okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2011 09:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, The where doesn't matter;
I think it does matter, imposter. And how difficult can it be to post the link? If you don't know how, let me know and I will try to walk you through it.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2011 09:09 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Hey George, I am curious, have I swayed you at all in the running debate about Hitler being a leftist? I don't wish to debate it more here, but I have been wondering if I made a dent in your pre-conceived notions about it?


Not at all. I believe the debate itself is a foolish and misguided struggle about semantics and the unreasonable and unproven assumption that an obviously complex and multidimensional reality can be coherently mapped to a simplistic left-right continuum. I generally don't follow the details of such an obviously futile exercise.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2011 09:14 pm
@georgeob1,
Thanks for the answer, George. Just wondered if some of the arguments had an effect with time to reflect on them. I am just as convinced as ever, that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, its probably a duck. Oh well, I said I did not wish to debate it here now, so I better shut up. One request though, try to read some of the counter opinions when you see them, and give them a chance with an open mind. If I see what I think is a convincing writing on the subject, I will try to do the same.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2011 09:19 pm
@okie,
It only matters when you depend on FOX News for your information, because we have refuted most of them - if not 100%.

Other media sources can make statements that can be factchecked by available facts through government records or other reliable sources. When I ask you to provide any challenge for these, you attack the messenger rather than what they say.

You rarely understand the rules of debate, common sense, or logic.

And I find it comical that you use these exact words about other posters - that you do not back up with outside credible sources.

Refute what they claim; any one of the 83 listed with any support from a reliable source - outside of FOX News.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2011 09:36 pm
@okie,
I think both sides of this apparently endless argument are equally foolish and pointless. It's like trying to locate a point on a plane with only one number. It can't be done; there are two degrees of freedom and two numbers are required.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2011 09:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It only matters when you depend on FOX News for your information, because we have refuted most of them - if not 100%.
As far as I know, you've refuted nothing they have reported.
Quote:
Other media sources can make statements that can be factchecked by available facts through government records or other reliable sources. When I ask you to provide any challenge for these, you attack the messenger rather than what they say.
It is amazing how you so lightly do exactly what you accuse others of, imposter!! You just attacked the messenger, which is Fox, because you don't like the message, not because it is demonstrably false.
Quote:
You rarely understand the rules of debate, common sense, or logic.

And I find it comical that you use these exact words about other posters - that you do not back up with outside credible sources.

Refute what they claim; any one of the 83 listed with any support from a reliable source - outside of FOX News.
I will try again with you. I post my sources, but you have yet to post the source for your 83 accomplishments for Obama. George and I have already posted good reasons why they are more like opinions, not facts, imposter. Why the hesitance to post your source? What are you afraid of?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2011 09:44 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
I think both sides of this apparently endless argument are equally foolish and pointless. It's like trying to locate a point on a plane with only one number. It can't be done; there are two degrees of freedom and two numbers are required.
Fair enough, but I still think it is far from pointless, and that many people attempt to make it more complex than it is. I think there are in fact identifiable thought patterns and similarities, tendencies, and common denominators among various brands of leftists versus conservatives. And I think it is important enough for us to try to understand them better, to hopefully avoid the mistakes made in history.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2011 09:47 pm
@okie,
Oh, I agree with that. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany were authoritarian regimes, and in that they had many similarities. However their social/economic policies were very different. That is the part where you go wrong. However, I don't wish to argue the matter.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2011 09:49 pm
@georgeob1,
I don't think I've gone wrong there, and I've stated those reasons many times, but oh well, we will just have to agree to disagree.
georgeob1
 
  6  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2011 10:58 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

I don't think I've gone wrong there, and I've stated those reasons many times, but oh well, we will just have to agree to disagree.


Tell you what. Why don't you read up on the Post WWII labor Governments of the United Kingdom ? Then you can test some key facts relative to your theories.

Here' a brief sketch;
They nationalized the country's railroads, coal mines, electric utilities, steelmakers, aviation industry, a good deal of the automobile industry and all health care services. In addition they established nearly confiscatory taxes on wealth and a highly progressive tax system with marginal rates as high as 85%. In short their actual actions and stated policies were far more socialistic than anything Hitler did or said.

Despite this British democracy and individual freedom remained intact.

They were more socialistic than Nazi Germany, but at the same time a vibrant and stable democracy.

Explain that and I'll listen to you.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 02:15 pm
@georgeob1,
A thumbs up, georgeob. However, do you think okie will respond?
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 02:33 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Here' a brief sketch;
They nationalized the country's railroads, coal mines, electric utilities, steelmakers, aviation industry, a good deal of the automobile industry and all health care services. In addition they established nearly confiscatory taxes on wealth and a highly progressive tax system with marginal rates as high as 85%. In short their actual actions and stated policies were far more socialistic than anything Hitler did or said.

Despite this British democracy and individual freedom remained intact.

They were more socialistic than Nazi Germany, but at the same time a vibrant and stable democracy.



