20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 08:51 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Alright. I'll try again to give some basic information.

Opposite to the the situation in e.g. the USA, Germany had a distinctive party system, even in times of the empire: from the left to the right.

Perhaps herein lies the problem. Your spectrum of left to right goes from communist to what perhaps may be a form of socialism. What I think you are failing to accept is that the right end of the spectrum is still very much leftward in context with what we see as left and right here in the United States. You can speak in relative terms but it doesn't prove much, you have to actually examine the policies of the Nazi Party, which I have done, and have challenged you to do, but as yet you have not met the challenge.

An example, a 200 hitter may be a great hitter in baseball if everyone else is batting .050 or .100, but when compared to historical examples or a wider scale of comparison, a .200 hitter is a pretty lousy hitter. So in Germany Hitler for sure was to the right of Marxists, but being to the right of Marxists or various forms of socialism does not at all indicate he was a right wing conservative in context with political views here, and that is the context of this thread.

Quote:
When the empire collapsed, the party structures that have evolved over decades stayed as they were but now became responsible for the every day politics.
Slightly changes in party names happened, but from 1918/19 onwards they were generally spoken
- the conservatives (mainly represented by the 'Deutschnationale Volkspartei' ["German National People's Party"] on the right side,
- the political Catholicism (respresented by the 'Zentrum' ["Centre"] and the 'Bayerische Volkspartei' ["Bavarian People's Party"] in the centre of the political spectrum,
- the right ('Deutsche Volkspartei' ["German People's Party"]) and left ('Deutsche Demokratische Partei' ["German Democratic Party"]) liberal parties,
- and the Social-Democrats on the left side.
On the extreme left wing were the Communists. On the extreme right later the NSDAP.


About 20 more splinter parties tried to get a seat in the 'Reichstag' (and even more on in the various states). Some succeeded, like the "Independent Social-Democrats", the "Evangelical German People's Party" and a few more.

As generally know, it was a big chaos in Germany. (Until 1920, still more than 400,000 men were fighting in the various [about 300] 'Freicorps' [free corps, unofficial military organisations].)

All poltical parties had been surprised by the "revolution" (= end of the monarchy and sudden start of democracy).

While the "established" parties tried to re-define their former party programs to a democratic, republican attitude, new parties had to try to find supporters.

The 'Deutsche Arbeiter Partei' (DAP) started in Munich, with the idea of promoting their extremist right-wing views under a left name.
The idea would have worked elsewhere perhaps better but in Munich: Munich/Bavaria had enough parties - and was the very first left/communist/socialist republic in Germany (though only for a short period, but what I mean is that the left side was already "taken").
Hitler and his 'group' not only changed the name, but their program was a lot better focused on what they thought Germans wanted: everything from the right to the left for every social stratum, centred around their racial ideas (what the DAP already had had before, too).
(The Communists didn't want such qua dogma, but focused on Marxism and the USSR.)



Again, I think you are lost in the maze of German politics and traditional thinking. And I don't think you understand what conservative or right wing means in context with today's standards here in the United States. As I have stated many times, the best way to resolve this is to go to the Nazi Party 25 points and evaluate those points in terms of where the reside on the left right spectrum. I have done this, and I think it clearly shows Hitler was a leftist. I challenge you to try to do this to prove your beliefs. After all, if your beliefs are valid, it should be a piece of cake for you. And if you don't like the Nazi 25 points, perhaps we can dissect Mein Kampf, after all what would be closer to Hitler's beliefs than that. I have read much of that, and I sure don't see much conservative or right wing philosophy in there.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 08:56 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:
If you can't defend your opinion with any substance, then quit bothering me here. This forum is about posting evidence once in a while at least.


I still think that I've posted more substance on your questions and about this topic than you have, okie.

I admit that I didn't post "evidence", e.g. primary sources.
However, I've scanned most ('most', I'm not sure of there are more) published speeches from Hitler and couldn't find the sentences you used.

Would you mind giving the 'evidence' for it, e.g. place and date, published where and by whom etc?
This forum is about evidence ... Thank you.

I already provided the source, which was a book. I cannot vouch that everything in that book is correct, so I'm with you on the problem of verifying what Hitler said. But if you wish to throw it out, I think there is plenty of other evidence without it anyway, and as I said, the quote does not seem to be out of character for Hitler, so I don't think you can make the case that it is opposite of his beliefs.

