114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 12:04 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
Hitler hated the name of the Nazi Party which was not Nazi. Nazi is the American name for it. Nationalist Socialist Party. The Socialist part was hateful to Hitler but he let it stand because it was a recognized "brand."


You must be joking!!!

Lets do a little research, ok.
From Wiki, we get this...
Quote:

The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party (from the Ger. pronunciation of Nationalsozialist[1]), was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945.


Note the word Socialist right there in the name.

And from here...
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/party.htm

We get this...
Quote:

The German Workers' Party name was changed by Hitler to include the term National Socialist. Thus the full name was the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) called for short, Nazi.


So, apparently using the word "socialist" was Hitlers Idea.
If it was his idea, how can you seriously claim he hated it?

Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 12:06 pm
@okie,
None of your response is surprising in the slightest. It's just the same old bullshit that people who believe they are absolutely correct spout. But you don't know more about what is absolutely right or wrong than anyone since the beginning of humanity has.

Quote:
I am not the least bit embarrassed about stating the absolute truth. I have the evidence to back me up, you do not. All you have is supposed conventional wisdom taught by liberal leftist professors in places like Berkeley


People with little formal education like to tell themselves that those who have more of it are not more proficient in that field than they are; but you are incorrect. Professors of History know more about History than you do, Okie. You're not even an amateur; you don't care about reality or the truth. You just want to make modern Liberals out to be Nazis, that's your entire point and purpose. Not a serious pursuit of the facts of the matter. This paints you as a deeply un-serious, and yes, laughably ignorant person on this issue.

Quote:
You can ridicule me as long as you wish, but facts do not change the reality of it, I am safely on the side of history, facts, and reality.


I have never seen you cite a reliable source on this issue, not once. You have done no independent or primary scholarship on this issue. Why should anyone take what you say seriously? You have no scholarly standards.

Posts like this help me understand why you supported Bush so much. People like me look at him and are saddened, because we had an idiot for a president. People like you look at him and are gladdened, because it's proof that someone of your limited intelligence could become president...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 12:08 pm
@spendius,
Quote:

And okie can write better than Cyclo too and that always signifies something.


Snort, lay off the strong stuff, old man Laughing

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 12:12 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
So, apparently using the word "socialist" was Hitlers Idea.
If it was his idea, how can you seriously claim he hated it?


Do you believe that words have inherent and unchanging meanings? That they mean the same thing to everyone who says them?

George Washington -

Quote:
“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”


I'm sure you would agree with me that this is ample proof that our founding fathers were indeed Liberals and that this country was founded on the principles of Liberalism. Right?

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 12:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The claim was made that Hitler HATED the word being part of the party name.
That was all I was responding to, nothing more.

Yes, I do believe that the definition of words can and does change over time.
Was our country founded on the principle of liberalism?
I dont know.

Depending on who you ask, the Founding Fathers were all right-wing racists and evil, because some of them owned slaves.
(Thats POM's definition, BTW)
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 12:27 pm
@mysteryman,
POM's point is that Hitler didn't give two shits about 'socialism.' His goal was never to achieve a society in which the principles of socialism, as Marx wrote about, were actually in place. But he used the term because it was in fact a popular idea in Germany at the time, and because it was a useful club with which to justify what were essentially acts of tyranny. I'm sure you will agree with me that it is hardly uncommon or unbelievable for politicians to spout off things that people want to hear, while actually pursuing goals which benefit themselves and their favored groups.

Once again, these are the sorts of things which become apparent once a serious study of the subject is undertaken...

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 01:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Hitler didn't give two shits about 'socialism.' His goal was never to achieve a society in which the principles of socialism, as Marx wrote about, were actually in place. But he used the term because it was in fact a popular idea in Germany at the time, and because it was a useful club with which to justify what were essentially acts of tyranny
so we keep hearing...this strikes me as the bias of the victor being in control of the history books. I think Hitler's love of what he considered to be the perfect German was real, and that the youth clubs, workers clubs and all were invested in so heavily by the Nazi's because they promoted an ideal that was wanted by almost all Germanic's, to include Hitler.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 02:50 pm
@mysteryman,
From Wiki:

The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party (from the Ger. pronunciation of Nationalsozialist[1]), was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945. It was known as the German Workers' Party (DAP) prior to a change of name in 1920. . .

