Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

He was a doctrinaire socialist, read the Nazi Party platform and read Mein Kampf, George. He was a national socialist as compared to an international socialist. In fact the basis of Nazism can be summed up in one of the points, that being "COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD."

How he arrives at conclusions without understanding "real" history behind Hitler shows how he hangs onto stuff that has very little bearing on facts about history. He makes claims such as "He was a national socialist as compared to an international socialist." without any critical thinking involved in why he says such a thing. He can never provide any credible evidence for such a statement.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

And a third one to refute what George was claiming:
I am on solid ground with this reply to George as well.

See, here's the thing: you really aren't. That's just one long assertion strung together.
Cycloptichorn

I directly refuted George's insinuation that Hitler being an authoritarian tyrant rather than a leftist, by simply pointing out what is obvious historical and current political facts, that being an authoritarian tyrant in no way disqualifies him as a leftist, because as I pointed out, many leftists are also authoritarian tyrants. Obvious examples are Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong-il, and many others. Are you or George going to dispute that any or all of those that I have named are not leftists? I hope not, because as I have pointed out before, some things are what would be termed "self evident." For example if two people are looking at a blue sky, and one said the sky is blue, would he also need to provide irrefutable scientific proof that it is blue with all kinds of scientific references at that point? I would hope that most participants on this forum have at least a beginners knowledge of political philosophies and would not need scientific proof of the sky being blue so to speak. Most people know that obviously the people that I named above are leftists, and it should not require endless references to a website for proof, etc.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

And a third one to refute what George was claiming:
I am on solid ground with this reply to George as well.

See, here's the thing: you really aren't. That's just one long assertion strung together.
Cycloptichorn

I directly refuted George's insinuation that Hitler being an authoritarian tyrant rather than a leftist, by simply pointing out what is obvious historical and current political facts, that being an authoritarian tyrant in no way disqualifies him as a leftist, because as I pointed out, many leftists are also authoritarian tyrants.

**** this bullshit, okie! Respond to the second part of my post:

Quote:

You constantly claim that Obama says one thing, but secretly thinks and does other things. This is the basis of your entire criticism of the guy. But, when we try and point out that Hitler did exactly what you claim Obama is doing - claiming to be for one thing while actually working towards his own goals - you act as if we are spouting nonsense. Do you not see the inconsistency in your position?

Every time you criticize Obama, I'm just going to prove you wrong by pointing to the Democratic party platform; and I'm sure you'll accept that as proof that you are wrong. Right?

What is your response to the discrepancy between your beliefs about Obama and your beliefs about Hitler?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

Your refutation to georgeob is without historical support. All of it is your personal opinion which is not credible by any standard of debate.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

And a third one to refute what George was claiming:
I am on solid ground with this reply to George as well.

Doesn't cut it okie. The specifics you cite are true enough, but they don't establish the sweeping conclusions you make - no matter how often you repeat them. While it is true that all of the dictators you cited rationalized their actions as supporting "the common good", that doesn't mean that anyone who justifies his/her actions as supporting the common good, or anyone who believes he is acting in support of that goal is necessarily a dictator or potential one. This is a very elementary non sequitor. There have indeed been many political leaders and political systems that rationalized themselves as supporting the common good (Ronald Reagan was one) , that have largely (no one is perfect or free from the imperfections of human nature) fulfilled that claim. This too is a clue that you have oversimplified the problem in your analysis: there are more variables in the reality than you have allowed in your mental construct.

The real issue here is those who believe they and they alone know what is good for everyone else, and who are willing to crush and eliminate those who oppose them to achieve their concepts of good. That is a more complex problem; one that involves matters of degree as well as the complexities and contradictions of human nature. You have hardly begun to make or codify the complexities involved here in your very simplistic analysis.

The difference between a wise person and a fool is that wisdom teaches us that no one is right about everything all the time, and that even our favorite ideas are subject to error. A wise individual or leader makes it a practice to learn from experience and particularly to learn from those who disagree with him or oppose him. You do the opposite: your response to disagreement is merely to repeat your proposition more loudly.

