethic of self-sacrifice: "As Christ proclaimed 'love one another'," he said, "so our call -- 'people's community,' 'public need before private greed,' 'communally-minded social consciousness' -- rings out.! This call will echo throughout the world!" "

oe, does that sound more like President Bush, or does it sound more like the modern Democratic Party here in the U.S.?

It sounds more like the modern Democratic Party here in the U.S.

This reminds me, didn't the U.N. hang around where they were shooting rockets from Lebanon by Hezbollah when that took place a year or two ago? Its almost like the U.N. is in cahoots with anti-Israel forces. I would not be surprised at all to find out that they were harboring Hamas or helping them.

H2O wrote:

There would be nothing to correct--if you got some grade school kid to edit your childish posts, H.

And I am not trying to hide ignorance...I am trying to spotlight yours.

You are trying, but you are a miserable failure.

That's OK, because you are giving us plenty of material to laugh at...

Of course, I shouldn't be picking on your gammar even though it does look like the work of a twelve year-old...because for all I know, you are a twelve year-old...and probably not past the fifth grade yet.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more reasonable it seem to think of you as a twelve year-older. Besides the grammatical clues...there are the thinking and logic clues...and they all seem consistent with a pre-teener.

But you are a sweetie!

That sounds as if this Dr. John Joseph Ray is .... well, he has "over 250 academic publications in psychological authoritarianism, conservatism, racism and achievement motivation ...

Tinker Bell, you are demonstrably on the lower end of the intelligence scale.

Chances are good that you ride the short bus and get beaten up often.

It'd be a cakewalk for you to best h20man in a battle of wits/intelligence, Frank, but he's not made any grammatical error here. 'that' is a relative pronoun that is grammatically equal to 'who' though there are register differences.

I see. You don't want to answer the question. Maybe because you think that the rhetoric a specific political party employs does not necessarily match the understanding you have of the same terminology, and answering the question would therefore undermine your argument.

As to the stuff you've found on the internet and that you're holding up to support your argument that there's a huge conspiracy of the "intelligentsia" out there that wants to falsify history and hide the fact that Hitler was, in fact, a socialist rather than a fascist: it's ridiculous on the face of it. Trying to take a literal English translation of the terminology employed by the Nazis and then trying to find a similarity to the phraseology used by socialists without even trying to understand the German terminology, the connotations it held or how it was employed is nothing but an exercise in futility.

One example: the term "people's community" may sound socialistic to you. However, if you look at the German terminology, you will find that the original word used was the term "Volksgemeinschaft" - the entirety of the population of a nation state, the idea being that the population of every nation was not a random mix of people living in a certain area, but rather a clearly distinguishable (and in the case of the German or Aryan Volksgemeinschaft a vastly superior) race of people. The Volksgemeinschaft therefore had to be cleansed of "racially inferior elements" or "life unworthy of life".

I suggest you read up on it a bit, maybe starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksgemeinschaft

In any case, literally translating Volksgemeinschaft as "people's community" and then pointing to it as an example of socialist rhetoric or ideas is ridiculous beyond belief.

The Italian, French, and Spanish versions of this 'doctrine' "Volksgemeinschaft" are known as “integral nationalism”.

'Volksgemeinschaft' was a central topic of Schleiermacher, who pointed out that it was an easy way from the family to the 'Volksgemeinschaft' (quoted in Grimm's Deutsches Wörterbuch, Vol 26, col.453 - 507, 'Volksgemeinschaft'; Leipzig, 1854-1960; digital version 2003)

I certainly don't know what's in okie's mind here, or even fully understand the dimensions of this argument. However, it does seem to me that there is less to the distinctions being made here between extremes of the, conventionally defined, political far right and left than meet the eye. Fascism and socialism - as they were practiced in the Soviet world of the mid 20th century and by Hitler and his contemporaries in Italy and other European countries - were alike in their authoritarian character; their use of the forms of Democracy, but without the substance; their dominance by a single party & ideology which admitted no competitors or alternatives, and which claimed to be the sole representative of the "people" (whether the proletarian working class or the German volk); and their claims of a moral authority in pursuing their creation of a new people that trumped all restraint based on traditional values.

I suspect these similarities may be particularly significant in the American view of both. We were founded based on principles of local government; representative democratic processes; constitutional judicial review; and (then at least) conventional religious morality. An enduring suspicion of authoritarian or "top down" governance or policy - in any form - has been a part of our political fabric from the beginning. This is perhaps the singular political distinction between American political views and those that prevail in modern Western Europe. While it is certainly true that time and the complexities of the modern world have brought about an enormous growth in the power and intrusiveness of our Federal government, this enduring suspicion of authoritarian centralism remains at the heart of most political debate here.

I'm aware that many contemporary Europeans believe they found in their various forms of "social democracy", an alternative to the struggle between the oppressive authoritarian structures of the left and right that I suggested above. There is no doubt of the prosperity and success this achieved in the post WWII decades, and it or something like it has been a model for the political development of Central European countries escaping Soviet domination. However, whether this can be an enduring successful model in view of the demographic changes that have occurred in the last few decades is largely an open - or at least arguable - question.

Certainly in Hitler's ascent to political power, the Communists of the era in Germany were his chief political foe -- they were the polar opposites in the political spectrum of the day (and the Social Democrats were equally hated by both). From this perspective okie's failure to distinguish certainly does seem absurd. However, when one considers the similarities of the unrestrained authoritarian rule they practised - as contrasted to ideas of individual freedom and local governance - the distinctions themselves do appear rather trivial.

I don't think at all that this distinction is trivial, but .... never mind.

Social democracy (without exclamation marks) isn't just "an alternative to the struggle between the oppressive authoritarian structures of the left and right" but a political theory/idea/philosophy since more than 140 years (1863/1869).

I am not going to get into this pissing contest you two are having, but I would like to point out that if you are going to correct someone else's GRAMMAR, perhaps you should work on your spelling first.

Good one, Mysteryman.

I was in a hurry to post...playing Internet poker at the same time.

Goofed.

I do that from time to time.

Thanks for calling it to my attention. It'll remind me to be more careful.