As I said in the above, go to the Nazi 25 points, or if you prefer Mein Kampf, use that to prove your belief, but at least provide some evidence instead of some convoluted argument that xyz party was to the left of abc party, therefore, ....... and that you wrote a paper on it when you were in college, and therefore...... I think you can do better than that.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 09:58 pm
Fascinating, not to divert the debate, Walter, but I ran across this, and cannot resist posting, as it actually intersects with the little study I did about Ruthless Dictators, by relating it to the emotional disorder of narcissism, and this guy claims Obama is afflicted with this disorder to some extent. He does cite evidence, for anyone with an open mind. I have believed for quite a while, and increasingly so, as evidenced by Obama's behavior that he is indeed a very troubling personality to be in the White House, perhaps one of the most troubling ever. As this guy points out, Obama does not seem particularly connected to reality. Anyway, read it.

I quote one of the paragraphs, which closely mirrors one of the conditions that I cited at the beginning of this thread.

"I. Upbringing and Childhood

Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations. Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia: a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995.

Pathological narcissism is a reaction to prolonged abuse and trauma in early childhood or early adolescence. The source of the abuse or trauma is immaterial: the perpetrators could be dysfunctional or absent parents, teachers, other adults, or peers. "

http://samvak.tripod.com/obama.html

Now, just so everyone understands me here, I am not claiming Obama is a really really bad apple now, or will be yet, but I am suggesting there are danger signs out there, black clouds to observe, take note of, and to be wary of. I am definitely suggesting that we have a very very troubling personality as president, and that we need to try to keep a lid on this guys authority.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 10:26 pm
@okie,
okie, Dr Vaknin is like you! He's not a health professional, and you're not a professional in anything except lies and innuendos.

Taken from his web site:
Quote:
By: Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. - More about My Work - HERE!

I am NOT a mental health professional - read the DISCLAIMER - click HERE!!!
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 11:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Dr Vaknin is like you! He's not a health professional, ...

Good! That improves his credibility! Actually, he said "mental health professional." Thats what might improve his credibility. If he was a shrink, I might just discard his opinion as worthless.

And you forgot to quote the last part of his disclaimer, which sounds pretty good.

"My work is widely cited in scholarly tomes and publications and in the media. My books and the content of my Web site are based on correspondence since 1996 with hundreds of people suffering from the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (narcissists) and with thousands of their family members, friends, therapists, and colleagues."
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 12:09 am
@okie,
"Pathological narcissism" isn't a real diagnosis.

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html

Quote:
What is a personality disorder?

[from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, 1994, commonly referred to as DSM-IV, of the American Psychiatric Association. European countries use the diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization.]

An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectation of the individual's culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment.


I'd say that becoming President is pretty much the opposite of "distress or impairment".


(I had this same discussion elsewhere regarding Bush, by the way, and came to the same conclusion.)
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 12:18 am
@okie,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Quote:
Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.[11][12][13]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_political_beliefs

Quote:
Hitler personally claimed he was fighting against Jewish Marxism.

...

In Hitler's mind, Communism is the primary enemy of Germany:

“ In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated. ”

" Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
“ In this way the struggle against the present State was placed on a higher plane than that of petty revenge and small conspiracies. It was elevated to the level of a spiritual struggle on behalf of a WELTANSCHAUUNG, for the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms. ”

" Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
“ In view of the complete subordination of the present State to Marxism, the National Socialist Movement feels all the more bound not only to prepare the way for the triumph of its idea by appealing to the reason and understanding of the public but also to take upon itself the responsibility of organizing its own defence against the terror of the International, which is intoxicated with its own victory. ”

" Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

...

Because of these views, leftist political dissidents were the first victims to be targeted by the Nazi regime...

...

