20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:15 am
@okie,
So you can judge the time period in Germany between 1900 and 1920 (or a couple of years later) with your opinion from today and as seen from personal, US point of view.

But you don't accept that I judge how Obama would be situated in our political spectrum of today?
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:19 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

And I still would like to hear your opinion of FDR, to the left or right of Hitler, and what was FDR, left or right here in the U.S.? Was he conservative, to the right, or was he to the left and more liberal?


I've not a deep enough knowledge about the US politics of those times to come to a fair opinion here.

Perhaps that is one big reason why you just do not understand the debate here? You do not understand the context. Perhaps you really do not understand the principles of a right wing conservative, as demonstrated here for a very very long time now.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:22 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

So you can judge the time period in Germany between 1900 and 1920 (or a couple of years later) with your opinion from today and as seen from personal, US point of view.

But you don't accept that I judge how Obama would be situated in our political spectrum of today?

I accept whatever you want to judge Obama according to your spectrum, but I am telling you that your spectrum was not the subject of this thread. Frankly, I don't care about your spectrum in regard to this discussion.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:23 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Perhaps that is one big reason why you just do not understand the debate here? You do not understand the context. Perhaps you really do not understand the principles of a right wing conservative, as demonstrated here for a very very long time now.


That really might be so. I know that our university system isn't as good as yours, not speak about our schools.
And it's quite some time ago that I studied Political Sciences at university ( 35 years resp. five years), not to mention school ...
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:25 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
Frankly, I don't care about your spectrum in regard to this discussion.


I know. You demonstrate that constantly.

0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:32 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter, why do you constantly have this chip on your shoulder about the United States, implying that your university system is better, or that we think ours is better than yours? You constantly make comments about your qualifications and so forth, thats great, but I want to actually debate you on the data, but you refuse to categorize the Nazi 25 points for example. And on the left vs right issue, you do not understand that I am trying to tell you it is not a matter of which country's spectrum is more valid, it is a matter of which one is being used. For example, take the Celsius or Fahrenheit scales, I am not trying to say one is better than another, I am simply saying for the purpose of this discussion I was using one of them, not the other, okay? If you really do not understand the context, then I would suggest you just drop out of the debate then.

And seriously, have you read Obama's books? Have you read about Saul Alinsky? Have you read about the Reverend Wright and Black Liberation Theology? Do you even know what Obama is about?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:44 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Walter, why do you constantly have this chip on your shoulder about the United States, implying that your university system is better, or that we think ours is better than yours? You constantly make comments about your qualifications and so forth, thats great, ...


I'm not trying to make one system better or to disqualify the other - I'm trying to explain from where I got my knowledge and that I got academic degrees about this knowledge HERE where I live.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:45 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
... but I want to actually debate you on the data, but you refuse to categorize the Nazi 25 points for example. ...


And I think that such is a kind of childish attempt, especially when you neglect all data (sic!) yourself.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:49 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
... And on the left vs right issue, you do not understand that I am trying to tell you it is not a matter of which country's spectrum is more valid, it is a matter of which one is being used. For example, take the Celsius or Fahrenheit scales, I am not trying to say one is better than another, I am simply saying for the purpose of this discussion I was using one of them, not the other, okay? If you really do not understand the context, then I would suggest you just drop out of the debate then.


Thanks for your suggestion.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 03:56 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

And seriously, have you read Obama's books? Have you read about Saul Alinsky? Have you read about the Reverend Wright and Black Liberation Theology? Do you even know what Obama is about?


Okie is a mindless minion of the conservative movement (that caters to the money interests of big business). He spews the talking points that his puppeteers have fed to him. The above shows that he is spewing his master's (Glenn Beck's) racially divisive garbage:

GLENN BECK CALLS OBAMA A RACIST AND A COMMUNIST



GLENN BECK SAYS OBAMA IS JUST LIKE SAUL ALINSKY



When okie asks you if you know what Obama is about, he's trying to tell you that he's a racist, his association with Reverend Wright proves he's a racist, and he's a radical, a communist, a socialist, etc.

Okie doesn't have an original thought. He swallows and regurgitates whatever propagandist, hate-monger, fear-monger, Glenn Beck says on FOX News.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 04:41 am
@okie,
This is a whiny, bullshit attempt to sidestep the burden of your failure to prove your case. You can't make your case, so you attempt to claim that Walter is not using the same standard as you, and/or that he doesn't understand the political terminology used in the United States.

