That has to be the dumbest spin I have ever heard from a politician. It shouldn't matter what the literal translation of "Nazi" is. The fact that it is associated with the murder of millions of innocent people should be enough for them to want to stay as far away from that name as possible... unless they don't care about being taken seriously. In fact this guy is doing his "party" a disservice simply by insisting they use the word "Nazi".

And as far as seeing other viewpoints - when your party represents an idea that resulted in genocide, then your viewpoint doesn't really deserve to be heard. Support of oppression and racism kind of negates any potentially good ideas you might have about the economy or immigration. And if they do not support oppression and racism then they aren't real Nazis and just like their shock value.

And again, if they are only using the term to mean Socialism - see the first part of my comment.

Good post, Lolly. Agreed. I find it frightening and repulsive that anyone would wish to be associated with the word, the concept or anything about it.

I understand the need to be open to all ideas. Being that ther are extremest groups off all creeds is disturbing. The fact that someone would use the Nazi symbol and push the socialist party??? Just plain ignorant;)

prejudism against racism is no different than prejudism against anything else. to oppose racism is equally narrow minded, perhaps the nazi have something of value to offer us. it would be bigotry to instantly assume all they want is the cliche hitler-like agenda

nazis suck, period. basement dwelling, whiskey sucking, swastika saluting, scabby headed wannabes. They can kiss my Jewish....and if that don't sound Christian, well excuuuseeee me. Some ideologies just beg to be disrespected.

At least the rats don't hide in a corner, but can't help but pop up out into the daylight once in a while, so we know who they are. And I'll bet the FBI is out there in the parking lot writing down license numbers.

It's illegal to deny the Holocaust in Germany. Perhaps it should be illegal to emulate the nazi ideology by the resurrection of the name (pardon me while I spit). Well, like I've been saying: In a free society, we must limit those freedoms, or we will end up with anarchy. It can't be anything goes.

Levi,

I too spit on this announcement.

Originally, there was a faction of the Nazi party which actually wanted to be socialist. They wanted the SA (Stormtroopers or Brownshirts )to become the new people's army. However, shortly after Hitler took power the Army General Staff approached Hitler and told him the SA was a problem which would have to be removed. Only then would they swear allegiance to him The big industrialists in Germany were also alarmed at all the talk of a "people's government" So in June of 1934, Hitler carried out "Operation Hummingbird". He sent his black shirted SS out to summarily execute top SA leaders and certain others who had offended him. That ended any talk of "Socialism" by party members or anyone else in Germany. Thus began the reign of the most diabolical state ever to exist. I suppose you can give second prize to Stalin and third runner up to the ancient Romans.

"Nazi ain't got no humanity." - Lt. Aldo Raine

Seriously, I'm appalled that someone would actually lobby for a bunch of genocidal freaks. Really says something about how bad lobbyists can get (thankfully not all lobbyists are like this). Hopefully this doesn't get out of hand and we won't need to call in the Basterds.

Lolly1192,

"It shouldn't matter what the literal translation of "Nazi" is. The fact that it is associated with the murder of millions of innocent people should be enough for them to want to stay as far away from that name as possible... unless they don't care about being taken seriously. In fact this guy is doing his "party" a disservice simply by insisting they use the word "Nazi"."

The American Nazi Pary (ANP) was founded in the 1960's by George Lincoln Rockwell, a retired Navy lieutenant commander and Korean War pilot. He is the father of all Neo-Nazi movements in the U.S. They are proud of the word Nazi because they deny that the holocaust ever happened. Neo-Nazis are the originators of the holocaust denial myth that Ahmedinejad and many Arabs are so fond of. Hitler's autobiography, Mein Kampf, is a best seller in the Middle East.

There are times I read these posts and just wonder about my fellow Americans and there are other times when an issue is serious I am so proud of all of us!

After reading today's comments it makes me so proud to be an American and proud of our family's commitment ( marine corp family) to all of our American brothers and sisters of every diverse group. We might not always agree on conservative vs liberal, but on a deeper level we all recognize blatant stupidity, hatred, and pure evil when we see it!

I'm wondering what politician is going to accept money from a Nazi lobbyist?

1st...Spartan, you beat me to it on Aldo Raine. Damn it. :)

2nd... Nothing like waking up to my morning cup of stupid on these posts. Anyone who thinks "National Socialism" is a socialist left wing party is too stupid to breathe. Do yourselves a favor just look it up on Wikipedia. I know, looking up facts is a hard thing for the ignorant to do ergo, their ignorance continues.

This is funny. What do they lobby for? Ovens?

Let them waste their money.

...when people see the swastika on the ballot, they'll know what they're getting."

Yeah, that'll get you a lot of votes. But he is correct, at least you'll know what you're getting, unlike today's politicians who similer to Pelosi's characterization of the ACA, you need to elect to find out what they stand for.

SI

I think the Socialist party is pretty heavily connected to the Democrats. Look up Social Democrat or below I helped by pointing you to their page!

http://socialdemocratsusa.org/

Limiting free speech limits our ability to see and identify bigotry. Nothing like sunshine to disinfect.

OK one last research article for the buffoons among us; Bethany and TJefferson has it right. Anyone on the other side of their argument are either ignorant or deliberately spreading bullshot.

"In a perfect world, everyone would have food and shelter, and a true utopian society would be devoid of sexism, racism and other forms of oppression. But for most of the world's population, this perfect society just isn't possible. Communism is one proposed solution to these problems.
Most people know what communism is at its most basic level. Simply put, communism is the idea that everyone in a given society receives equal shares of the benefits derived from labor. Communism is designed to allow the poor to rise up and attain financial and social status equal to that of the middle-class landowners. In order for everyone to achieve equality, wealth is redistributed so that the members of the upper class are brought down to the same financial and social level as the middle class. Communism also requires that all means of production be controlled by the state. In other words, no one can own his or her own business or produce his or her own goods because the state owns everything."

http://history.howstuffworks.com/cold-war/communism.htm

"Many people wonder what heaven is like -- so many, in fact, that philosophers and scholars over the years have hypothesized about how heaven on Earth can be achieved. The term "utopia" was coined in 1515 by British writer Thomas More. Utopia describes a perfect place or society, where everyone is equal socially and economically.

The political and economic theory of socialism was created with the vision of a utopian society in mind. Contrary to other economic systems, there is no real consensus on how the ideal socialist society should function. Dozens of forms of socialism exist, all with differing ideas about economic planning, community size and many other factors. Despite the variations in socialist thought, every version advocates the benefits of cooperation among the people, steering clear of the "evils" of competition associated with capitalism."

http://money.howstuffworks.com/socialism.htm

Socialism is one step removed from Communism.

As to John Taylor Bowles: A simple google search finds this:

"According to an interview with WikiNews, Bowles once ran as a Republican for the Baltimore city convention. He came in fourth out of five candidates.

But Bowles may not ever have been a member of the Republican party, instead associating with a variety of National Socialist parties, and splinter groups between 1977 and today.

According to a source, at some point Bowles moved from Baltimore to Laurens, South Carolina, home of "The Redneck Shop" which functioned as a store, a Ku Klux Klan museum and the meeting place for Bowles' National Socialist movement."

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-13/politics/31335566_1_splinter-american-nazi-party-heil-hitler#ixzz1s1P00LE6

This is the last time I will do your research for you. From now on, if you insist upon spreading misinformation, I will understand that you are either too ignorant be communicated with intelligently or that you are purposefully spreading lies and misinformation for your own self interests. Thank you for playing. Next story please.

The liberals trying to spin and connect a Socialist group to the republican party

Despite "socialist" in the name, the Nazi party was Fascist. One of Hitler's biggest fears was Communism. However, both systems have in common a totalitarian form of government.

At issue is the way we define the political spectrum with "fascist" on the right and "communism" on the left. There are better, and more modern, ways of doing it which group those two more on a line with a more individualistic form of government on the opposite end.

Using some simplistic definitions:

Fascism

a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Communism

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

2.
a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

You can see, they are really quite similar. The major difference is that in fascism, the state does not OWN the economic resources, just consolidates it into major "players". In communism, the state owns it "for" the people.

Of course ... those of you playing the "blame game" will not like this, because it doesn't fit into your narrowly defined parameters of who (or what) is the "boogie man".

But if you really wish to be frightened of a resurgence of "Hitler's Party" ... I'll leave you with this chilling quote of his ...

In relation to the political decontamination of our public life, the government will embark upon a systematic campaign to restore the nation’s moral and material health. The whole educational system, theater, film, literature, the press and broadcasting – all these will be used as a means to this end.

THAT, my friends, is what is happening now.

Really? If hitler was so anti-capitalism why did corporations thrive under his rule?

Really is waving his Swastika for the Tea Retarded party of Nazi pagan Baggers ! He calls it a Communists hangover.

American- Non-partisan nuetral statements such as this belie your supposed independent voter status.

Lobbying is not freedom of speech, it is purchasing influence.

Really: The Nazi Party absolutely hates President Obama and the Democrat Party! They hate the President because they are white supremacists and they hate the Democrat Party because they believe the Party supports African Americans. For the love of God, go to their website and read what they say they believe and why they are recruiting among people like you! By the way, I have taught history at the college and university level for over 40 years, not that such a thing as academic credentials has any sense of validity with you!