The party grew out of smaller political groups with a nationalist orientation that formed in the last years of World War I. In the early months of 1918, a party called the Freier Ausschuss für einen deutschen Arbeiterfrieden ("Free Committee for a German Workers' Peace") was created in Bremen, Germany. Anton Drexler, an avid German nationalist, formed a branch of this league on 7 March 1918, in Munich. . .

On 5 January 1919, Drexler, together with Gottfried Feder, Dietrich Eckart and Karl Harrer, and 20 workers from Munich's railway shops and some others met to discuss the creation of a new political party based on the political principles which Drexler endorsed.[8] Drexler proposed that the party be named the German-Socialist Workers Party, but Harrer objected to using the term "socialist" in the name; the issue was settled by removing the term from the name, and it was agreed that the party was named the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP). To ease concerns among potential middle-class nationalist supporters, Drexler made clear that unlike Marxists, the party supported middle-class citizens, and that the party's socialist policy was meant to give social welfare to German citizens deemed part of the Aryan race. . .

From the outset, the DAP was opposed to non-nationalist political movements, especially on the left, including the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the newly formed Communist Party of Germany (KPD). Members of the DAP saw themselves as fighting against "Bolshevism" and anyone considered to be part of or aiding so-called "international Jewry".
The DAP was a tiny group with fewer than 60 members. Nevertheless, it attracted the attention of the German authorities, who were suspicious of any organisation that appeared to have subversive tendencies. A young corporal, Adolf Hitler, was sent by German army intelligence to investigate the DAP. While attending a party meeting, Hitler got involved in a heated political argument and made an impression on the other party members with his oratory skills. He was invited to join and, after some deliberation, chose to accept. . .

Over the following months, the DAP continued to attract new members, while remaining too small to have any real significance in German politics. On 24 February 1920, the party added "National Socialist" to its official name, becoming the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), although Hitler earlier suggested the party to be renamed the "Social Revolutionary Party"; it was Rudolf Jung who persuaded Hitler to follow the NSDAP naming. . .

Unlike Drexler and other party members, Hitler was less interested in the "socialist" aspect of "national socialism" beyond moving Social Welfare administration from the Church to the State. Himself of provincial lower-middle-class origins, he disliked the mass working class of the big cities, and had no sympathy with the notions of attacking private property or the business class (which some early Nazis espoused).
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 02:52 pm
@mysteryman,
Never put words in my mouth.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 02:56 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I have spendius on ignore because I dislike not just his ideas but his manner of argument. Your response indicates that he said okie writes better than you, which is ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 03:19 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
.....
......
In my view okie gives ample evidence of having a fair share of common-sense which can be guaranteed not to be of much interest to liberal, leftie professors to whom anything remotely common is anathema. ....
.......
Hitler was so far left that he overlapped the far right.

.....
.....

And okie can write better than Cyclo too and that always signifies something.

........



Wow, spendius, your comments are not only surprising, but highly appreciated. I take them as a very significant compliment from a poster that I have considered now for a long time to be a sincere and fairly reasonable person most of the time. When I see your posts, I anticipate a healthy dose of a sense of humor injected into what might have some conservatism or liberalism, it has been hard for me to predict, but I've always perceived you to be honest, sincere, and fairly reasonable, and most importantly not an extreme idealogue. Thanks again for your comments.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 04:05 pm
Quote:
BOSTON -- The co-chairs of President Obama's debt and deficit commission offered an ominous assessment of the nation's fiscal future here Sunday, calling current budgetary trends a cancer "that will destroy the country from within" unless checked by tough action in Washington.

The two leaders -- former Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Erskine Bowles, White House chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton -- sought to build support for the work of the commission, whose recommendations due later this year are likely to spark a fierce political debate in Congress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?hpid=topnews

Maybe...I tend to think that the impoverishment is so wide spread, and the bankers so unliked (Arabs, China) that we will choose to dismantle the economic system rather than ourselves. I think there will be a global consensus that these debts will go unpaid, and we will revert back to being insular nations who don't trade a lot with each other. The whole mega global trading scheme has turned out to be environmentally unsustainable anyway, it has to go away.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 04:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

POM's point is that Hitler didn't give two shits about 'socialism.' His goal was never to achieve a society in which the principles of socialism, as Marx wrote about, were actually in place. But he used the term because it was in fact a popular idea in Germany at the time, and because it was a useful club with which to justify what were essentially acts of tyranny. I'm sure you will agree with me that it is hardly uncommon or unbelievable for politicians to spout off things that people want to hear, while actually pursuing goals which benefit themselves and their favored groups.