Although Nazism experimented with many different ideas, the core values of Hitler and most of his popular base are seen by some as strongly Conservative and have been usually defined as reactionary. Hitler and the Nazis supported a certain subset of traditional values:

* Antifeminism. The role of women in Nazi Germany was still defined with the traditional formula Kinder, Küche, Kirche (children, kitchen, church). In a 1934 speech, Hitler stated that "the slogan 'Emancipation of women' was invented by Jewish intellectuals and its content was formed by the same spirit. In the really good times of German life the German woman had no need to emancipate herself. She possessed exactly what nature had necessarily given her to administer and preserve; just as the man in his good times had no need to fear that he would be ousted from his position in relation to the woman. In fact the woman was least likely to challenge his position. Only when he was not absolutely certain in his knowledge of his task did the eternal instinct of self and race-preservation begin to rebel in women. There then grew from this rebellion a state of affairs which was unnatural and which lasted until both sexes returned to the respective spheres which an eternally wise providence had preordained for them. If the man's world is said to be the State, his struggle, his readiness to devote his powers to the service of the community, then it may perhaps be said that the woman's is a smaller world. For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home.".[5]
* Strong social and familiar order, with a rigid hierarchization of all aspects of life supported by harsh discipline and a militaristic point of view.
* Extreme homophobia leading to the extermination of homosexuals.
* Persecution of so-called degenerate art.
* Strong rejection of youth sex, prostitution, pornography and "sexual vice". Smoking, drinking and use of cosmetics were discouraged.
* Anti-intellectualism.[6]

...



Look at that. You and Hitler have something in common.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 12:26 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:


(I had this same discussion elsewhere regarding Bush, by the way, and came to the same conclusion.)

I knew that would come up.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 12:40 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Quote:
Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.[11][12][13]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_political_beliefs

Anti-parliamentarism, collectivism, eugenics, and totalitarianism are leftist. Opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism, these terms had different meanings in Europe, drewdad, and are not indicators of a conservative ideology I do not believe. Racism and antisemitism, it can be argued that these traits are more common on the left side of the political spectrum, particularly antisemitism. All you have to do is listen to the Reverend Wright to see what he thinks of Jews, and he is no conservative, that is for certain.

Quote:
Quote:
Hitler personally claimed he was fighting against Jewish Marxism.

...

In Hitler's mind, Communism is the primary enemy of Germany:

“ In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated. ”

" Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
“ In this way the struggle against the present State was placed on a higher plane than that of petty revenge and small conspiracies. It was elevated to the level of a spiritual struggle on behalf of a WELTANSCHAUUNG, for the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms. ”

" Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
“ In view of the complete subordination of the present State to Marxism, the National Socialist Movement feels all the more bound not only to prepare the way for the triumph of its idea by appealing to the reason and understanding of the public but also to take upon itself the responsibility of organizing its own defence against the terror of the International, which is intoxicated with its own victory. ”

" Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

...

Because of these views, leftist political dissidents were the first victims to be targeted by the Nazi regime...

...

Although Nazism experimented with many different ideas, the core values of Hitler and most of his popular base are seen by some as strongly Conservative and have been usually defined as reactionary. Hitler and the Nazis supported a certain subset of traditional values:

* Antifeminism. The role of women in Nazi Germany was still defined with the traditional formula Kinder, Küche, Kirche (children, kitchen, church). In a 1934 speech, Hitler stated that "the slogan 'Emancipation of women' was invented by Jewish intellectuals and its content was formed by the same spirit. In the really good times of German life the German woman had no need to emancipate herself. She possessed exactly what nature had necessarily given her to administer and preserve; just as the man in his good times had no need to fear that he would be ousted from his position in relation to the woman. In fact the woman was least likely to challenge his position. Only when he was not absolutely certain in his knowledge of his task did the eternal instinct of self and race-preservation begin to rebel in women. There then grew from this rebellion a state of affairs which was unnatural and which lasted until both sexes returned to the respective spheres which an eternally wise providence had preordained for them. If the man's world is said to be the State, his struggle, his readiness to devote his powers to the service of the community, then it may perhaps be said that the woman's is a smaller world. For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home.".[5]
* Strong social and familiar order, with a rigid hierarchization of all aspects of life supported by harsh discipline and a militaristic point of view.
* Extreme homophobia leading to the extermination of homosexuals.
* Persecution of so-called degenerate art.
* Strong rejection of youth sex, prostitution, pornography and "sexual vice". Smoking, drinking and use of cosmetics were discouraged.
* Anti-intellectualism.[6]

...



Look at that. You and Hitler have something in common.