Trudat: If that isnt the definition of todays liberal, i dont know what is.

Ok you win...you don't know what is. :)

Don't think they'll be getting much of the Jewish vote.

Samurai If hitler was so anti-capitalism why did corporations thrive under his rule?

hitler was also a pragmatic man. He reluctantly left industrialists in control of their industries to be able to build a war machine as quickly as possible. All industrialists were sub-servant to a nazi party. And any socialist system regardless of it's name is a sick and degenerate theology

Let's see.

He plans to lobby on "...political rights and ballot access laws, and other issues such as civil rights, healthcare and immigration."

Wow...sounds like the current hot-button issues for the republican base. Do you suppose he'll be lobbying for relaxing ballot access, promoting civil rights, reforming healthcare, and loosening immigration policies???

It will be interesting to see which republicon takes his money first. Or do you think he'll hide it in the American Crossroads super-PAC so that they won't have to disclose?

@Really?-1739510: Firstly, your citation method sucks. A google search on NSDAP doesn't give a person any information about who said what, therefore your quotes can be considered plagiarism. Secondly, no site on the first page of the resulting search passes the CRAAP test. I believe if you research and understand those two primary functions, you will start getting accurate information. :)

"Aside from the above principles, a Fascist state also typically promotes a private economy that submits to government regulation."

"Aside from the above principles, a Fascist state also typically promotes a private economy that submits to government regulation."

That is uncanny! The Obama administration is choking the "private economy" through over regulation."

That is only if we use your interpretation of what the man is doing, which I have already proven fallible. Before the first depression, the bankers crashed the economy due to overspeculation and shady business practices and corporations sgueezed out smaller operations and drove them out of business. Roosevelt enacted laws to counter that, and fixed the economy with the new deal. Ever since that time, corporations have been whittling away at the legislation that prevented them from doing this again. Thanks to Republicans, enough was whittled awat to allow it to happen yet again, exactly 70 years later. Obama is just trying to fix runaway corporate greed again :)

Therefore, through your own assertion, the current administration is using Fascist principles to control the economy.

Therefore, through your own assertion, the current administration is using Fascist principles to control the economy.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=craap%20test&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csuchico.edu%2Flins%2Fhandouts%2Fevalsites.html&ei=xYOJT7bZD8mC2wWEspSzCQ&usg=AFQjCNEeZkbNizXNztNtGPUVwB1I6ukQ3g

Sure ... why not. That will at least make us clearly understand the Nazi sympathizers.

By the way! First thing Nazis did when they got to power they nationalized health care and created a single payer system, only to realize they could not treat all the people. Thus the extermination of all "undesirable people" Ultimate death panels

Danaelle,

A little current information for you since you don't seem to be able to follow a link.

We have no intention of ceding our heritage to self-styled anarchists and revolutionaries. The Social Democrats, USA kept the name Socialist Party for our political arm because we are the party of Eugene Debs, Mother Jones, Helen Keller, Carl Sandburg, Norman Thomas, A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, and thousands of people who worked to build the civil rights and trade union movements in this country. Many good folks gave their lives in these movements.

The Socialist Party, USA, in 1956, chose to stop running candidates of its own, except on rare occasion. During the 1960's, we began to work in the Democratic Party. This is where our allies in the civil rights and trade union movement worked and continue to work politically.

While you can try to tie the history of the Socialist party to the Republican party, the Socialist party clearly defines their relation to the Democrats and the ideals the democrats push. Notice this info is current as of today. Not some snibbit of history several decades old.

these corporate clowns...run this place who gives a hoot...

DanSok101

Samurai If hitler was so anti-capitalism why did corporations thrive under his rule?

hitler was also a pragmatic man. He reluctantly left industrialists in control of their industries to be able to build a war machine as quickly as possible. All industrialists were sub-servant to a nazi party. And any socialist system regardless of it's name is a sick and degenerate theology

First, I am all for equality on social issues but I tend to separate the social issues from the economic ones. That is what happens in most of these conversations. Socialism and communism are primarily economic systems, while socialism does have a part of the theory which deals with the social aspect. While I feel that we need to strike a balance (total capitalism results in money running the government, which results in the 5th century practices of serfdom) I do not think communism is the way to go because it stifles creativity.

What I am curious about, is why you would make the statement that socialism is a sick and degenerate system? What is it about socialism that leads you to feel that way? Last, socialism is not a theology, it is an economic theory

Really?-1739510

@Danaelle

Step away from the monitor. You don't have the computer skills needed to post here.

Whatever that was supposed to be, it isn't.

My computer skills are fine. It is my typing skills which are in question. I do fine as long as I have plenty of time. The problem was that I read your response and tried to edit my response into my original so that it would not take up a completely different post, and I had too much to say to type in the allotted time. :) Perhaps if your comprehension skills were a smidge better, you could understand what I wrote.

Gloryhound: No glory. I can't follow a link? I am the only one posting links to my sources. The person i called out merely said "Source: NSDAP" ( no link) and even your immature reply did not contain a link. Try again. :)

PS Gloryhound. THEY can try to rewrite history by confusing terms all they want to. The history remains. It is kind of like when today's Republicans try to take credit for Emancipation of the slaves because Lincoln was a Republican, without mentioning the fact that at the time Lincoln was a republican, the Southern Democrats were the conservatives of the party. The same Republicans in charge of Mississippi would have been called democrats in the 1880's. Some of us are smart enough to understand that :)

Danaelle

Because no matter where it was implemented, it created massive death and destruction. Under this system "all animals are equal, just some are more equal than others" as G. Orwell would say. Just look at 20th century - Nazi = death, Communists (Stalin, Lenin) = death and labor camps, Mao = death and labor camps, Ho Shi Min = death, labor camps, re-education, Pol Pot = death, Burma = death, NK well is North Korea, Castro, we know what this is. There is not a single non communist dictator who can rival any of the above in death, destruction and mysery

Well, since they are Socialists they will fit right in with this administration. I find the timing really interesting.

Danaelle,

Perhaps you did not have enough time to add Socialism is a failed economic theory. Witness the old Soviet Union et al.

NAACP and the Nazi lobbyists will both push for race based favoritism, so why aren't people up in arms about the NAACP? Both are racist organizations.

People like Charles Barron are allowed to be openly racist and it's okay due to the color of his skin. If you don't know who he is, look him up and you'll be as disgusted with him as you would with a KKK leader.

When you support organizations like NAACP and promoting favoritism toward certain races through legislation and societal influencing, you're only going to create more hatred and resentment. All affirmative action and other race based laws are doing is suppressing poor, white males and in some cases women while mocking the constitution. Look at the Texas vs. Fischer case.

What happened to equality for all?

The time for equality is now, so treat each other like equals, because the consequences of not doing so are grave.

Any politician who accepts money should be noted and published so voters know who to vote out of office.

OK peeps, thanks for playing, but I have other things to do. :) The information is here, unbiased and with source links. You can either read them and try to understand the things you are talking about, or you can ignore them and remain ignorant. Your call, I gotta jet. Peace out :)

Glory. I went to your site. SERIOUSLY? You are going to use a personal blog as something that links socialism to the democratic party that has been in existence like forever? Dude. I could make the same kind of website in ten minutes that says PornQueens for Mitt Romney. Would that link Porn to Mitt Romney?

I think I have found YOUR problem anyways :)

People like Charles Barron are allowed to be openly racist and it's okay due to the color of his skin. If you don't know who he is, look him up and you'll be as disgusted with him as you would with a KKK leader

I had to stop reading about him when it said "promotes ebonics education for teachers"

Anti-charter schools was good too, how the hell can you be against competitive education? Sounds like a standard union hack to me.

Really: Actually, I didn't call you a Nazi. You did that. You are not winning any people to your cause, whatever it is, when you write BS and post it as truth. You sound as absurd to me as you would to my colleagues in medicine, if you would post your treatise on "The Argument for Throwing Powdered Bat Wings in the Air While Chanting a Magic Verse as the Proper Procedure for Curing Prostate Cancer." Then, when they look at you like a total fool, you respond "You do a disservice to your patients, but then medicine is not open minded anymore!" I haven't anymore to say to you!

Ok Its about time we see this, and its amazing how anyone can scream racism about this group but not about The New Black Panthers, or Al Sharpton, or Jessie Jackson, they are ALL RACISTS AGAINST WHITES. Why arent all you haters up in arms about the BLACK RACISM??????????? You disgust me, you are sick and depraved if you allow Blacks to be racist while condemning any White that is. Racism is Racism.

Hypocrisy in politics knows no boundaries. Democrats and Republicans are equally as guilty yet still ignorant enough to not understand why.

Either this guy does not know what socialism is or he is in the payroll to discredit socialism. Remember that the US is controlled today by extreme capitalism and socialism is their bitter enemy so, why not invest on destroying the reputation of a possible enemy?

Shaking: True. I sort of agree with you. Im hard put to come up with a true socialist economy to make my reference on that though. USSR was Communist, which is a bit more hard-core than socialism. Socialism has similarities, but isnt the same. I would also posit that the reason the USSR and Communism did fail, and would always fail, is because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no system on earth that can overcome that. Not even capitalism. With capitalism, those who can get all the money come to power, and power corrupts. It all boils down to who do you want in charge? The Rich? (Old Europe and Serfdom) One man? (Iraq, et al or any dictatorship on record.) A duly elected congress? (I should not have to qualify that one.

