What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

and NO Spendius I do NOT wish to have your phone number.

Your last comment was totally uncalled for. I thought you to be a gentleman, not a name caller. The reason I said what I did about you not having to claim Hitler's idealogy, is that I meant it, you are apparently socialist in viewpoint, but yours would differ from Nazism, thats why I pointed it out. I thought you were taking the discussion too personally. Hey, we knew the Russians put up a valiant fight to drive back the Nazis as well, they deserve immense credit, but does that mean that I also agree with Stalin's politics, no of course not. I believe people of both political stripes, both left and right, deserve credit for opposing Hitler, and the same can be said for now, both rightees and leftees do not need to be called Hitler, but what we do need to do is to recognize the political policies and political landscapes from which such a potential tyrant can arise out of, or can be produced by. That is precisely the reason why I think it is important to discuss liberal and conservative, or right vs left viewpoints and policies, and seek to identify what Hitler's policies were more alike, because perhaps it can aid us in preventing such scenarios from happening again. Don't you think that is entirely reasonable and prudent?

And actually, the discussion is not only about Hitler, it is about all of the tyrants that have arisen and wreaked havoc upon mankind. What are the common denominators of such people, and in what kinds of situations do they more easily gain traction and gain power? Those are the questions that are extremely pertinent and worthwhile to explore.

Perhaps I was just as offended as you may seem to be now, that not long ago liberals were likening Bush to Hitler, and I found that extremely offensive, but not only offensive, it was totally wrong in terms of Bush's personality, but not only that, his basic politics. In contrast, I see much more threat to our freedoms coming from the left here in the United States, there is no doubt in my mind at all about that. That is kind of what stimulated the starting of this thread.

In contrast, I see much more threat to our freedoms coming from the left here in the United States, there is no doubt in my mind at all about that.

but what we do need to do is to recognize the political policies and political landscapes from which such a potential tyrant can arise out of, or can be produced by.

old europe wrote:

How do you know how you would have reacted to the Reichstagsbrandverordnung without the ability to predict the future? How do you know you wouldn't have supported the same provisions in 1933 that you supported in 2001?

Oh good grief, thats a dumb question. As a conservative, I do not support measures to limit speech, limit property rights, and all the rest of the stuff.

In contrast, I see much more threat to our freedoms coming from the left here in the United States, there is no doubt in my mind at all about that.

Quote:

In contrast, I see much more threat to our freedoms coming from the left here in the United States, there is no doubt in my mind at all about that.

Yes okie, but you have to allow that the economic facts might make it necessary to restrict freedoms and that it is those that need to be addressed as was the case with Hitler.

And Hitler was faced with serious opponents as it proved. The US isn't faced with that problem. It is almost an island.

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:

How do you know how you would have reacted to the Reichstagsbrandverordnung without the ability to predict the future? How do you know you wouldn't have supported the same provisions in 1933 that you supported in 2001?

Oh good grief, thats a dumb question. As a conservative, I do not support measures to limit speech, limit property rights, and all the rest of the stuff.

Like the Reichstagsbrandverordnung, the PATRIOT Act restricted habeas corpus rights. It and permitted imprisonment without significant evidence of wrongdoing. It allowed for the indefinite detention of any foreign citizen, including legal permanent residents. As a conservative, do you support or oppose restricting habeas corpus rights?

Like the Reichstagsbrandverordnung, the PATRIOT Act restricted the privacy of telephonic communications. It allowed the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order. It allowed access to voicemail through a simple search warrant rather than through a wiretap order, and it warrantless wiretaps of the private conversations of law-abiding citizens. As a conservative, do you support or oppose restrictions on the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications?

Like the Reichstagsbrandverordnung, the PATRIOT Act authorized a wider scope of warrants for house searches, including including warrants authorizing the law enforcement officers to stealthy breaking and entering into private premises without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge and to clandestinely search the premiseAs a conservative, do you support or oppose the authorisation of warrants for house searches beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed?