True, the Jews were the central theme of Hitler's hatred and politics, and most of the other stuff kind of revolves around that. He associated Jews with Marx as he did with greed and capitalism. Thus Hitler aimed at a form of socialism somewhere in between, with a strong state controlling the economy. Actually, Obama seems to be aiming at some form of a similar policy right now, and he is no conservative, Drewdad. Obama in fact says he is going to eliminate boom and bust cycles by using government in powerful ways.

Your discussion of social order, family, and vices, those kinds of policies exist at both ends of the political spectrum, Drewdad, in fact any society needs some social order of family, etc. in order to survive. Militaristic, thats an interesting subject, but what kind of politicians love more to dress in military garb than leftists? After all, they glory in their revolutions.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 12:49 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
Anti-parliamentarism, collectivism, eugenics, and totalitarianism are leftist. Opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism, these terms had different meanings in Europe, drewdad, and are not indicators of a conservative ideology I do not believe. Racism and antisemitism, it can be argued that these traits are more common on the left side of the political spectrum, particularly antisemitism. All you have to do is listen to the Reverend Wright to see what he thinks of Jews, and he is no conservative, that is for certain.


"I do not believe" and "it can be argued" are not actually arguments. It can be argued that the sun rises in the West, but the facts don't support the argument.

The truth is, your beliefs do not match up with what most people recognize as reality. I suppose there is a minute possibility that you alone have a truth to which the rest of us are blind, but the more likely explanation is that you're a kook.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 01:01 am
@DrewDad,
Drewdad, it is a myth that I am the only one espousing this opinion. Secondly, your assertions are your beliefs, thats all, just as mine are. You are free to argue that anti-parliamentarism, collectivism, eugenics, and totalitarianism are right wing idealogies, but you are wrong. And I think I made very good points in regard to the other points mentioned as well, so your claim that these things indicate a right wing ideology is just not supported. You refer to me as a loner in my opinion, and everyone else agreeing with you, that is totally wrong.

To be honest, I have never found your posts to be very credible, so I think we are probably wasting our time even talking, as you are worlds apart from reality, in my opinon. Apparently you believe something like that about me, that is your privilege, but hopefully at some point in your life you will wake up and realize, you know what, okie might have been right.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 02:42 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Perhaps herein lies the problem. Your spectrum of left to right goes from communist to what perhaps may be a form of socialism. What I think you are failing to accept is that the right end of the spectrum is still very much leftward in context with what we see as left and right here in the United States. You can speak in relative terms but it doesn't prove much, you have to actually examine the policies of the Nazi Party, which I have done, and have challenged you to do, but as yet you have not met the challenge.


Our right side of the spectrum isn't "a form of socialism" at all.

Is that our problem? We have more parties in our parliaments, since more than one hundred years, than you have.
And you can turn it as like: both communism/socialism as well as Nazi-theories are German "invention".
So it's your problem that you call them differently.

Interesting that you here claim to have "actually examined the policies of the Nazi Party".
You ridicule on the other my university studies about it. And totally neglect that a) I have access to primary sources, b) my German (which is actually needed to understand the Nazi programs, speeches etc) might be a bit better than yours.


okie wrote:

Again, I think you are lost in the maze of German politics and traditional thinking. And I don't think you understand what conservative or right wing means in context with today's standards here in the United States. As I have stated many times, the best way to resolve this is to go to the Nazi Party 25 points and evaluate those points in terms of where the reside on the left right spectrum. I have done this, and I think it clearly shows Hitler was a leftist. I challenge you to try to do this to prove your beliefs. After all, if your beliefs are valid, it should be a piece of cake for you. And if you don't like the Nazi 25 points, perhaps we can dissect Mein Kampf, after all what would be closer to Hitler's beliefs than that. I have read much of that, and I sure don't see much conservative or right wing philosophy in there.


See my above.

Seriously, okie: you should try and understand the very basics of history, especially when looking at a) foreign countreis, with b) a different language, and c) a different culture and d) a different political system in d) a different period than today.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 02:45 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

I already provided the source, which was a book. I cannot vouch that everything in that book is correct, so I'm with you on the problem of verifying what Hitler said. But if you wish to throw it out, I think there is plenty of other evidence without it anyway, and as I said, the quote does not seem to be out of character for Hitler, so I don't think you can make the case that it is opposite of his beliefs.