It requires a multi-faceted, balanced approach, with a little bit of all three mixed in.

OK, I really do have to go now. Lat peeps :)

Nazism VS Liberalism

"The only real difference is that one was practiced with a gun and the other pretends to be Democratic."

Hitler dissolved the electoral system the minute he got into power. Please point to when the Democrats have ever done that.

(1) Hitler dissolved the unions immediately upon gaining power. In fact he "nationalized" the trade unions while leaving business in private hands. The opposite of what you believe liberals want to do. Trade unionists of the left helped avert previous rightwing takeover attempts of Germany such as the Kapp Putsch. They also tried to stop Hitler from coming to power but were crushed. The only German party to vote against the Enabling Law that brought Hitler to power were the Democratic Socialists.

(2) So food stamps equals Nazism? I guess any program that helps ease the suffering of the poor equals Nazism. I guess we'll have to tell that to democratic governments throughout the world.

(3) Saying that unearned income for investments shouldn't be taxed at a much lower rate than actual work is hardly radical.

(4) Except Hitler never did nationalize those corporations, did he? They remained in private hands, the hands of corporatists who ultimately helped him rise to power. By the way, you keep quoting from 1920 documents when there actually was a socialist component in the early party, a faction that was ruthlessly excised in later years. I note that another Glen Beck history school grad above kept quoting the Strasser brothers as proof that Nazism was socialism. He didn't bother to mention what actually happened to them (one murdered and the other banished).

(5) Liberals are right to complain about business making profits off war. German businesses (Krupp, IG Farben, Deutsche Bank, Bayer, BASF and many, many others) did very well under the Nazis. Hell, American corporations like Ford and GE, continued relations with their German counterparts even after America entered the war. IBM, sold them the calculating machines they used to count their victims in the concentration camps).

German big business was afraid of the Marxist Left and also hated the welfare programs of the democratic Weimar Government (which Hitler overthrew), and were happy to throw their hat into Hitler's corner.

(6) Profit sharing is Nazi? Please tell that to many corporations that have profit sharing plans.

(7) Eminent domain far predates Hitler (or liberalism, for that matter). Thomas Jefferson was in many ways more radical on these matters than Hitler. Look up his support of allodial title.

"Oh...and Hitler was the first environmentalist head of state. He implemented numerous environmental laws throughtout Germany. Our environmental movement copied many of Hitler's programs...whether they know it or not."

No he wasn't. And, since you have already made the silly liberalism/Nazism arguments above, are you doubling down to say that guarding the environment is also akin to Nazism? Squashing all domestic dissent (leftists went into concentration camps even before the Jews), invading Europe and the Holocaust are what Hitler is reviled for. Trying to find things he did that might fit one ideology or another in todays world is an exercise in dishonest cynicism.

Really?: You are seriously pushing my time constraints.

For quotes, i use different methods at different times. Sometimes I use bold type for my words, and sometimes I use actual quotes for things others say, while I don't use them for mine. But in the future, to satisfy your wish for me to conform (and to ease your discomfort, I will try to use the tools available to me to do that :)

You seem to have a tendency to mis-conflate information and use it to back up your wrongful notions. First, you saying that the Jaguar's initial malfunctions were because it was made by the government is disingenuous. A more accurate theory would be that it was because it was the first ones made. Our original UH-1 helicopters (made by private industry) repeatedly crashed during Operation Desert Storm. They were the first models, untested in the terrain. Same happened to a lot of our equipment. Our current models work just fine. learning and adaptation is key. :)

About Avastin. You are behind the times there, and doing the same thing tying the wrong things together. There was a reason Avastin was originally banned in Europe, though it no longer is:

This was the second time the two agencies have worked together. In September 2010 they came out against GlaxoSmithKline’s Avandia, a diabetes drug with heart attack risks. The actions on Avandia were the mirror image of the current situation. It was banned in Europe and only restricted in this country. The result sealed Avandia’s fate, although sales had fallen dramatically before the announcements: Roche now projects minimal sales.

Lonngren said the timing of the Avandia announcements was deliberate, and he was quoted as saying this was an “example of how enforcement will be done in the future.”

The actions so far have focused on drug safety, not new drug approvals. Global distribution of medications means that when safety concerns arise in one country, there are worldwide implications. The need for cooperation is clear. Furthermore, clinical trial data are easily available worldwide, and regulatory agencies certainly should consider all credible information that is available to them.

http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/1101/1101.medmgmt.html

and

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has found a new batch of counterfeit Avastin circulating in the U.S. and apparently distributed by a different network from the one connected to an earlier fake supply of the cancer drug .

The newly uncovered fakes were packaged in boxes labeled as Altuzan, the brand name for Avastin in Turkey, the FDA said in a posting on its website that warned doctors and hospitals to avoid using the unapproved products.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304023504577322173177217392.html

Happy reading. Hawk out.

Danaelle

...Communism also requires that all means of production be controlled by the state. In other words, no one can own his or her own business or produce his or her own goods because the state owns everything."...

http://history.howstuffworks.com/cold-war/communism.htm

#1.37 - Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:40 AM EDT

Interesting reference, but flawed. If you really knew what you were talking about, then you would know that in communism, there IS no state. It is in socialism where the state owns everything. Socialism is the theoretical last stage before achieving communism. Communism is where the state has magically disappeared because world peace and harmony have been achieved through making everyone "equal" so that there is no longer a need for the state.

There has never been, and never can be, an example of a true communist state. Communism and socialism are in direct conflict with the nature of man, which is to be free. Free to make his own choices, free to reap the rewards of his own successes, and free to deal with the consequences of his own failures.

All the people fleeing the socialist countries to enjoy the opportunities and freedoms of the democratic countries (and no, slapping "democratic" in your country's name doesn't make it true) don't do that because socialism is great. They do it because socialism sucks and they want freedom. They want the opportunity to make a better life for themselves, and the freedom to do so without being dragged down by others.

Those who preach the tenets of socialism are lazy, backward, intellectually dishonest, daydreamers, who have been blindly caught up in the false promise of Utopia. It is an alluring lie, but a lie all the same.

History, logic, and freedom, are not on the side of socialists. Get a clue and wake up, lefties.

@Really?-1739510

here is the thing dude. before you toss out the 'liberalism = nazism' garbage, read about about actual liberalism.

locke, hobbes, russeau, montesquieu and voltaire just to name a few. voltaire was personal friends with benjamin frankling. these guys were THE heavy weights and founders of liberalism.

three branches of power, right to life and property, freedom of speech and so on. the founding fathers took some of their ideas almost verbatim and put them into the declaration of independence and in the constitution. i hardly think those ideas equate to nazism.

the US was founded on LIBERAL principles. deal with it.

And Really? Again, you seem to be flat out wrong about that, with the Jaguars. The 1984 Jaguar was the first year they were NOT made by the Government:

In 1984, Jaguar was floated off as a separate company on the stock
market - one of the Thatcher government's many privatisations. It took
the Vanden Plas name with it. It was then taken over by Ford in 1989-
1990. In 1999 it was made part of Ford's new Premier Automotive
Group along with Aston Martin and Volvo Cars. Land Rover was added
to the group in 2001 following its purchase from BMW. Recent reports
speculate that Ford might sell off Jaguar in order to infuse much
needed capital into its own operations. Since Ford purchased Jaguar in
1989 it has yet to earn a profit for the Dearborn-based automaker

http://jaguarheaven.com/Jagcar.html

You are the one who needs to back away from the monitor, dude...

Astro1496/ I intended to comment on the attempt to claim that the Liberals, Democrats and Socialists were akin to Nazis/ Fascists,but your comments make my intended ones superfluous .Well put!

Really?-1739510

....Socialism is about keeping everyone the same. Vestiges of UK Socialism remain today in their National Health Service (NHS).

The drug Avastin is banned in the UK due to cost. It is the best drug available for fighting colon cancer. Now here is where Socialism is particularly evil.

IF you live in the UK and are wealthy and have the misfortune of having colon cancer. The government will prevent you from paying for Avastin on your own, even if you can afford it!!

Why?

Because, thanks to Socialism, it is not "fair" that a wealthy person can get what a poor person cannot.

That is what Socialism is all about....."fairness."

Now WHO uses that word more than any other politician in US history?

Barack Obama.

#1.71 - Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:52 AM EDT

The fact that the above comment was not flagged with a star for "highly rated" is a disservice to the rest of us. The author nailed the essence of socialism squarely and succinctly, while providing a current, real-life example of how it is morally and fundamentally wrong. Keep up the good work, Really?-1739510.

Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said it wonderfully: "[socialists] would be happy if the poor were poorer, if the rich were less rich...so that the [income] gap were here [lower base level], not here [higher base level]." It isn't the income gap that bothers socialists, it's the fact that they are envious of those who have been successful and want to drag them down. Rather than simply admit they are envious and greedy for the success that has eluded them, they cloak their complaints under the guise of "fairness" and falsely claim they are entitled to that which they have not earned.

Really?: You seriously need to get your head checked, or your eyes checked, or both. I am done with you.