And yet, wasn't it you, Gob, who predicted the imminent demise of the USA if universal healthcare was instituted?

Even if the paper bag gets set out in a prairie rainstorm, I don't think you're gonna be able to kick and claw your way out of this one.

You're not really the sharpest tack in the drawer, are you?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 03:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

A thumbs up, georgeob. However, do you think okie will respond?


I don't know. He hasn't done so yet. Similar arguments about Nordic socialism didn't work.

I suppose I should add that the Labor Party actions, though probably politically necessary after the shared suffering of WWII, nearly destroyed the British economy with the accumulating, enervating sclerosis of socialist mediocrity and waste. Finally in the Thatcher revolution they overthrew most of the old system and restored life to their economy. Though, even now, they are having trouble funding their welfare system.

The key point though is their democracy remained vibrant throughout these transitions. That means okie's simplistic one-dimensional explanation is inadequate to the reality.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 03:36 pm
@georgeob1,
Gee, the countries that actually look after their citizens are having financial troubles. And what caused these financial meltdowns but the biggest free range plunderers on the planet.

The USA isn't doing all that grand itself but one wonders why when they are so stingy with the accumulated wealth that belongs to none other than the citizens of the US.

High up there among the stingiest countries in the world and it's no different with its own.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 03:42 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
okie wrote:
I don't think I've gone wrong there, and I've stated those reasons many times, but oh well, we will just have to agree to disagree.
Tell you what. Why don't you read up on the Post WWII labor Governments of the United Kingdom ? Then you can test some key facts relative to your theories.
Here' a brief sketch;
They nationalized the country's railroads, coal mines, electric utilities, steelmakers, aviation industry, a good deal of the automobile industry and all health care services. In addition they established nearly confiscatory taxes on wealth and a highly progressive tax system with marginal rates as high as 85%. In short their actual actions and stated policies were far more socialistic than anything Hitler did or said.
Despite this British democracy and individual freedom remained intact.
They were more socialistic than Nazi Germany, but at the same time a vibrant and stable democracy.
Explain that and I'll listen to you.
I will be happy to explain it, but I think we also need to clarify some points in this discussion. One of those points is - do you consider democratic socialist countries, such as the UK or a number of other European styled socialist countries, do you consider them to be leftist or at least more left than the United States? Consistent with that question, would you consider the movement of the United States toward the European Democratic Socialism model of government as a leftist initiative, or is it merely not as conservative as it would be now, but still conservative? These are not questions to entrap you. I am just trying to clarify what measuring stick you are applying here.

Next big question, do you think Nazi Germany would have done more toward the left if Hitler and the Nazis had been victorious? The reason I ask is because I do not believe for a minute that Hitler had instituted all of his policies that he had planned if he ultimately had more time to do it. I would say that Hitler plans and Nazi policies would ultimately have taken Germany further to the left.

Last point, Hitler had already done some of those things that you mentioned happening in the UK, which essentially included nationalizing industries or directing their activities to do whatever he wanted them to do. Hitler had also confiscated private property. Did they do that in the UK? And was the UK more socialistic than Hitler would have made Germany? In other words, I do not accept what you said that "In short their actual actions and stated policies were far more socialistic than anything Hitler did or said."

After you clarify for me some of the above points, I will try to post a better answer.
georgeob1
 
  4  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 03:46 pm
@okie,
If that's your answer, then conversation is pointless.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 03:56 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

If that's your answer, then conversation is pointless.


Yeah, but you knew that before you even tried.

He'll never, ever admit that he was wrong, no matter how much data is presented. Because it's a fundamental belief of his that you're attacking, one that he bases his entire political analysis around: that Democrats and Socialism = evil, and since Hitler was evil...

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 03:58 pm
@georgeob1,
Come on george, can't you answer simple questions? What is your measuring stick for left vs right? Is the European style Democratic Socialist systems on the right or left side of your left / right spectrum?

Ever since I started addressing this whole business about Hitler and Nazism being left or right, I made it clear that I was using a context of left vs right as defined by American politics today. For example, are you going to define Obama as a conservative for example, while he is hard at work trying to pull this country toward a European style of Democratic Socialism? Such questions are relevant if we are going to get anywhere with this debate.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
He'll never, ever admit that he was wrong, no matter how much data is presented.
Cycloptichorn
If I remain convinced of being correct, I will not agree with your claim that I am wrong. Nor is that any different than anyone else here, including George. If George can convince me I am wrong, I will however admit it. But not until he has convinced me, and he is still a long way from that. I have yet to see any convincing evidence, including George's latest. I will say however that George's manner of debate and presentation of evidence are far superior to most people on this forum, so if he has the evidence that is convincing enough, he has a chance. I respect his opinion, but I still think the facts of history are against him regarding Hitler being a supposed conservative.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
He'll never, ever admit that he was wrong, no matter how much data is presented.


Okie should try the "all those reams of hard data are boring and I won't consider discussing them until you agree that I'm right" schtick, eh, Cy?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/25/2022 at 02:17:06