Even this forum can provide a useful way to improve one's thinking, understanding, and ability to express his/her ideas. No one here is consistently right about everything they assert, and no one consistently expresses his/her ideas with perfect completeness and clarity. Wiser posters tend to qualify their assertions to accurately reflect their limitations and inherent uncertainty. They also tend to look look for the part of what their interlocutors write with which they can agree, and in that way it becomes possible to communicate, learn and and improve one's thinking. This is a dialogue, not a contest with winners and losers, though you (and many of your persistent critics) apparently don't see it that way.

I hope you will read and reflect on what I have written, but I'm not counting on it. Whether you do or not is entirely up to you.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie wrote:
Quote:
He was a doctrinaire socialist, read the Nazi Party platform and read Mein Kampf, George. He was a national socialist as compared to an international socialist. In fact the basis of Nazism can be summed up in one of the points, that being "COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD."

How he arrives at conclusions without understanding "real" history behind Hitler shows how he hangs onto stuff that has very little bearing on facts about history. He makes claims such as "He was a national socialist as compared to an international socialist." without any critical thinking involved in why he says such a thing. He can never provide any credible evidence for such a statement.

I am on very solid ground to express the opinion that Hitler was a "doctrinaire socialist." I looked up the definition of "doctrinaire" and this is what I found:

"a person who stubbornly attempts to apply a theory without regard to practical difficulties"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/doctrinaire

How can anyone in their right mind say that Hitler was not doctrinaire? In fact, Hitler was probably one of the most stubborn politicians to ever walk through history, ultimately to his own defeat, fortunately. In fact, one of the points of the Nazi platform was for them to dedicate themselves to their cause, no matter the cost, at all costs, to the point of pledging their lives for it. Now, that is as doctrinaire as is humanly possible to be, I would think that would be self evident. I will quote that as follows:
"The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives."
http://historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, You do not need to provide us with definitions; you must provide support for your claim with credible evidence that;

Quote:

He was a doctrinaire socialist, read the Nazi Party platform and read Mein Kampf, George. He was a national socialist as compared to an international socialist. In fact the basis of Nazism can be summed up in one of the points, that being "COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD."

Mein Kampf is not evidence. You need to provide some credible historians perspective that supports your views about Hitler being a socialist.

Do you understand simple logic, okie? One cannot use the bible to support the bible. That's not considered evidence of its veracity.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

**** this bullshit, okie! Respond to the second part of my post:

Quote:

You constantly claim that Obama says one thing, but secretly thinks and does other things. This is the basis of your entire criticism of the guy. But, when we try and point out that Hitler did exactly what you claim Obama is doing - claiming to be for one thing while actually working towards his own goals - you act as if we are spouting nonsense. Do you not see the inconsistency in your position?

Every time you criticize Obama, I'm just going to prove you wrong by pointing to the Democratic party platform; and I'm sure you'll accept that as proof that you are wrong. Right?

Fine, try to prove me wrong on Obama by using the Democratic platform. I think that would be a reasonable argument for you or anyone defending Obama to use. I think platforms should mean things, after all what is written is written, and words mean things, but realize also it is not the only evidence we have about what Obama is as a politician. You also need to realize that what Obama has said also means a great deal.

Similarly, we have recorded what the Nazi platform was, and it is obvious that Hitler was the leader of the Nazis, so I believe the Nazi 25 points tells us much about Hitler. We also have recorded what Hitler said and did. That would include Mein Kampf, which gets into the inner thoughts of the man, his motives and thinking pattern that later came out and was expressed in his political career to follow. We also have his speeches and rants. We also have the historical record of the types of people that he surrounded himself with, guys like Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Göring, and Heinrich Himmler.

Chosen associates also indicate things about Obama. We also have Obama's speeches, comments, and the Democratic platform.
Words mean things, and actions mean things. I have never claimed to use any different measure when analyzing Hitler. The Nazi Party philosophy and what Hitler said and did are all fair game in the debate.