Your link:

Why can't we have this drug? Anger as cancer medication that saves thousands remains banned in UK

By SOPHIE BORLAND
UPDATED: 04:10 EST, 24 August 2010

UPDATED: 04:10 EST, 24 August 2010

UPDATED: 04:10 EST, 24 August 2010

UPDATED: 04:10 EST, 24 August 2010

• Comments (203)
• Share

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1305582/Avastin-cancer-drug-banned-NHS.html#ixzz1s1zmXu8x

danaelle

it's nice to see somebody posting who has an education. thank you-

really-

Those "Liberals" who wrote it would be appalled at such a notion and would not recognize the Liberals of today.

it helps to understand that the "liberals who wrote it" were republicans while "the liberals of today" are democrats.

Somewhere in the middle is where we need to be, but we won't be there anytime soon.

and why do you suppose we won't be there anytime soon? might it be because the right wing won't budge on anything? might it be because you are paying your representatives to block any and all progress? i'm pretty sure i heard a number of republicans state their one and only goal was to get obama out of office. so they have publicly stated their goal is to essentially harm the country. this is treasonous. do you agree treason is a capital offense? how can you not view the act of putting all your effort into making our president fail as treasonous? if our president fails, we fail. get it? remember the "United" part of United States of America?

1) "Hitler dissolved the Weimar Republic's unions and consolidated them into the German equivalent of the AFL-CIO, the Organization Todt."

The AFL-CIO and the Organization Todt are nothing alike. One is an independent federation of individual unions, the other was a defanging of the labor movement by a totalitarian government that was marshaling its people for war.

2) The hyperbole and the conflations of food stamps, Hitler and Obama were yours.

3) "The Obama administration is the FIRST to propose such an idea." Simply false. Capital gains have been taxed at higher rates than earned income at many times and places.

4) "When asked about nationalizing the corporations, Hitler replied, 'Why should I nationalize the corporations when I can nationalize the people?'"

Cheap dodge. He didn't do it? Did he?

Stasser brothers and Glenn Beck: So you complain about typical liberals "throwing in Glenn Beck" and then jump immediately to resurrect the hoary and thoroughly discredited conspiracy theory about Vincent Foster, and then go 10 steps further to compare it to the Night of Long Knives? Pot meet kettle, and kettle, and kettle.

5) Your reply in no way refutes my statement. Hitler could have gone the way of seizing industry to feed his war machine (like the Soviets did), but he didn't.

6) BS. Unions at General Motors had to give back a lot of previously negotiated ground during the reorganization. They also got something for their trouble. As for the owners of GM, they would have lost a lot more if their company wasn't saved. They can thank Obama that they still have a company.

7) So what you are arguing is the purpose to which the land is put to use. Tell you what, put together an approved list of what can and can't be considered in the public domain.

"Yes he was." Oh, no he wasn't. Republicans will often mention Teddy Roosevelt for one (though they like to say "conservationist" so they don't sound like hippies). He put aside massive amounts of land in public trust, often to the consternation of private land holders. In Germany, kings and emperors had a long history of working waterways to prevent flooding, plans that often contravened private land use. Even Otto Von Bismarck was something of a conservationist/environmentalist in the old fashioned conservative sense sense of the word (before many conservatives came to the conclusion that safeguarding the environment was foolish).

This is going to make me unpopular... I hate to say it, but these guys are protected by the first amendment. Just because somebody has ideas which are repugnant (to say the least), doesn't preclude their rights to speech, press, assembly, and petition. As Americans, it's pretty much our job to let them express and promote their ideas. As humans, it's our job to be disgusted and to teach our children to be better than that.

You know being British I find it weird that an article about the American Nazi party could spark a debate about socialism in England, but since you guys bought it up I’ll give you my thoughts and that is that I have no problem with some socialist ideas after all according to conservatives like Mrs Thatcher, people from low income backgrounds (like me) should not have the option of going to university (despite talent) because we are too poor to afford the fees, she also states that if we worked hard and saved up the money to pay the fees -which would takes years on the low income jobs that are left for “un-educated” people due to her selling off most of the traditional lower class jobs (so manufacturing work) – then we still cannot get educated as we had our chance when we were young and thus it’s unfair (and a waste of her money) to have to set up adult education. Now granted I have only talked about education as this is the main issue that affects me now (being as I’m a student) but overall Mrs Thatcher or Thatcherism has been pretty much synonymous with selfish behaviour and “me” culture

@ fireside

Your calling yourself Jewish and doesn't sound like Christian?

If I may speak for him, Levi is a Messianic Jew.

Romney is looking at John Bowles as VP, he needs more crazy madmen like the Tea Retarded party on his Nazi communists ballot. Swastikas for 2012 !!!!!

Very entertaining posts. I say Really? wins hands down and totally crushes danaelle and TJefferson. Excellent posts Really?, thanks!

I feel like the Constitution was intentionally vague, in order to avoid the ssame mess caused by the Articles of Confederation.

"You know being British I find it weird that an article about the American Nazi party could spark a debate about socialism in England..."

Losmertos: Funny how that goes, eh? There is an ideological strain in this country to whom, if the government does anything besides fighting wars and policing morals, then it might as well be marching us into Stalinist gulags. While I am sympathetic to concerns about incursions into private/business life, the over-the-top social welfare programs = Nazism arguments really don't do much to convince anyone who isn't already in their choir.

p.s. One last thing before I leave, Really.

"Liberals are funny people to me. I am sure they are good people on many levels and are easy to get along with."

I will take that as a civil statement and note that I have many friends on the right side of the political spectrum, who are also "good people." It is easy to get overheated in these forums, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these ideas, even if with some heat. I hope you have a good weekend.

Astro-1496941

Well like I said it is very weird, I also find it perplexing and amusing that both parties are so quick to identify the other side with the Nazis. Personally I think it’s a lot more accurate to identify the Nazis as ardent nationalists, who based their whole concept of national identity on ethnicity, as in Germany is home to the German race, which are the descendants of the Teutons, which are the descendants of the Aryans, ect ect but hey that’s just me.

Ps I agree people throw arround Nazi comparisons far to oftern these days

I don't care for Nazi comparisons either, no matter which "side" is making them. It usually is based on ignorance of what Nazism really was, why it was a rather singular phenomenon, with a hodgepodge of ideas it pulled from all over the place. Unlike communism, democracy, socialism, liberalism, conservatism and a whole host of other "isms," fascism (of either the Italian or the Nazi variety) never had a particularly well thought out ideology, but often did things on an ad hoc basis to fit their needs at the moment.

Really?: Cheers then. All is well. Good luck with your bathroom install.

fascist national socialist? wtf do you not realize that socialism and fascism are two completely opposite ideologies

Fascism- direct control of government by business

Socialism- direct control of business by government (our own government did this during WW2 and its what helped use become a military super power in less than 4 years and win the war)

at this point with all this lobbying crap that people seem to think its ok for our politicians to sell their position and influence to the highest bid makes our country very close to fascism its not direct control but pretty damn close.

so your phrase "fascist national socialist" is like saying someone if fat and skinny at the same time completely redundant and makes absolutely no sense so please read up on some facts before you go around saying stupid crap.

Capitalism- government does not control business and business does not control government

sounds like the best of both worlds but if government does not regulate business you get crap like the great depression where greed and over speculation combined with a massive divide between rich and poor causes the demand for goods to drop quickly because since there are not enough consumers who can afford the product the item just sits in storage which costs the businesses money so their stock prices go down and people panic and begin to sell all their stock and lose money cause they sold their stock for less than they purchased and since many people took loans from the banks to invest in the stock marked and the banks themselves were investing as well they all lost money and could not afford to pay off their debts so they collapsed and thousands of Americans lost their life savings. Since businesses have no demand to keep making the product they lay off workers and since there are not workers making money to buy the product it continues to get worse and goes in that fashion till everything breaks down and the entire economy falls to pieces. now if the government invested money into the poor and middle class they would then have money to buy products and the whole thing could have been avoided. FDR did this and things got better but it took over 20 years and a complete economic shift toward war production and great personal sacrifice by all classes rich and poor to fix that. so to expect one man to influence events to solve an economic crisis that is only rivaled by the first great depression in only one term is not only unrealistic but stupid.

so capitalism,socialism, and fascism have major flaws in them that is why our government is neither we are our own unique combination of capitalism and socialism we don't control businesses but regulate them so @!$%# like that doesn't happen but it still does but it doesn't go that far.

The best economy has a government that invests in its lower and middle class because it is the middle and lower that drive the economy not a bunch of rich spoiled brats sitting on piles of money.

@Really, interesting points and comments, I believe your arguments do point out to an attempt by Barack Obama to fundamentally change America into a Utopian State that some are calling Ameritopia. His use of class warfare, extremely divisive politics and a steady assault on the Constitution to get his way has to be stopped.

it helps to understand that the "liberals who wrote it" were republicans while "the liberals of today" are democrats.

It helps to understand that before "speaking" you should really read a history book.

Sigh ... no wonder there are so many ignorant opinions, and the sheeple are so easily led by their various extremist leaders, when they don't even know the basic historical facts about their country.

HISTORICAL FACT: The Republican Party started in 1854! Look up the Kansas-Nebraska Act and you'll see the origins of the Republican party. The first Republican Presidential candidate was John Fremont in 1856 -- he lost. (Partial credit to "Really", Lincoln was their first candidate who WON.)