But that's just horseshit. You are dead wrong about Hitler and the NSDAP. By the standards of the United States in the 1930s, Hitler was right-wing. By the standards of the United States today, Hitler was right wing. You just can't face up to the undeniable facts that you don't know jack-**** about Hitler and the NSDAP, and that you came up with your little pet theory and have been trying to cram the evidence into a mold which doesn't fit ever since.

Don't try to bring Mr. Obama into the debate. I don't think, i know that your ideas are reactionary, and damn near from the lunatic fringe. I have never stated nor implied that the United States has been run by reactionaries for 200 years. It has never had a truly left-wing government, and certainly doesn't have one now. FDR is as close as we have ever come to left-wing government.

You can't make your case, you haven't canvassed a broad sample of dictatorial governments, so now you're trying to hide behind a claim about the nature of politics in the United States. And that claim is bullshit.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 04:55 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
... You just can't face up to the undeniable facts that you don't know jack-**** about Hitler and the NSDAP, and that you came up with your little pet theory and have been trying to cram the evidence into a mold which doesn't fit ever since. ...


That's actually what I thought and think, too:
- okie neglects all and every source besides those 25-points as they were translated from a later edition,
- he doesn't write anything about the history of the NSDAP,
- he doesn't have a look at any papers before and after the publishing of the 25-points (date seems to be the the translation),
- he even doesn't look at Hitler's own amendments to the 25-points (not to be speak how they were discussed -see sources above- by the party leaders).
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  5  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 06:52 am
@okie,
Quote:
Perhaps you really do not understand the principles of a right wing conservative, as demonstrated here for a very very long time now.

I think we all understand the principles of a right wing conservative as demonstrated here.

The principles are to change facts so they will fit your warped world view.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:18 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
The principles are to change facts so they will fit your warped world view.

Bingo.

Okie's a living example of Orwell's "doublethink":

Quote:
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies " all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:36 am
Quote:
Definition: Ad hominem is a Latin term meaning "to the man". It is short for "argumentum ad hominem" which refers to an argument against a man. An argument that is ad hominem is one that has deviated from the claims being made and has instead focused on the person making the claims.


Quote:
ad· homi·nem (ad häm′ə nem′)
appealing to prejudice and emotion rather than to reason
attacking the character, motives, etc. of an opponent rather than debating the issue on logical grounds


Quote:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man" or "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:41 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Definition: Ad hominem is a Latin term meaning "to the man". It is short for "argumentum ad hominem" which refers to an argument against a man. An argument that is ad hominem is one that has deviated from the claims being made and has instead focused on the person making the claims.


Quote:
ad· homi·nem (ad häm′ə nem′)
appealing to prejudice and emotion rather than to reason
attacking the character, motives, etc. of an opponent rather than debating the issue on logical grounds


Quote:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man" or "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:41 am
@Foxfyre,
Did you finally look up "ad hominem" Foxfyre after you have been using it incorrectly for so long?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:43 am
@Foxfyre,
Nah. I've just made a judgement that Okie's full of "it". People make judgements all the time, right?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:43 am
It is not an argumentum ad hominem to point out the flaws in what Okie writes--that is the very essence of rhetorical exchange and debate. Fox calls it "ad homs" because neither she nor her cronies can deal with the criticism, can come up to the mark to support their claims, so they fall back on whining about how they are treated. It is dishonest and cowardly, and i expect no better from her.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:50 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

And seriously, have you read Obama's books? Have you read about Saul Alinsky? Have you read about the Reverend Wright and Black Liberation Theology? Do you even know what Obama is about?


Missed to respond to this:
- yes, read it. In English (and German),
- yes, I read about Saul allinsky
- yes, I read about Wright and the Black Liberation Tjeologie.
- yes, I even know what Obama is about.


(Disclaimer: I read German newspapers daily; I read additionally about 12 English, American, Israelian and French newspapers daily - at least the political /international sections and what I find interesting, too.)


Since its question time, okie: what do you think about the links I gave re history of the NSDAP? What about the (other) sources? Did you read anything about the history of the NSDAP? Do you know how and from whom it was founded? Where? Why? Do you know how the NSDAP differed from other right wing conservative German and Austrian parties?

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/06/2022 at 11:46:35