What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The evidence for this, by the way, is prolific. Anastasio Somoza, Augusto Pinochet, Rafael Trujillo, Ferdinand Marcos, Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-Hee, Juan Péron. Juan Péron and Rafael Trujillo even campaigned on labor tickets in order to get into power--and what a crock of poop that was.

I will start with answering your post, and I choose this passage to illustrate a strong point. Even if, and I say even if because we would have to examine each ruler to identify left and right policies, but even if all were right wing, the numbers of murdered or level of ruthlessness I think pales in comparison to left wing dictators, where at least tens of millions of human beings have died through killing and starvation in process and as a result of their governing.

0 Replies

Translation: all right-wing people are good, all left-wing people are bad.

You need to get a new song, this one is getting tedious.

Adolf Hitler--a notorious right-wing[/i] dictator--gives the lie to your most recent bullshit post.

0 Replies

@old europe,

oe wrote:

Quote:

It's not that his opinion is more "worthwhile" than yours, it's that you simply make up "facts" to support your opinion when you run out of material.

Sounds like a total contradiction to me!

What okie does and continues to do is mental mastemasturbation; it only satisfies himself.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

I'm certainly not dismissing your experiences. I just don't see how this gives you any more insight on the topic of the NSDAP's or Hitler's political position - particularly when you refuse to do the research that Walter and other posters are willing to do to contribute to this discussion.

So far, about all I've seen out of Walter is that so and so supported Hitler or opposed him and they were either left or right, therefore he was a rightee, etc. etc. I don't recall much out of Walter in terms of actually posting the actual policital policies adopted by Hitler. Also, I have asked Walter to provide a short summary of how left vs right are to be judged in his opinion, and still nothing out of him as far as I know.

Quote:

okie wrote:
Do I claim conservatism or capitalism is perfect? Or the U.S.A. perfect? No way, but it is still the best alternative we have. There is no utopia on earth, never will be, nothing even close, and we will all die, without regard to how hard the government may try to get people to believe in some saviour or king. Forget it, it won't happen.

See, here's what I believe is the core of the disagreement between you and other posters: you have a very, very specific idea of what constitutes "conservatism", probably as a result of your background. As evidenced by your fierce opposition to many of the positions that candidates like McCain or Ron Paul stood for, that may even put you at odds with other conservatives. As far as defining your own position goes, I have absolutely no problem with that. But at the same time, it doesn't change the fact that those candidates still were generally accepted to be conservative candidates.

And there's the rub. So far, your position on this thread has pretty much been that if a political position doesn't fall into your definition of conservatism, it must be a left-wing position.

I happen to think everyone should have a specific idea of what constitutes left vs right. If you don't, then how can you even contribute any opinion here? It would be meaningless, as you would have no frame of reference.

In regard to McCain or Ron Paul, I would classify them as largely conservative, although Paul has a few weird ideas, he is a little disjointed in terms of his policies, sort of a scatter approach I think. I do not think either one represents a threat to be a dictator wannabe, so that further supports most of what I have posted here. Is McCain a perfect conservative, no, but he is certainly a far cry from Obama, which is I think a dictator wannabe, a clear leftist, and also sort of a third way guy where he wants the government to run the private sector, profits are bad, blah blah, and he often talks the buzzwords of social justice and all the other leftist crap.

Actually I think your example of McCain is a good one. I did not support him early on, but I did vote for him in the general election, because he is basically a good American that believes in private enterprise, freedom, individual rights, etc. We may disagree on the details of some things, and I also believe he is a bit naive in regard to how some legislations play out and what exactly should be done to govern the country, but I still believe he is an honorable and good man that believes in most of the things that traditional America believes. In contrast, Obama, I do not, he has another leftist idealogy in his brain, and this will always be his natural tendency. Does he advocate scrapping capitalism completely? Apparently not, at least he doesn't say so outright, and so this also provides proof that a politician like Hitler did not have to be a communist to be a leftist, there are various brands of leftism. Obama keeps saying he doesn't want to be a banker or run an auto company, and so forth, but guess what, what is he actually doing and actually proposing? Do not take what he says, look at what he does.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

So far, about all I've seen out of Walter is that so and so supported Hitler or opposed him and they were either left or right, therefore he was a rightee, etc. etc. I don't recall much out of Walter in terms of actually posting the actual policital policies adopted by Hitler.

I didn't get the impression that this was questioned.

But certainly I'm willing to discuss those.

Let's start with the first after the March 1933 elections, , the "Reichstagsbrandverordnung" ('Reichstag Fire Decree'), and then the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" ('Enabling Act'), and then ...