HISTORICAL FACT: The Constitution is traditionally dated to May 25, 1787. Roughly 100 years EARLIER.

CONCLUSION: The Constitution was NOT written by Republicans!

SHEESH!

Thanks really17395...........well said.........danalla astro etc would have loved east germany before regan.

neo liberalism which is todays libertarians are what our founding fathers most closely associated with and are the opposite of what is currently ruining our country.

Clearly what I listed below found on wiki under nazis show that nazis resemble one party more than the other...........biased opinions will cloud some folks judgement but the facts clearly identify progressives are more like nazis than conservatives...........

The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences.[143] Nazi propaganda posters in working-class districts emphasized anti-capitalism, such as one that said: "The maintenance of a rotten industrial system has nothing to do with nationalism. I can love Germany and hate capitalism."[150]

Hitler, both in public and in private, expressed strong disdain for capitalism, accusing modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.[151] He opposed free-market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy in which community interests would be upheld.[146] He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable, due to its egotistic nature, and he preferred a state-directed economy that is subordinated to the interests of the Volk.[151] Hitler told a party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day is the creation of the Jews."[151] Hitler said to Benito Mussolini that "Capitalism had run its course".[151] Hitler also said that the business bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit. 'Fatherland' is only a word for them."[152] Hitler admired Napoleon as a role model for his anti-conservative, anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois attitudes.[153] However, Hitler had little tolerance for Goebbels insistence upon adherence to socialist ideas and alliance with leftist and socialist parties as Hitler had abandoned them by the time the party rose to power. In correspondence Goebbels tried to convince Hitler the Nazis and the left share a common enemy in capitalists, however, Hitler disagreed and adamantly stated that capitalists are not the enemy of Nazis.[154]

In Mein Kampf, Hitler effectively supported mercantilism, in the belief that economic resources from their respective territories should be seized by force; he believed that the policy of Lebensraum would provide Germany with such economically valuable territories.[155] He believed that the only means to maintain economic security was to have direct control over resources rather than being forced to rely on world trade.[156] He claimed that war to gain such resources was the only means to surpass the failing capitalist economic system.[155]

Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels said: "The Jew is the enemy and destroyer of the purity of blood, the conscious destroyer of our race ... As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation's goods."[120]

Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals, the state could nationalize it.[162] Nazi government corporate takeovers, and threatened takeovers, encouraged compliance with government production plans, even if unprofitable for the firm.

Although the "National Socialist leaders and dogmas were basically, uncompromisingly antireligious"[citation needed], Nazi Germany usually did not directly attack the Churches, the exceptions being clerics who refused accommodation with the Nazi régime. Martin Bormann, a prominent Nazi official, said: "Priests will be paid by us and, as a result, they will preach what we want. If we find a priest acting otherwise, short work is to be made of him. The task of the priest consists in keeping the Poles quiet, stupid, and dull-witted."

Centralization

Agricultural and industrial central planning was a prominent feature of Nazi economics. To tie farmers to the land, selling agricultural land was prohibited; farm ownership was nominally private, but discretion over operations and residual income were proscribed.

Finance

In place of ordinary profit-incentive determining the economy, financial investment was regulated per the needs of the state. The profit incentive for businessmen remained, but was greatly modified: "Fixing of profits, not their suppression, was the official policy of the Nazi party"; however, Nazi agencies replaced the profit-motive that automatically allocated investment, and the course of the economy.[169] Nazi government financing eventually dominated private financial investment, which the proportion of private securities issued falling from over half of the total in 1933–34 to approximately 10 per cent in 1935–38. Heavy business-profit taxes limited self-financing of firms. The largest firms were mostly exempt from taxes on profits, however, government control of these were extensive enough to leave "only the shell of private ownership". Taxes and financial subsidies also directed the economy; the underlying economic policy — terror — was incentive to agree and comply. Nazi language indicated death or concentration camp for any business owner who pursued his own self-interest, instead of the ends of the State.

Radical 1-Ok Its about time we see this, and its amazing how anyone can scream racism about this group but not about The New Black Panthers, or Al Sharpton, or Jessie Jackson, they are ALL RACISTS AGAINST WHITES. Why arent all you haters up in arms about the BLACK RACISM??????????? You disgust me, you are sick and depraved if you allow Blacks to be racist while condemning any White that is. Racism is Racism.

Of course you are right Radical1. Racism IS racism, but the left has no intention of ACTUALLY making our system fair.

The NAZI system was not only a form of government and economics, but of the very people who made up that nation. A single people in a country with a single heritage, language, culture and...race. This makes a powerful and strongly bonded country. Hence, National Socialism.

The modern American socialists view the race issue the opposite way: instead of supporting a single nation, they want to mix every race, culture, language and heritage together. Though they consider themselves brilliant intellectuals, our modern Democratic Socialists fail to see the fatal flaw in their philosophy: People are not created equal. Period.

They continue to insist that any differences in scholastic ability, economic status, or measured I.Q. between blacks and whites, for example, is purely because of lack of funding, bias, or racism. Our democratic ambassadors of "fairness" then create laws that put whites at a marked disadvantage for college entrance, job hiring, small business loans and government contracts, and take ever-more money from the hard working people to pay for it all. Such is the way they "level the playing field".

This erroneous philosophy is one that cannot work in a free society, and is anything BUT fair. But the political system we have in place has turned a deaf ear toward any criticisms of this new religion of racial equality, and so will continue to apply force of law, redistribution of wealth and selective discrimination against society's best and brightest until they have destroyed the fabric that was once a great nation of free people.

Nazi's by this definition may be racists, but so also are the NAACP, La Raza, The New Black Panthers, and other groups whose self-described mission is working for "group benefit". Perhaps it is high time the ANP got a seat at the table.

Hello folks, does this really surprise anyone? If you have the money our corrupt politicians will legislate for you. Our political system has turned into a two headed one party system serving their masters the banksters/Federal Reserve and Wall Street. Our financial, religious, and military systems are all broken. We have crossed the Rubicon and unless we band together and make things right we will continue to implode.

Those of you who are still naive enough to play the Democrat Republican blame game are part of the herd mentality. Once you buy into that BS they have you in fear, divided, and distracted and they can now have their way with you. Since 2001 the Federal government has used fear to assume unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the citizens of this country. They can now use surveillance to monitor your phones calls, emails, and websites visited, without warrants. You can be imprisoned without charges for as long as the government decides you are a threat. TSA agents molest little old ladies and children trying to fly on airplanes. The President can take over the entire economy through presidential decree. Predator spy drones can eliminate suspected terrorists whenever a general gives the command. An order for 30,000 spy drones to be flying over U.S. cities should make you feel safe. The $2 billion NSA Utah Data Gathering Center (code name Stellar Wind) will be able to intercept and store every electronic signal on the planet by 2013. Sacrificing liberty for perceived safety and security isn’t working out too well for the American people.

It is time to stop this insanity and only we collectively have the power to do it.

Really?-1739510

Wow me and you must have very different views of fairness (you seem to view it as a bad thing) but personally I believe that since all peoples are supposed to be contributing to the nation then all peoples should have the opportunity to succeed in said nation regardless of their monetary, ethnic, religious, sexual (ect ect) background and if that means given some people financial help to succeed then that ok.

PS I’m not complaining as I have already been given my student loans by the government to help pay for my course, also you’ll notice I said loans and not hand-out? Yes that does mean I have to (and intend to) pay them back.

PPs as for the NHS, no people cannot get the best drugs, but it does provide everyone access to a good standard of health care, which strangely enough most English people prefer.

I'm wondering what politician is going to accept money from a Nazi lobbyist?

All of them.

los by the gov giving away easy loans to college kids they have increased the cost of college by 1000% over the past 15-20 years...........the easy money makes it easy for colleges to charge more.

Really?-17395

Hitlers government really wasn't even a fascist Reich just like Stalins was not truly communist so please realize that Hitler and Stalin regimes were really nothing more than military dictatorships. really there has never been a true fascist or communist government ever because they both go against human nature. Hitlers regime is only mentioned as a fascist reich because it was controlled by a one party system or one "class" of what Hitler saw as the "elite" controlling the whole government so yes Hitlers government and fascism are similar in that manner but in fact his policies towards the economy were very socialist in terms towards government control of industry so Hitler was not a real fascist in fact Hitler was in many ways a hypocrite.

Collectivism, Socialism, Liberalism and any other "ism" you can name, who cares??

All the explanations here on what is what.... who believes in what... what defines who.....It's all nonsense, in reality!!

I happen to like this Nazi party guy and anyone else who states and sticks up for their beliefs, as I like those who stick up for their beliefs on this thread such as.........

machinehead, Tad-401841, This field is mandatory, AND those opposing their arguments!!

I, however want EVERYONE to understand WHY I LIKE THEM!!

As a 40something black male I have had some veeeeeery interesting life experiences. I was born outside of Phila and raised there. I moved to the south in my early 20's and lived there for quite a while. The thing that stood out tome the most was this: When in the north, you never quite knew who your real friends were. In the south, If someone didn't like you, you knew it right away......