Like the Reichstagsbrandverordnung, the PATRIOT Act allowed for restrictions on the freedom of speech and freedom to organize and assemble. Under the provisions in the act, providing "expert advice or assistance" to organisations associated with terrorism would have been punishable. Peace workers would have been in violation of the law even if they simply offered training in peace negotiations. As a conservative, do you support or oppose those restriction on freedom of speech?

What do you think, okie? Are those policies commonly thought of as leftist policies, or do they represent conservative principles?

I have never known of a case where an enemy combatant deserved habeaus corpus rights, oe, its not as if something new was done. It is entirely different for a U.S. citizen being held for a crime, vs a non-citizen, perhaps even captured in some other country on a battlefield or something similar, for an act of war. Surely you see the difference? That is a very bizarre comparison I think.

You are stretching the comparison beyond common sense. We are talking about actual restriction of speech by Hitler, inside the country, not simply tapping conversations with suspected terrorists outside the country. Secondly, wiretaps have been done in the past, by presidents like JFK, to wiretap citizens, such as Martin Luther King. Are you also going to compare that with the Reichstag, holy cow. A president not only has a right, but a duty to track down enemies of the state. These were not political enemies, as Hitler had, but actual enemies, there is little comparison at all, it is a huge stretch.

There is no comparison at all. You are talking about political speech and political activities, vs actual threats to national security. I know of no country on the face of the earth that does not have measures to protect its national security.

Besides, the entire scenario of the Reichstag was phony anyway, a put up job by Hitler and his cronies,

Get serious, oe, hopefully you can make a more logical comparison than the one you just attempted.

I think virtually every country will institute policies to identify threats to national security, every one, without regard to right or left. The difference is the extent and reason, whether they be political or actually national security.

And granting rights to enemy combatants, we've discussed this before on other threads, but taken to the ridiculous extension, a soldier may have to read the guy the rights on the battlefield before he shoots him. And shooting him would then be a crime. Totally nonsensical, that is where your reasoning goes.

Bottom line, there is a huge difference between politics and national security, and criminal acts vs acts of war, so you are mixing apples and oranges. Very very little of what you posted makes any sense at all. It is not credible reasoning.

Also, I am not aware of recent research saying it was anything but a put up job by the Nazis. I still think that is the most likely scenario. And clearly this is not the case here, so the two situations are not comparable at all.

Ian Kershaw claims that historians generally agree that Van der Lubbe was involved in the Reichstag fire.[8] The extent of the damage, however, has led to considerable debate over whether he acted alone. Considering the speed with which the fire engulfed the building, Van der Lubbe's reputation as a mentally disturbed arsonist hungry for fame, and cryptic comments by leading Nazi officials, it was generally believed at the time that the Nazi hierarchy was involved for political gain. Some historians today believe that Van der Lubbe acted alone, and the Reichstag fire was merely a stroke of good luck for the Nazis.[9] It is alleged that the idea he was a "half-wit" or "mentally disturbed" was propaganda spread by the Dutch Communist party to distance themselves from an insurrectionist anti-fascist who was once a member of the party and took action where they failed to.[10] The historian Hans Mommsen concluded that the Nazi leadership was in a state of panic the night of the Reichstag fire, and they seemed to have regarded the Reichstag Fire as a confirmation that all their propaganda about a Communist revolution being imminent was actually true.[11]
British reporter Sefton Delmer witnessed the events of that night firsthand, and his account of the fire provides a number of details. Delmer reports Hitler arriving at the Reichstag and appearing genuinely uncertain how it had begun and concerned that a Communist coup was about to be launched. Delmer himself viewed Van der Lubbe as being solely responsible, but that the Nazis sought to make it appear to be a "Communist gang" who set the fire, whereas the Communists sought to make it appear that Van der Lubbe was working for the Nazis, each side constructing a plot-theory in which the other was the villain.[12]
...

The reason I said what I did about you not having to claim Hitler's idealogy, is that I meant it, you are apparently socialist in viewpoint, but yours would differ from Nazism, thats why I pointed it out.