What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

@marsz,

Marsz, your last few posts have been outstanding.

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Marsz, your last few posts have been outstanding.

Interesting. Some of them have been simply quotes from my posts, such as at the beginning of this thread. Although many have posted their disagreements, I do not think anyone has provided solid evidence that the premise of this thread has been far off the mark. The premise is in fact totally logical, that bad apples do not just happen in a vacuum, there are reasons and common denominators. My original 5 examples still stand, and others have been added during further discussion.

The purpose of this thread is to hopefully stimulate thought among people in regard to what to watch out for in political personalities, who not to support, so that bad apples of the political world can be avoided, and will not be placed into power, so that they cannot have opportunity to wreak havoc and destruction upon their country, upon the world, and upon other people.

A second subject or tangent has grown out of the original subject of the thread, and that is whether Hitler, Nazism, or Fascism, is a left or right political philosophy. Where does it reside on the scale? Again, I do not think anyone has provided any credible evidence that my assertion is wrong, my assertion being that those philosophies are also to the left. Conservatives typically support my assertion, while liberals oppose it almost to a man. Liberals cannot afford to admit that big government and powerful government is the most fertile ground for dictators and ruthless ones. The primary reason for this is that it is their ox being gored.

3 Replies

@marsz,

Pretty much general bull ****. How many families do you think are the Brady Bunch in this world? Percentage-wise.

How many children grow up with only one parent? Are they "dysfunctional?" How many children grow up with no parent, because both have full-time careers?

Are they dysfunctional?

Over half of marriages in the US end up in divorce. Are both or one of them dysfunctional?

Do you know what you're saying?

0 Replies

"Nazism also emphasized many of the themes of later New Lefts in other places and times: the primacy of race, the rejection of rationalism, an emphasis on the organic and holistic--including environmentalism, health food, and. most of all, the need to "transcend" notions of class.
For these reasons, Hitler deserves to be placed firmly on the left because first and foremost he was a revolutionary. Broadly speaking, the left is the party of change, the right the party of the status quo."

"Liberal Fascism"--Jonah Goldberg- P. 59

1 Reply

@marsz,

I guess you should have titled your post -

Jonah Goldberg is an idiot.

1 Reply

@parados,

It's because people like marsz can't see the primary drive of those who considered themselves members of Hitler's party that didn't lean left at all, but believed in the conservative memes we hear now from MACs-conservatives in the US including "free trade" or for their love in the use of the word lassiz-faire (less government intrusion as we've seen during Bush's eight years).

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Nazism and Nazis never embraced free trade and lassiz-faire. Nazis also never embraced the conviction that all humans are created equally endowed by their creator with the unallienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But MACs have embraced those principles.

I cannot believe that you do not know that. Instead I believe you are an obamacrat propagandist, and employ the same propaganda techniques as did Joseph Goebbels.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

The primary reason for this is that it is their ox being gored.

I agree with Ican that Marsz has been making good points. And I agree with you that he is repeating some points that you previously made.

And I think it is more than the fact that their 'ox is being gored'. I think some of the rancor has been due to more basic principles:

1) They can ingratiate themselves with some others by ridiculing or denigrating you or Marsz or others.

2) Some of the concepts/ideas/talking points you have offered have been fragmented or disrupted with ad hominem, straw men, and non sequiturs from the numbnuts and a few others and, because the flow of the discussion was so interrupted, even some more reasonable types misunderstood your thesis and condemned you for it. That I think was not reasoned critique and was more due to intellectual laziness in not being willing to go back and reconstruct the entire context. That is too often the case when dealing with complex ideas or concepts in a forum like this. (More especially when some are determined to ensure that no reasoned debate will take place.)

3) The idea is far more complicated than some are willing to deal with and it is easier to be mean or critical than attempt to understand it.

I think it mildly interesting to consider common denominators found among 'ruthless dictators.' I do think it even more important to fully understand those factors that provide a fertile environment for bad governments to take control. To assume that it is impossible for it to happen here is the height of naivete. Our Founders knew better. So should we.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

the conviction that all humans are created equally endowed by their creator with the unallienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But MACs have embraced those principles.