Quote:
What is your response to the discrepancy between your beliefs about Obama and your beliefs about Hitler?

Cycloptichorn

I see no discrepancy whatever. Whatever you seem to think is a discrepancy is apparently something manufactured by you. If you are trying to say that Obama is not doing what he has said he would do or what the Democratic platform said he would do, I do not think you have the evidence for that.

My beliefs about Obama are that he is more radical than most people believe, but what he has done so far is pretty consistent with Democratic policy and probably the Democratic platform. I just do not think he has had time to try to implement everything he would like to do if he had the power and time to do it. Similarly, I also believe that even as much havoc that Hitler had caused to the point of his demise, if he had been allowed to go further, it probably would have been much much worse than it was.

Look, the comparison between Obama and Hitler is only for the debate point that you brought up, I am in no way comparing the guys as being very similar, particularly in regard to the brutality of Hitler, and so do not try to accuse me of making the comparison in the future, it would be what you typically label a "strawman."

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, Why are you so ignorant? Do you know how many of Obama's campaign promises he has accomplished?

I suggest you do a FactCheck.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I think that would be a reasonable argument for you or anyone defending Obama to use.

The entire point is that: no, it would not be reasonable. Obama didn't write the Democratic party platform and it doesn't define who he is as a leader or what he has done in any way. In fact, it would be downright idiotic to look at the platform in order to find out what Obama thinks.

Quote:

The Nazi Party philosophy and what Hitler said and did are all fair game in the debate.

But, you never seem to give a **** about the fact that Hitler's actions were far different than the supposed platform. Every time this is pointed out to you - that he was a Dictator, not a leader who was interested in reforming society for its' own sake - you simply retreat back to the platform as if that explains everything. It does not.

George has written all this much better than I, I suggest you read and then re-read his post above and think about it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Thanks for the kind charaterization POM - and for the insightful post. However, I stop short of believing anyone "gets what he/she deserves" here.

There is a detectable herd mentality here (and just about everywhere else too). There are lots of examples of gang 'piling on' (though few as persistent and vivid as that involving okie) on A2k; and far too many instances of personal attacks & insults used as poor substitutes for reasoned responses. I'm guilty enough of that myself. Perhaps I am unrealistically focused on the missed possibilities for real dialogue and mutually beneficial conversation.

The potential of the encounters here among folks of different backgrounds, ecperience and points of view is very great, but what results is far too often exaggerated assertions, name-calling and rebukes. The possibility of real learning and synthesis is the usual casualty. That bothers me.

Worse the combination of this and those who appear to be energized by the charade creates a situation that is both bad and ... stable. It brings to mind an old saying I learned in naval Aviation, "Don't get in a fight with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it."

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

George, I read all of your post. I respect your opinions, and I agree this should not be a game where only one side wins and one side loses, but can you agree that our culture is experiencing somewhat of a culture war between the left and the right, so it is a real battle of ideas, and we need to fight the good fight. I count you as a friend, an online friend only perhaps, but still you are reasonable, far moreso than say a "plainoldme" for example. Even pom however may just be a little confused and may be a solid citizen when the chips are down, at least I sense that possibility.

With that said, I am very convinced that some things and people like Hitler are not exclusively the property of academia and liberal historians, they do lend theirselves to some common sense. We are not hogtied to an evaluation from the standpoint of 1930's and 40's European politics, we now have the perspective of today's view of left vs right as determined by another 70 years of history and politics.

Now, you say that my reply to you does not cut it. How does it not cut it? I simply made the point that being an authoritarian tyrant proves nothing about Hitler not being leftward, and I cited several examples of leftward authoritarian tyrants, which I think is self evident for every one of them. Are you going to argue with the point that I made? If so, what evidence do you have for example. Do you actually have evidence that being an authoritarian tyrant disqualifies Hitler as a leftist? I don't think there is any out there. In fact, just the opposite seems to be more true, as most of the authoritarian tyrants that come to mind are leftists, are they not?