Once again, these are the sorts of things which become apparent once a serious study of the subject is undertaken...

Cycloptichorn

I have invited any leftist on this forum to debate each of the 25 Nazi party points of policy, but so far I've had no takers, and that to me is one of the principle reasons why I think you guys know what the points really say and you do not wish to face the reality of them.

I have not been the only one to post links as well as try to explain that Nazism was a form of Fascism, which under Mussolini was known as the "Third Way." The well known reason it was called the "Third Way" was because elements of capitalism were used and injected into socialism to derive a hybrid or third way political and economic policy. I think it is also a fact that Hitler used a similar approach of using some capitalism with the understanding that it had to be for the good of the "folks" or German people, it had to be for the "Common Good," and therefore an all powerful State, with him in charge of course, to administer and make sure his vision of a nationalistic and socialistic utopia would be achieved.

Once again, to go into a bit more detail in an effort to talk sense to folks like cyclops, among the socialistic goals of the Nazi platform was an equality of earnings for every citizen, that every citizen must work for the benefit of all with the work not to offend the interest of the community as a whole. Not only that, but all income not arising from work was to to be abolished, which of course was a direct attack upon wealth and the perceived evils of the rich. Also, no profits from making war would be allowed, and all trusts were to be nationalized, also a direct assault upon accumulated wealth. Profits from large industries were to be confiscated and given to the laborers, which is again simply another socialistic or even communistic policy. Other socialistic or communistic policies included State administered old age pensions, confiscation of large stores for the good of the State and supposedly all people, also confiscation of farmland for the State to redistribute and run. Rents, land speculation, and so-called profiteering were to be halted for the good of the State and the people, and the so-called profiteers (or capitalists) would be punished severely, even by death. The perceived atmosphere of materialism was going to be replaced with "German Common Law," in other words run by the State for the good of all the people, the "Common Good."

Other policies of Hitler's socialistic vision included State run education or indoctrination of all youth, with curricula aimed at making them useful for the common good or good of the State. Part of the program also included physical fitness and provision of maternity welfare and so forth.
Important other policies to move all of this stuff forward also included the abolition of a free press and the regular army, replacing the regular army with a national folk army. (Does this remind us of Obama's idea for a civilian security force?) Anybody in the press that publishes anything that does not promote the common good, they would be abolished, and profiteering was a complete no-no. The materialistic influence of the Jewish culture was to be completely trashed in exchange for the new socialistic common good vision of the German utopia, run by the State, as envisioned by the Nazis and Adolph Hitler.

The principle idea at the foundation of the entire package of Nazism was "COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD." Individual good was considered selfish, greedy, and an outgrowth of unbridled capitalism as promoted by the Jewish culture, and it was all to be done away with in exchange for the socialistic vision and policies of the new Nazi Germany. And finally, there is no question whatsover to anyone with an ounce of knowledge about socialism and communism, that common good is one of the foundations of socialism and communism. Every Nazi policy was designed to be ultimately socialistic in nature, to place every citizen on an equal footing by equalizing incomes, taking from the wealthy, and propping up the poor, taking care of and educating the children, and taking care of the aged, all to be administered and directed by an all powerful State.

To conclude, cyclops and any other liberal here with an interest in honestly facing the truth of what I have just written in summary form, there is absolutely no way you can deny that Nazism is not leftist in nature. Although I have already summarized the picture for you, I would welcome anyone to debate any of the Nazi 25 points. In fact, what better document can we go back to in order to honestly analyze what the Nazis were? But you need to be willing to look at the points in an honest and forthright manner, that is a requirement.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 04:18 pm
@okie,
Quote:
The principle idea at the foundation of the entire package of Nazism was "COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD."


Laughably ignorant!