I appreciate the south SOOOO much more because you knew where they stood and you knew who to stay away from and/or fight from a distance, JUST LIKE THIS GUY!!

At least they are coming out of the closet, and I know who to fight/ignore. In past times you didn't know who was for/against you......

I'm Just Sayin'.......

On a more personal note, RP would repeal the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, repeal the 14th amendment to the Constitution and open up business to "Free Speech".....Yup back to the segregated lunch counter folks. Wonder if Him and Mr. Bowles have any other commonalities...

Fake media propaganda rebuttal

You’re telling me that 15-20 years ago my degree would have cost me 0.1p? Right ok sure if that was the case everybody would have been able to afford one, well either that or your statistic is grossly exaggerated. Personally I’m willing to say that government assistance may have upped the cost a bit (although not everyone is entitled to said assistance as it’s designed to help low income people get a degree not high income people get a free ride) but in all I think the fact that western economies are becoming more tech/office based is what has driven up demand, after all it seems that nearly all middle class jobs these days require a undergrad degree

Allen West -- A call to action! Oh wait, you ARE the lobbyist? Ha!

Seriously though...

Beth-440386 -- Good distinction between fascism and communism, except in regard to what we are seeing now is ALEC corporatism, in which templates are used to cut and paste legislation on behalf of corporate interests so fast no one has gotten control of it.

The pro-military part of fascism is often the focus, along with nationalism (swastika versus lapel flag pins), and of course racism, but corporatism is also a big part of it. The Nazi's will be comfortable in the current far-Right GOP/TP tent.

name1 -- Agreed that Mussolini's fascism was not the same as Hitler's Nazism, and that there has never been a real communist system anymore than there has ever been a real "free market" system. However Hitler's hypocrisy was his use of progressive populism to rise to power like so many didctators do, and should not be confused for Nazism -- This is a right-wing phenomenon in the way it was practiced.

Unbelievable-895817 -- Who cares? It's good to recognize a "slippery slope" within reason. Take Romney for example, and that he is a plutocrat. No thanks!

@trustverify

Those of you who are still naive enough to play the Democrat Republican blame game are part of the herd mentality

YES! Exactly! They sidetrack us with shiny little things (i.e. social issues) and do what they want with everything else (i.e. the economy).

As with all Socialists, whether Christian Socialist, National Socialist, or other kinds, it is about who controls the resources. The National Socialists wanted control of those resources for the good of the German Nation or Reich. The Jews had the resources the Nation needed, thus the Nation took them for the common good. Their property and labor all contributed to the common good and well-being. Good Jews wanted to share.

Now does it make sense?

Obama Care is also about nationalizing private resources. Hmmmmmmm?

chefaz: I find it frightening and repulsive that anyone would wish to be associated with the word, the concept or anything about it.

Odd thing for you to say -- since your own personal association with them all these years has never bothered you before...

Regardless of what the far right would like to claim about the similarities between Nazi's, economic Socialists, and the Democratic Party. Some things are historical fact. The Nazi's purged the socialist aspect of their party early, but kept the name for expediency, just as the USSR retained the term Republic, even though they were far from republics as we would define them. Nazi's exterminated socialists, trade unionists, and Communists prior to their extermination of Jews.

Sometimes the proof is in the pudding. When the civil rights act was passed, the Southern and segregationist contingent of the Democratic Party became Republican. In Arkansas, protestors held up signs saying "Race mixing is Communist"

By the best polling data available, the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups, when voting by party, overwhelmingly vote either Republican or Libertarian. I challenge any two individuals to go to a public place where racist organizations gather. One will wear a T-shirt with the words I am a liberal Democrat on front, and a list of platform positions on the back, and another with a corresponding Republican Shirt. I will now, in front of anyone here, agree to be one of these people, if I am the individual wearing the Republican shirt. I will not wear the Democrat shirt, quite simply because I am afraid of being physically assaulted.

The very fact that a NAZI party could officially exist and be recognized in Washington,D.C., let alone our country, just continues to fill me with loathing and disgust for the people that follow such beliefs!

Adolf Hitler came into power as a response to a perceived Communist takeover. Think of him as an early Joseph McCarthy. He was a political opportunist who presented himself as the answer to a perceived crisis. Hitler asked Hindenburg to grant him emergency powers in view of the 'communist takeover'. Using the constitution, Hindenburg agreed to pass the Law for the Protection of the People and the State.
Through this law, Hitler had what he desired - a ban on the Communists and Socialists taking part in an election campaign. The leaders from both parties were arrested and their newspapers were shut down. To 'keep the peace' and
maintain law and order, the the Brown Shirts patrolledthe streets assaultingup those who openly criticized Hitler.

Neither Bush, Cheney, or even Obama has done anything like this. The closest thing we have is the fight over voter registration. Let's tone down the rhetoric a little. The current Nazi National Socialists, in all honesty, consists of libertarians who feel that if they can Inflitrate the Tea Party, they can play on the fears of White Conservatives to radicalize them. They are not libertarians, because they are social conservatives that want a rule by white christians, bu they overwhelmingly support Ron Paul over other candidates. Some are former members are former Socialists, who have almost all either been kicked out of, or quit the Socialist party because of fundamental differences concerning ideas about socialjustice, diversity, equality, and the fact that the neo-nazi's, like hitler really want a totalitarian government, which differs from what mainstream socialists want, despite the claims of the far right.

So until Obama invited Boehner into a room, and he ends up dead or in Guatanamo, he is nothing like Hitler. Until the Tea Party petitions for a state of National Emergency, they are not Nazi's either. Frankly, Adolf Hitler was superb at the task of gradually peeling away his political opposition bit by bit, so that most did not notice the changes until they were accomplished. . That is why he made friends, betrayed them, and repeated until he was the sole power in the Nation. He did hate Communists and Jews with a passion, by all accounts. Actually, he claimed not to hate them, he claimed that they were an infestation, which was somehow different in his mind. If Adolf Hitler had succeeded in his vision, the Earth would now consist of a totalitarian regime, and the Earth would be populated by nobody except Aryan Christian people. The Communists and socialists would be dead and gone. The free market capitalists would be dead and gone. The classical liberals,those drawing their philosophy from the concept of natural law, such as American Constitutionalists, would be gone, because they would be a threat to the state. Any Marxist would be gone, because the idea of class division would be nonsensical and irrelevent. Trade Unions would not exist, neither would corporations and market economies. The state would make all economic policy. So both liberals and conservatives can say, see Hitler was a Democrat or Republican, but the comparison is really kind of stupid. If Hitler were an American politician, he would declare a state of emergency, and start to move dissenters away, and secretly kill them. The closest we have came to this is Guatanamo, and evidently that facility has bipartisan support, considering it has survived both parties. Socially he would attempt to get White people to be threatened by minorities. The closest we came to this is the immigration issue. Militarily, he would start to annex territory. As far as I know, Mexico and Canada are pretty safe these days. So, in summary, if someone is prohibiting dissent, while presenting themselves as the oppressed, they win the prize of most like Hitler for the day. Democratic socialists do not fit this criteria. Radical free market capitalists do not either.

Obama Care is also about nationalizing private resources. Hmmmmmmm?

Obamacare, as passed, is about regulation of a private industry. Obamacare does not take any corporation and nationalize it. It does not remove the profit motive, either.

Obamacare, if the original version had been passed, would provide an additional service to the people, under the argument that it is a basic human necessity. It would not have required the elimination of any health care or insurance corporations. These companies probably would have been forced to change, when their source of an easy and captive market for basic health care dried up, but that is not the same as nationalization of an industry through banning any type of service. If one argues from that perspective, banning slavery is more socialist than providing a public option, since one prohibits an industry, another simply does not claim that the taxpayer is responsible for the continuation of a private company's profit margin. It is no more socialist than providing interstate highways. Companies can still operate tollroads, but the state is not obligated to ensure that the private roads make a profit.

So, in summary, not Hmmmm, because Obamacare is not equal to Adolf Hitler.

primate just like all liberal shill's; some truth mixed up with liberal propaganda agendas.

Los my 1000% may be inflated in some instances but 600% is accurate.

$1500 in 1982 is now $9000

berbitch or danny1914275, best destiny, dmorgan or what ever it is that you are today...sorry that your life is this empty that you feel you must troll me on every article where i make a post but i am here to tell you to stop these obnoxious, childish derails.

primate just like all liberal shill's; some truth mixed up with liberal propaganda agendas.

You realize that you are presenting a statement, not an argument.

I stated that Obamacare was not socialist, because it does not nationalize the means of production. I used historical facts to support my position. An " 's " implies possession. A shill is employed by an organization. As a lowly PhD student, I would be happy to shill for the interests of Democratic party, but am unaffiliated. I am somewhat flattered that you are essentially calling my posts professional quality.

Do you know what the word liberal means? In many contexts, both parties could be described as descended from liberal thought. It would clarify your point to others if you would describe exactly which type of liberal you deem me to be.

Unfortunately, I am not female, then you could try to invalidate my points by calling me a slut.

I am so excited, I think I just got into a debate with Rush Limbaugh. I am really shillin' for the big leagues now.

You go MR. Primate!! You laid it down, sir!! Loved it!

Where are the Blues Brothers when you need them?