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

In regard to McCain or Ron Paul, I would classify them as largely conservative, although Paul has a few weird ideas, he is a little disjointed in terms of his policies, sort of a scatter approach I think. I do not think either one represents a threat to be a dictator wannabe, so that further supports most of what I have posted here.

So you think that assumptions you make are evidence that other assumptions you make are true? You're not required to provide evidence?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I happen to think everyone should have a specific idea of what constitutes left vs right. If you don't, then how can you even contribute any opinion here? It would be meaningless, as you would have no frame of reference.

Does your personal definition of right-wing politics include the idea that differences in economic wealth and social class should simply be accepted? Does it include the idea that a nation is entitled to enforce its borders, to stop immigration by all means necessary? Does it include the idea that law and order are necessary, and that a strong state is needed to enforce these laws? Does your definition include the idea that a nation is built on a religious foundation, e.g. that Christian values are at the core of what defines America as a nation? Do you think that the heritage and the culture of America should be preserved, that English should be the official language, and that it's a waste of money to print official papers in a multitude of languages? Does you think that corporations and businesses should receive tax-cuts? Do you think that they alone are the motor of wealth, that they should receive privileges, and that the government should privatize and deregulate markets whenever possible?

2 Replies

@old europe,

A right-winger thinks that you can do anything you want to do and that you can do and that if you can't do it you can keep trying to. He takes in his stride whatever you do using the pleasure/pain equipollence as his guide.

If he were to describe a cruise liner going down, say, it would be for the purpose of having his eloquence admired rather than offering any idiotic suggestions about how such tragedies were to be avoided in the future or concerning how awful they were. Like Flaubert. Art for art's sake. Nothing else is worth living for when your Dad has left you well fixed.

But even Flaubert went on parade to stop enemy troops billeting in his house. A right-winger would have made them a cuppa and been playing cards with them in an hour.

So if you see the enemy troops off and shave his head for fraternising you're a dirty-leftie-smelly Commie rat.

Does that orient you a bit better. I remember seeing a movie where Denis Hopper called a red-neck sheriff something like that. That oriented me.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Again Walter, we need to judge these events based upon the policies enacted, not whether another group of socialists opposed the National Socialists. Here are the policies as summarized from the Fire Decree, I believe as in the following link and quote. I believe all of them are commonly thought of as leftist policies all the way through the list including confiscation and restriction of property.

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

§ 1. Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

4 Replies

@okie,

Sounds more like the policies of GW Bush; illegal wiretaps, ignore habeas corpus, and authorize torture as first signs of a tyrannical government - all the while ignoring the Constitution.

0 Replies

@okie,

Didn't you recently defend a restriction of "the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications" in the name of fighting terrorism?

Does that mean that you are supporting "leftist policies", or does that mean that some of those policies can also be rightist policies?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I believe all of them are commonly thought of as leftist policies all the way through the list including confiscation and restriction of property.

I don't question your belief.

But: the articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 (besides a lot more in the Weimar Constitution) are there because of ... left ideas. (See the history of German constitutions, the history of German political parties etc)

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
I happen to think everyone should have a specific idea of what constitutes left vs right. If you don't, then how can you even contribute any opinion here? It would be meaningless, as you would have no frame of reference.

Does your personal definition of right-wing politics include the idea that differences in economic wealth and social class should simply be accepted?

If economic wealth is earned, not stolen, sure. If you wish to get into degrees of leveling the playing field, there are certainly gradations of policies that can be evaluated, such as enacting a progressive tax system would be less right wing than having no progression at all, but how progressive it is would determine just where it is on the scale of left vs right, and also a progressive taxing system is certainly is still to the right of outright confiscation of property or nationalization of industries.

Quote:

Does it include the idea that a nation is entitled to enforce its borders, to stop immigration by all means necessary?

Here is where we are probably going to disagree because I believe any nation will defend its borders and control immigration, regardless of its manner of governing its own citizens, if it intends upon being a nation at all, so I do not see this as necessarily left or right.

Quote:

Does it include the idea that law and order are necessary, and that a strong state is needed to enforce these laws?

Certainly, but there is a difference between the types of laws, those that protect us from each other, or those that protect the power of government. The existence and enforcement of laws do not indicate a left or right philosophy, it is the types of laws and enforcement that do that.

Quote:

Does your definition include the idea that a nation is built on a religious foundation, e.g. that Christian values are at the core of what defines America as a nation?