MACs have also embraced breathing oxygen. It doesn't make it a conservative principle. Because MACs embraced something doesn't mean liberals have not embraced it or that is is a right/left political stance.

1 Reply

@parados,

They can quote the Constitution, but when it comes to living by it, they become muddled in what they mean by quoting the Constitution.

Righties are the ones who will deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, let women make their own decisions about abortion, and pretty much deny Americans to assemble to discuss health care.

They don't know the meaning of "equally endowed by their creator." They think their denial of marriage to gays and lesbians allows them "unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Maybe they don't know the definition of "happiness."

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I'm inclined to think we might consider denying lots of things to people who steal words from our language in order to make male homosexuality sound cute.

I came across the word "gay" used properly in Herman Melville's wonderful whaling story and I wondered what a modern kid would think on reading the sentence it was in.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

And women can make their own decisions about abortion by not allowing a shot of jism up them if they are not wanting a baby.

Are you talking about women who don't know that it causes babies to be conceived or rape victims?

0 Replies

I wonder what the comments about the Bush administration would have been if people had been asked to report anything 'fishy' being said about 9/11 or the Patriot Act or Iraq or any of the other thing that clogged the blogs back then? Do you think the media and those who support Obama now would have just shrugged it off as unimportant?

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb0810wj20090810044756.jpg

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

ican's comments are in blue.

cicerone imposter wrote:

They can quote the Constitution, but when it comes to living by it, they become muddled in what they mean by quoting the Constitution.

Cice, the fact that you don't supply with your accusation specific examples of how conservatives miss-apply, or mis-interpret the Constitution implies you do not know how conservatives miss-apply, or mis-interpret the Constitution.

Righties are the ones who will deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, let women make their own decisions about abortion, and pretty much deny Americans to assemble to discuss health care.

Not just conservatives, but a large majority of Americans do not want the 3-thousand year old definition of marriage to be changed. However, many of us would accept a definition of some other word to mean the legal pairing of two males or two females that is otherwise equivalent to marriage.

I, for one conservative, do not want any law telling a woman whether or not she can have an abortion, in spite of the fact that I personally object to any abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy when the fetus is fully formed.

It is not conservatives that "pretty much deny Americans to assemble to discuss health care." It is quite clear, it is the obamacrats who are resenting and/or denying many of those who want to assemble and question obamacrat healthcare.

They don't know the meaning of "equally endowed by their creator." They think their denial of marriage to gays and lesbians allows them "unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I and all conservatives I both know and know of, do know the meaning of "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." We know that "all men" means all human beings.

Maybe they don't know the definition of "happiness."

We know the meaning of "happiness."
Perhaps you do not!

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=happiness&x=22&y=8
Main Entry: hap·pi·ness
...
2 a (1) : a state of well-being characterized by relative permanence, by dominantly agreeable emotion ranging in value from mere contentment to deep and intense joy in living, and by a natural desire for its continuation

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Although many have posted their disagreements, I do not think anyone has provided solid evidence that the premise of this thread has been far off the mark.

Your premise that all that is evil in the world originates from liberal policies has no basis in fact. Your allegation that no one has refuted your premise simply means that you've had your head buried in the sand, as usual.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Although many have posted their disagreements, I do not think anyone has provided solid evidence that the premise of this thread has been far off the mark.

This is particularly ironic, given that every time i have listed notorious right-wing dictators, who have operated in our life times, you have failed to comment. Each time we are engaged in an exchange of posts and i bring them up, you fall silent. That is precisely what happened the last time we were involved in an exchange of posts and i asked you to comment on them.

How do you account for Rafael Trujillo, Anastasio Somosa, Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, Syngman Rhee, Park Chung Hee, the Argentine Junta or the Greek Colonels? All right-wing, all ruthless dictators--how do you account for them? When you finish attempting to dismiss those examples, i've got many, many more.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

But your posts aren't an

0 Replies

Yes, and i suspect they will meet with the same silence.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Yes, and i suspect they will meet with the same silence.

At first, I've read that they would make them silent ...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta, what criteria are you applying when deciding whether a dictator was/is left or right wing?

0 Replies

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know