Primate---By your posts you could be either an (R) or a (D) or neither....I think you just seem to be very intellectual and the cult members (Fox viewers) are very threatened by that...Thank you for educating me as I keep an open mind to both sides and stay in the middle as all Americans should......United we stand,divided we fall.......

Can't we find common ground so therefore our politicians can too and work together instead of pandering to extreme ideologies from either side....We are creating this polarization ourselves by demanding the Paul Ryans, Rick Santorums VS. ( I just don't know any national level politicians that go as far to the left as these dudes go to the right ie; nobody is talking legalizing drugs and prostitution like those on that side talking about ending medi-care and birth control)

"danalla astro etc would have loved east germany before regan." -- Fakemedia

Well, this should be a pretty easy one to rebut (watch this): No, I wouldn't want to live in pre-reunification East Germany. See what happens when you try to read people's minds?

Along the same lines, I could assume that you, probably a conservative/quasi-libertarian would be much happier working in a Dickensian workshop. You would also like your children to be in a dangerous textile mill working on the finger chopping machine, because the gubmint has no business telling honest businessmen not to use child labor.

See how fun this making up what the other person believes is?

Divide and conquer people. Again, divide and conquer. While we focus and argue about irrevalent social issues manufactured by the media, both right and left, and play the blame game, the most important issues go right over our heads. Prime example is when they began to accelerate the exit of industry and R&D to China and other Asian venues about 20 years ago. Most people were comatose while the U.S. begain to outsource its economic strength, sovereignty and standard of living to China. Stop allowing manufactured fears to control our thinking. Think with your minds and not your emotions.

Pamela: We do not disagree.

Other people had balanced logical comments also but they are the few on this thread............Dats Fo' Sho' Kinda like the USMC " The few the proud" because some of you can't honestly be proud of what you typed...There is only room enough in the space time continuum for one Adolf Hitler...The others know deep down he was beyond evil...They have " Reasons " for acting this way but I know their humanity wouldn't allow them to truly be that bad...I hope so anyway, 'cause dere' sho is 'nuff emmer effers ready to follow someone akin to him....Just look at how the Third reich of Da Fodderlan followed him to hell...How many million fools ?

Right on Rastro and Pammie.....And I loved that finger chopping bit....Do you really go by the name Maher or Stewart LOL....I just happen to be a Colbert...

Rastro as in the Jetsons pet....Not to say you are a racist or misogynist like Georgie or Elroy....Just a little wordplay by me no harm or foul intended....HAHAHAH

" Is anybody out there ?" Pink Floyd 70'S common era ( anno domini)

Ha! Actually, I picked the name Astro because I'm an astronomy buff, but I get that a lot. Also, if there was a racist hater on The Jetsons, it was definitely Cosmo Spacely (he of the Hitler moustache).

Right I forgot about Neo-Con Cosmo.....I think he works at Bain now..I did assume the Stars and Space version of the Screename but I have learned not to ASSUME over " The Internets " < As Grammy would say HAHA "The Internets " Or that " Webby thing " Granddaddy would call it...That is why I used the Pink Floyd "Space" quote..

I was born In Louisiana, my fathers land and my mother divorced him and moved me back to South West Philly and I grew up in a shared custody split between the rural south and the urban north,therefore I have perspective from both sides naturally ingrained, although I have shook the bad stuff from the south and kept the gentlemanly manners, for the most part.....and that is where my " Handle " is derived from ( location) ......I used to just use SWP but people mistook that for single white protestant.....But I am a married Irish former Catholic....And I prefer not to be labeled as white the same as I do not label people " Black"

Hmmm...I was just thinkin' how can Obama be a do nothing no good blamer in chief who can't lead anything, nothing but a community organizer, never was a law professor failure.......And single handily destroy the entire fabric of the country over night with the tactics and success and oratory capabilities of OLD Adolf...

It is either one or the other he can't be both...

He is either Carter or Hitler....

And I don't think old Carter gets any credit for some good stuff for that matter...

Heck kids wouldn't have got school lunch cut if he was re-elected..

Hello Beth, you are one of the lucky few who get it and can see the big picture. If you want to know why our system has devolved and will continue to do so, just Google and read the first paragraph of the Act of 1871. It will all make sense very quickly. It is and has always been about "money".

Our politicians are just guns for hire for those who put the most money in their pockets and the Act of 1871 clearly illustrates this point and will justify your outrage.

primate guy -

Whjile Obama Care is not what Hitler yet had in mind, it does smack of Socialism and government control of private resources.

I would argue that, among other things, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the government power to regulate commerce in several contexts. Smacking of Socialism and being socialist are not the same. Basic access to medicine is a tenet of natural law, and the founding documents were written under the philosophy of natural law. That is where the "hold these truths to be self evident" and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property" are drawn. I guess if a health care provider or insurance complany can firmly establish that they only operate in the confines of a single state, then possibly it could be argued that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction. The federal government definitely has the power to tax. The federal government definitely has the power to provide services such as health care. Does the Federal government have the power to regulate multinational corporations that operate in several states? Most assuredly. Does the federal Government have the power to require individuals to purchase private health care insurance? To this I say maybe not. I personally think that Obamacare added this as a concession to Conservatives in order to get other aspects and limit costs, once the public option was eliminated.

The federal government has the Constitutional derived power to tax. They have the constitutional power to provide services. These services can include basic access to health care. This model is Constitutional, and variations of it have been proven to be more inexpensive that our current arrangement.

The Supreme Court's decision will be out in June. Tune in then. Will they strike down the "mandate" section only, or other parts, or the whole darned thing?

primate guy,

"Does the federal Government have the power to require individuals to purchase private health care insurance? To this I say maybe not. I personally think that Obamacare added this as a concession to Conservatives in order to get other aspects and limit costs, once the public option was eliminated."

If I'm not mistaken, the idea of requiring individuals to purchase health care was originally proposed by the conservative Hoover Institute in the early 1990's. It's funny how conservative Republicans appear to have a way of proposing ideas and then backing down on them and opposing their own ideas once they are implemented by Democrats. Oh well, that's politics, I guess!

This should be an interesting decision. I hope it is more well thought out than the corporate personhood debacle.

Health care has been so politicized that any new propositon is instantly labeled heartless or communist.

I, as I stated before, see no problem with the government investing in this service (providing a minimal amount of healthcare for each citizen). I think it would take a great burden off of business owners, especially small businesses, and still allow any private arrangement that a corporation can find profitable.

People have labeled providing healthcare socialist, but that does not make it unconstitutional, and it is a solution in widespread use through all other developed nations, so it is clearly viable. The federal government would not be limiting private enterprise.

The madate for private healthcare is different. Since the individual states have different rights under the constitution, they could mandate this, but I am not sure if the feds really should. I pride myself on being independent, but I must admit that I found the idea more distasteful when Gingrich was proposing it, mainly because I think it is vulgar and a predatory to make profit from the sick and stricken. I am convinced that the current healthcare policy is unsustainable, and is unnecessarily expensive, yet am pragmatic enough to realize that draconian regulation is seldom effective. That is why I think the public option is a good idea. It forces any private provider to be efficient in order to be an attractive alternative/supplement to the basic healthcare provided as a public service. Those who are most innovative, the most out-of-the box will find ways to profit from products and services, those who were previously colluding to fix prices, limit competition, and bankrupt those unlucky enough to conract cancer, would simply wither away, or diversify their investments into a service that was not a fundamental human necessity.

American fascism won't take the shape of an SS officer in a black uniform and shiny boots. American Nazis, this lonesome, disgusting lobbyist included, are Extreme Racist fantasy roleplayers, the sociopathic version of people who like to dress up as stuffed animals.

Nope. All that sharp uniform stuff is too old-school European. When fascism comes to America, it's gonna chuckle 'n' wink 'n' look all folksy, full of cracker barrel wisdom and presenting itself like our coziest sentimental image of the Good Old Days, even though those Days weren't all that good for several groups of Americans (starting with the natives).

Fascism, whether it's from the right or the left, is all about inventing an ideological myth and sticking with it, regardless of consequence. "Pure Aryan?" "Workers' paradise?" Even "All-American?" The brand always comes before the uniform.

It's going to look folksy, like our most sentimental notions about an American culture that actually didn't work all that well for a lot of people (starting with the natives).

I think it's beneficial that the Nazi's finally have an out-of-the-closet lobbyist in Washington. They've been hiding their influence for years. Perhaps it's better to get it out in the open. For example:

Since 2005, the Republican Party has taken it's talking points on immigration directly from organizations founded by Nazi admirers like John Tanton and his ilk, who want the United States to adopt Nazi Germany's "genetics policies".

Unconstitutional 'laws' like Arizona SB 1070 and Alabama HR 56 were written by an employee of one of those organizations (not a resident of either state), and introduced into by in-state politicians who were not truly the authors. In Arizona, SB 1070 was introduced by Russell Pearce, who openly campaigned arm-in-arm with neo-nazi J. T. Ready. Pearce is currently the number two man (in more ways than one) in the Arizona state Republican Party.

Thanks, Sally. Sally is a sparkling goddess of truth, beauty and light.

(I need the suck up points.)