I believe most nations are built upon a type of religious foundation, as any doctrine of right or wrong has a source to it. When I say that, I do not necessarily believe that all beliefs are necessarily known as religious, but they may be, example: atheism or belief in the state, that is as much a religious belief as a Christian, or Hindu, or Islamic belief. Sometimes a religious belief is also mandated by the State, which is a socialistic view of religion, that everyone should believe the same. In the United States, historically the people have believed approximately the same, but it has never been mandated to believe a certain way, it has always been by individual choice, which I believe is conservative or right wing. Forced belief in a religion or the State, forced commonality of thought and religion, I would view that as socialistic.

Quote:

Do you think that the heritage and the culture of America should be preserved, that English should be the official language, and that it's a waste of money to print official papers in a multitude of languages?

Yes, I do believe in preservation of some, depending upon issue. A common language makes sense, for government business, but I do not believe it should be forced in private, people are free to do whatever they want to do.

Quote:

Does you think that corporations and businesses should receive tax-cuts? Do you think that they alone are the motor of wealth, that they should receive privileges, and that the government should privatize and deregulate markets whenever possible?

It depends upon each issue, but yes I believe the above, in fact I am in favor of eliminating all taxes upon corporations and business, we could go to a retail sales tax if all personal income tax was also eliminated, or simply tax individuals income. I do not believe a tax cut or break is giving anyone anything, it is only letting businesses or people keep that belongs to them, that they earned. Lately however, the government has been giving money to people over and above whatever taxes they paid, so the tax system is now being used as a welfare system, that is a different subject than simply talking about tax rates or tax breakes.

In general, I believe government is less efficient than a private solution to a problem. There are only a limited number of things that only government should appropriately do, and one of those is national defense. Also police protection would be another, to protect our rights between us.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Again Walter, we need to judge these events based upon the policies enacted, not whether another group of socialists opposed the National Socialists.

The policies were - that this law (and the previous, equivalent orders in Prussia) were targeted against the left.
For instance, the Prussian interior minister Hermann Göring ordered the complete suppression of the Communist party (as well as parts of the SPD) even before the Reichs law came into force.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter, okie will "never get it." His mind is all in fixed-mode.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Didn't you recently defend a restriction of "the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications" in the name of fighting terrorism?

Does that mean that you are supporting "leftist policies", or does that mean that some of those policies can also be rightist policies?

This point was predictable. I do support the presidents power to protect the nation, its citizens, thats us, by instituting some ability to identify threats to the country. This is very limited however and cannot cross a certain line. This certainly is different than for example, Obama identifying email addresses of opponents of his health care proposal, which is totally political and has nothing to do with national defense. Similarly, alot of Hitler's initiatives were not for national defense, but were rather to insure his lock on power and to further his political policies. I hope you can see the difference, I certainly do, and I think most conservative can clearly see this. Our constitution allows for presidential power for national security, but not for advancement of political agenda.

You should know that presidents have always instituted measures to protect the country. In fact, the mail of GI's in World War II and other wars as well, were monitored, and some of it opened and read, for the sake of national security. That is a far cry however from protecting ones own political agenda. The point here to remember is to what extent, how much, and why, is any privacy intruded upon. Other instances include the process of catching criminals, we have search warrants, etc.

1 Reply

okie, if you think government is inherently less efficient than private enterprise, I suggest you try to figure out why all the single payer health systems in the world operate at costs roughly half of what the private health care system in the US does. Anbd why they all produce better public health metrics and mostly longer longevities than the US/

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

Again Walter, we need to judge these events based upon the policies enacted, not whether another group of socialists opposed the National Socialists.

The policies were - that this law (and the previous, equivalent orders in Prussia) were targeted against the left.
For instance, the Prussian interior minister Hermann Göring ordered the complete suppression of the Communist party (as well as parts of the SPD) even before the Reichs law came into force.

So one leftist suppressing another brand of leftists, that proves that leftist is a rightee? Again, you keep using the same old argument, and I don't buy it. I think historians, some of them, have, but we don't need to keep swallowing that line. You keep using the argument that Hitler suppressed the communists, and fought the communists, thats all great, we know that, but it proves nothing about his own political beliefs and policies. He also hated and fought the British as well. And he hated and fought the United States as well.

3 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

okie, if you think government is inherently less efficient than private enterprise, I suggest you try to figure out why all the single payer health systems in the world operate at costs roughly half of what the private health care system in the US does. Anbd why they all produce better public health metrics and mostly longer longevities than the US/

Okay if you think one industry is more efficient under single payer, then it logically follows that all industries would, is that right?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, That was a direct question; you answered with a question, not the answer he was seeking.

0 Replies

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know