As I said in the above, go to the Nazi 25 points, or if you prefer Mein Kampf, use that to prove your belief, but at least provide some evidence instead of some convoluted argument that xyz party was to the left of abc party, therefore, ....... and that you wrote a paper on it when you were in college, and therefore...... I think you can do better than that.


A book is at most a secondary source. But only if it has - like here - a footnote with the date/location of -here- that speech.

That's why I asked you about.

Your reminding me about those 25-points doesn't make them better than ... well, you certainly are aware about the Christian unions, founded by the conservative parties. I think that a prove about Socialism in European conservatism ...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 02:53 am
@okie,
I've seldom seen such screwed up opnions.
But your quotes show that you're not alone.

We still have some old (and new) Nazis here - and elsewhere
They don't want or can't see evidence, too.

And - though it really provokes to do so - I'm not saying that you're a Nazi or using their methods.
You find this all and everywhere, fortunately more seldom, but such exists.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 05:18 am
Quote:
Anti-parliamentarism, collectivism, eugenics, and totalitarianism are leftist.


This statement dramatically shows what is going on here. Leaving aside that there was nothing remotely "collectivist" about National Socialism, this is an a priori position which Okie has taken, and sets out to bend what pass for facts to support the initial premises. Anti-parliamentarianism and eugenics are features of totalitarian states, and has been repeated tediously in this thread, totalitarian states can be either right-wing or left-wing. As i have repeatedly pointed out, there have been more right-wing totalitarian states in history than left-wing, but not because there is necessarily an disposition on the part of right-wing groups to be totalitarian, but just because there have been more right-wing governments overall.

Okie decided that all things left-wing are bad, and set out to prove it, rather than considering the evidence objectively and coming to a conclusion.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 07:23 am
@Setanta,
I left the thread for a while and forgot my earlier conclusion that Okie's simply trolling, here.

Back to your regularly-scheduled right-wing ideological circular reasoning.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 07:34 am
@Setanta,
Don't try to ever convince okie with facts. He wants "evidence", and he has thoroughly studied the subject.


Okie doesn't take only those a priori positions, but speaks about history ex cathedra as A2K's (German) history cat's meow.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 08:10 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

I left the thread for a while and forgot my earlier conclusion that Okie's simply trolling, here.

Back to your regularly-scheduled right-wing ideological circular reasoning.


How does one "troll" on a thread that one started? Nobody twists anybody's arm to contribute to a thread. Most of us simply pass by threads that are not interesting to us. This must be an interesting topic to many for it to generate as many posts as it has generated. The thread starter must be really hitting some nerves too as the posts become more and more personally hostile toward him.

DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 08:19 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
How does one "troll" on a thread that one started?

"Trolling" as in "baiting". He baited his hook, and got some bites. By now, though, it's painfully clear that he's either batshit crazy or trying to get people riled up.

Foxfyre wrote:
Nobody twists anybody's arm to contribute to a thread. Most of us simply pass by threads that are not interesting to us. This must be an interesting topic to many for it to generate as many posts as it has generated.

The idea of the thread title is interesting. What causes dictators? How do they rise to power? Is it individual drive, does there have to be social disorder?

Foxfyre wrote:
The thread starter must be really hitting some nerves too as the posts become more and more personally hostile toward him.

Discussing Hitler does usually hit some nerves.

Also, it is irritating to try to have a conversation with someone who only halfway makes sense. They define their terms in such a way that rational discourse is impossible.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 08:25 am
@DrewDad,
Rational discourse is impossible? Or simply impossible to rebut?

I don't necessarily agree with Okie's take on all of this, but he does make some points that some of you have not been able to rebut. And the general tendency is then to attack him.

The subject is interesting. But it becomes uninteresting when it becomes another mud slinging fest rather than a discussion of the topic.

What do you think produces ruthless dictators?

And, by implication, are there any factors with those shared byPresident George W. Bush? Many of you suggested so when he was President. Some of you still do.

Is there any correlation to some of Barack Obama's words/actions/presume motives with those practiced by those identified as ruthless dictators? If so, what are they? If not, why is he different and such factors do not apply in his case?

To me that's an interest topic. If folks could just focus on that.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 08:43:43