The principle idea at the foundation of Nazism was unlimited power for the leaders of the Nazi party. The slogan they used to justify this was 'common good before individual good.' At no point were their actions consistent with a true and heartfelt belief that Germany should be a socialist society. You don't seem to have studied what the Germans actually did at all; have you?

You constantly say that Obama says one thing, but secretly means another, because he knew he couldn't be elected if he let his true views be known. Yet, you don't seem to believe the same thing could be possible with relation to Hitler? How do you reconcile these two positions?

Quote:

To conclude, cyclops and any other liberal here with an interest in honestly facing the truth of what I have just written in summary form, there is absolutely no way you can deny that Nazism is not leftist in nature.


You are absolutely correct - I cannot deny that Nazism is not leftist in nature Laughing

Quote:
Although I have already summarized the picture for you, I would welcome anyone to debate any of the Nazi 25 points. In fact, what better document can we go back to in order to honestly analyze what the Nazis were?


Here's an idea: why don't we discuss what they actually did instead of what they wrote? Which do you think is a better indicator of someone's true nature, their words or their actions?

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 05:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Here's an idea: why don't we discuss what they actually did instead of what they wrote? Which do you think is a better indicator of someone's true nature, their words or their actions?

Cycloptichorn

I have some thoughts about that. First of all, you are essentially asserting that the platform of a party, such as the party platforms of the Republicans and Democrats for example, mean absolutely nothing. I think that is not only silly, but wrong. Secondly, I believe that the Nazis did not have adequate time to implement all of their intended policy goals. Third, I think their actions did in fact begin to implement the general direction of the Nazi 25 points, although in war time, it may not have looked exactly like it would have otherwise been over the course of time. If you wish to use an example, I am sure that not all of the Democratic Party platform has been implemented yet here in this country. They are working on it, but I think actions do not yet give as full of a picture as the actual platform did or does.

However, if you wish to discuss actual Nazi actions, fine, lets do it. I have not yet studied it all in as much detail as the Nazi 25 points, but here are some of what I think I know about them. The State began directing all capitalistic endeavors for the benefit of the State and the people. I think the State began to confiscate private property as part of their program. Industries were confiscated or directed into producing war material and other goods for the good of the State and the people. The State took control of the press, for the common good of the State. The eradication of Jews was part of the idea of cleansing the new Germany of the Jewish cultural poison of personal greed and profiteering. Citizens and children were forced into mandatory programs of education and other functions for the common good. What other actions would you like to discuss, cyclops? I think that is an interesting subject.

P.S. Your assertion that the principle goals of the Nazis were unlimited powers for the leaders of the party, that is a silly and obvious statement, cyclops. Sure, to achieve radical leftist goals, you must have unlimited powers vested into an all powerful State, which involves giving powers to the leaders of the State. This is absolutely true simply because you must take the liberties from individuals in order to redistribute them for the common good or for the State, and it takes an all-powerful State to do that. So I think it is inherently obvious that the principle goals included both the socialist or fascist Nazi 25 points and also the unlimited powers of the leaders to accomplish them.
0 Replies
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 05:06 pm
2011 New York 2 Cents Crisis
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 05:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:


You are absolutely correct - I cannot deny that Nazism is not leftist in nature Laughing
Cycloptichorn

I think you might suspect I made a typo there, cyclops. I meant to say that you cannot deny that Nazism is leftist in nature.
pom is correct, I do make a mistake sometimes! Surprised
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 08:19 pm
@plainoldme,
Again, what words did I put in your mouth?
You claimed...

Quote:
The Socialist part was hateful to Hitler but he let it stand because it was a recognized "brand."


And then you post a link that clearly states that Hitler DID want the term "socialist" in the party name.
So, did he hate the word or not?
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 08:58 pm
@mysteryman,
Your reading comprehension is poor. Furthermore, I did not post a link.
spendius
 
  3  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 05:42 am
Quote:
I have spendius on ignore because I dislike not just his ideas but his manner of argument.


There you go okie. They can't stand their ground and slug it out toe to toe. They come up with some pathetic excuses about the ideas of others and their manner of argument as if not playing with their ball is a sufficient reason to run in doors to bury their little heads in Mom's apron and from there, or from behind the walls of Berkeley, issuing assertions only peer-reviewed by those they approve of.

Totalitarians actually and it's our job to restrain them.
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 6.96 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 11:09:51