Now, the issue of "Common Good," I do not think you can make the case that Reagan talked about common good as a motivational tool for the policies he advocated, in fact I think just the opposite. Reagan was instead a champion of individual good, and the rights and responsibilities of individuals. Reagan was a solid conservative and he constantly talked about getting the government off the backs of individuals. Sure, the implications were that the country would be better off as a whole, but he always talked about it in context with the power of individuals, not big government. At least that is the Ronald Reagan I remember.

You accuse me of simplistic analysis. Well, I happen to believe as Reagan said once that "There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers." I do actually believe that the politics of all politicians stem from a basic foundational belief of a leftist or rightward philosophy, that of government or individuals have the best answers. Obviously it takes a mix of both, but you start out with a basic belief in one or the other being the ultimate hope to achieve the end results desired. Breaking it down to the simplest of terms, Hitler came from the left, his confidence was in government to achieve the utopia and right all the wrongs of the world, which is what every famous or notable leftist believes. In contrast, Reagan believed just the opposite, and in fact our country and the Declaration of Independence declares just the opposite. If what I have expressed here is too simplistic for you, I am sorry, but I am being totally sincere and I think standing on very very solid ground.

3 Replies

@okie,

Of course, you do realize you are promoting the argument that what is good for the individual is also good for the common good, don't you okie?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Mein Kampf is not evidence.

Right there folks, is an example of an assertion that is blatantly and obviously wrong. That is like saying Obama's books tell us nothing about what the man believes. ci, you can't be serious?

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I simply made the point that being an authoritarian tyrant proves nothing about Hitler not being leftward, and I cited several examples of leftward authoritarian tyrants, which I think is self evident for every one of them.

His point is that terms like 'left and right' don't apply to Authoritarian tyrants. Hitler wasn't interested in reforming Germany into a Leftist country. He was interested in capturing and maintaining as much power as possible, so that Germany could take over Europe and perhaps eventually the world.

It's just plain wrong to try and look at the stuff that he did through a modern political lens; you'll get bad answers every time.

Quote:

Breaking it down to the simplest of terms, Hitler came from the left, his confidence was in government to achieve the utopia and right all the wrongs of the world, which is what every famous or notable leftist believes.

But, Hitler didn't want a 'utopia.' He wanted a country, and eventually the world, under his direct control; not to better things for the people of his country or the world, but to keep himself and his beliefs on top of the pile. That's what dictators and tyrants do!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

Well okie.. if books written by the author are the only way we can judge them then where is your evidence that Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky? Which page of his book did Obama write that?

0 Replies

If not held in check, statism leads inevitably to socialism, then to facism or to nazism or to communism.

Currently, Obama is behaving like a statist on his way to socialism. If he is not held in check, he will inevitably lead our country to socialism, and then ....

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Of course, you do realize you are promoting the argument that what is good for the individual is also good for the common good, don't you okie?

Basically, that is right. When people are allowed to and encouraged to act in their own self interest, within certain boundaries, you end up with a more healthy society and culture, and ultimately everyone benefits from that. As I have posted many times however, freedom requires responsibility to maintain, it requires us as individuals to practice good citizenship and to try to be self sufficient and take care of ourselves and our families. But the important point to keep in mind here is that individual good comes before common good, not the other way around. Leftist dogmas approach the issue from exactly the opposite direction, because they believe government has the power or should have the power to make things right for everyone.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

The Scandinavian countries have a mix of socialistic policies and capitalistic ideas and they are doing quite well while America with the Wall Street coducting an economic war of invasion has led it to the rink of disaster. The crowd is still laughing as their coffers are full. All those CEOs of the failed banks all have huge stashes hidden to fund any backlash.

0 Replies

@okie,

That's really funny:

Quote:

As I have posted many times however, freedom requires responsibility to maintain, it requires us as individuals to practice good citizenship and to try to be self sufficient ...

Where do you draw your "requires responsibility" from? It is realistic in this world? Why is it that tax cuts and the salary and benefits have only benefited the wealthy in this country? Any clues? Is that "responsibility" you express often in the world you live?

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know