DanSok101

Samurai If hitler was so anti-capitalism why did corporations thrive under his rule?

hitler was also a pragmatic man. He reluctantly left industrialists in control of their industries to be able to build a war machine as quickly as possible. All industrialists were sub-servant to a nazi party. And any socialist system regardless of it's name is a sick and degenerate theology

Hitler's Germany is not the best example of a Fascist State. A much better example would be Mussolini's Italy. A couple of his quotes that offer a gimps of Fascism are:
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power"
"Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy."
"Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail."
These statements express many of the sentiments you hear in today's political climate...don't you think?

Mickey - here's some more recent examples:

1. The Individual health insurance mandate originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

2. In 1993, Republicans introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate twice. Advocates included: Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO).

3. In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.

Funny how the Insurance Mandate is so unpatriotic and unconstitutional now!

I agree with the posts that say let them come out in the open! Besides, this is America and the Constitution applies to them, too! When they get the national platform that they seek, all of the closet nazis will be come out in the open. I think that's a good thing.

But I absolutely love Melissa's post. She is 100% correct. They will rise to power cloaked in patriotism and love of God and country! Democracy will end, not with cries of objection, but with thunderous applause!

And anyone who believes that the NAACP is a racist organization (which has many, many white members), should read who started it, and why (probably wouldn't interest some of you, though, because to learn the truth would not support your agenda --- but I'll give you a hint, Jim Crow). The New Black Panthers is most definitely a hate group, and when they start to lobby Congress, you will hear screams of protest. Until then, they exercise their right exist like the many, many white hate organizations in this country.

Oh, this election is gonna be a keeper!

Wow! Some really well informed people posting here today!

Ol_Doc,

"1. The Individual health insurance mandate originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation."

Yes, that's right. It was the Heritage Foundation; not the Hoover Institute. My brain was not yet fully in gear when I posted that.

"Funny how the Insurance Mandate is so unpatriotic and unconstitutional now!"

Your right about that, too. Political theater in this country has become political comedy!

America was born-ed with a Birth Defect

Do you live here John? If you do, maybe you can move :)

tron, are you wishing good luck to the nazi's? if you're gonna be so "subversive", why not try being less intentionally vague, just come right out and say "I am racist and love the idea of a nazi state in the USA!"?

and, while you're at it, why not use your real name? oh yeah, cause people like you are cowards when you get out from behind your keyboard...

You'll be able to identify the Nazi lobbyist because he'll be the one sitting in the corner, alone, that everyone else is trying to avoid. "Oh no, here comes that Nazi guy...let's get outta here before he sees us looking at him."

“National Socialist Lobbyist

“The White Peoples’ Voice to Congress and the White House”

(Front page to the web site at nslobbyist.com)

[That’s not too scary, but their ANP web site IS a bit disturbing]

Want to get some world history? Watch "End Game", or "The Obama Deception". This latest, with the Nazis being on the ticket, fits right in. There are no seperate partys. It's all a total sham.

Patriotic American U.S.A.......

I could call you several names besides being "Patriotic" or "American" but would get my comment collapsed and/or suspended for a week.

Time for your meds.

I suppose you will be the first in line to give this "lobbyist" a donation.

Where is the mediator on YOUR obnoxious, ludicrous, comments ?

SpeakerGeek, I don't think so. He won't be alone. He'll be taught how to "spin" and push his agenda under the guise of patriotism.

I sincerely wish otherwise, but unfortunately, he'll have lots of help (and money) -- in secret at first, but eventually, it will all come out in the open!

Oh yes, they have heard of them and they have a plan for dealing with them, only part of which is lobbying agains them.

I thought he was related to the Red Skull, since he's smarter than Hitler was.

"I thought that was Paul Ryan's heart in Cheney" ?

Paul Ryan doesn't have a heart!

America was born-ed with a Birth Defect! Slavery

...and some people can't get over it. It was also regarded as evil by a great many people IN America, and a civil war was fought, basically, over slavery. Failure to forgive the past will absolutely ruin your future.

Except that defect has been fixed. There are plenty of other problems, but slavery is the least of your worries right now.

Except that defect has been fixed. There are plenty of other problems, but slavery is the least of your worries right now.

I beg to differ with you, SLAVERY is very much alive in this country. The difference now is the Massa don't carry whip, he uses the check book & the grocery stamps.

@Paul

Oh Jeez... stay away from the kool-aid people.

Truth hurts don't it, risky

The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living
are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."

Paul-2539759

The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living
are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."

#6.7 - Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:49 AM EDT

A good citizen is productive, involved, and makes informed votes. Anyone who is not a good citizen, is part of the problem.

As it stands, I think your statement has it precisely backwards. There are too many people voting for a living (to maintain entitlements and handouts) instead of working for a living. We need more emphasis on individual effort and accountability, and less worrying about providing for those who are too lazy to make the effort.

Frankly, anyone who isn't involved in the process and doesn't vote, has no room to complain about what happens because of those who do vote.

I love it when people suggest that when the Emancipation Proclimation was signed and slavery ended in the Union that the institution of racism that was built to sustain the caste system of slavery ended with it. People forget Jim Crow, most people don't know about sunset laws, black codes, anti-miscegenation laws, and the myriad of social and political controls implemented by the majority electorate over ethnic minorities (of which African-Americans were just the most obvious and notable targets).

The legacy and institution of race in America is too nuanced a discussion for the majority of Americans to have intelligently because most people of the majority population have no real experience of the implications of "race" to speak experientially on the topic. Its like asking a man to give a sympathetic personal ancedote about their experience of childbirth; its not to say you can observe a child being born and not empathetically understand whats going on, but until you feel those contractions yourself and the pressure of a newborn pushing to get out all your doing is giving lip service to those who really have to go through it.

If the extent of your understanding of racism in America today is that people need to get over the institution of SLAVERY, then you missed 100+ years of post-slavery racism that gives today brand context. Or, in other words, if you don't realize how racism as a social institution persisted in this country after slavery and the Civil War then you're not fully equiped to have a thoughtful discussion on the topic, and probably should quit and let those in the know show you what's up.

Great post, finally someone on here that actually knows something and is not spewing hate filled trash.

Ciewy42mh6sps 23: Preach brother! Right on, right on!! And here is the final push. Just about the time we thought we had buried Jim Crow, Young James Crow, Jr. raised his ugly head. Seems like a bad never ending love song!!!

Ciewywtb42mh6sps-23, you are correct the EP had not a thing to do with race. The negro race was not wanted anywhere in this country, it was just the idea of slavery that was despised. The north disliked black people more so than the south. The beloved Abe Lincoln had a plan to ship all the emancipated Negroes to Liberia but didn't live to see the outcome of the war. Some historians even say that he had a back up plan to create separate state in the northwest territory for the Negroes. Anyway, racism was never even considered. Racism is the result of having a race of people dumped on a culture that didn't want them. Maybe if Lincoln had lived things would have been different, but doubtful.

I honestly don't ever see an end to it. People will always hate for some reason or another, color of skin, ethnic background, Religion or stature in society. I share Dr. Kings dream. I actually thought that this country was going fulfill that dream with the election of a Black President but I was wrong, it just separated us further. Political correctness doesn't help. Guess we keep dreaming and when we get over the rainbow to Utopia, it will all be just fine.

Jim5769

A good citizen is productive, involved, and makes informed votes. Anyone who is not a good citizen, is part of the problem.

As it stands, I think your statement has it precisely backwards. There are too many people voting for a living (to maintain entitlements and handouts) instead of working for a living.

Read the statement again, I believe you will find that it says exactly what you are saying it should!

Some historians even say that (President Lincoln) had a back up plan to create separate state in the northwest territory for the Negroes.

Some historians think that creatures from another planet built the pyramids.

They, too, were wrong.

A good citizen is productive, involved, and makes informed votes. Anyone who is not a good citizen, is part of the problem.

These days, people making mis-informed votes and getting involved in spite of their ignorance are a huge problem.

In the 2010 elections, more voters were misinformed on key subjects than the population in general.

Paul, I too share Dr. King's perspective and while I reject the term "racism", I will denounce the judging of a person according to the color of their skin. Whites who hate blacks also hate whites who do not hate blacks. Remember the slur "@!$%#-lover!"? And let us not forget, the nazi's (remember the point of this seed?) main target were the Jews. Yes, blacks died, but so did sympathetic Germans, Poles, Russians etc. And no demograph was the focal point of nazi atrocities like the Jews. Color was not an issue.

Some racism did indeed exist in places in this country, even up until the 70s. Eventually it became a federal crime. When Obama was elected I KNOW he was elected, in part, because he is black. The unfortunate thing is that Obama's performance did absolutely nothing to better the country, or even better black communities. This country...all who voted Obama into the presidency, did not do so because he is a good leader. They voted him in because of various agendas, such as, he's not the other guy. He's black. He wants peace. He reaches out to Muslims. THat has been the problem. Obama is a GREAT speaker! His comments ignite passion both pro and con. But he fails on the follow-through. Over and over and over again! The Obama/Clinton show must come to an end if the US is going to be a major leader on the world stage. ANd I fear right now, we are the laughing-stock of the Islamic world. The Muslims may have hated George Bush JR. But they respected him.

You know, Levi, racism is not a crime, discrimination is a crime. You are free to hate whomever you choose, as long as you do it within the four corners of the law. Some of your statements make no sense and are belittling to those of us who voted for Obama. Of course, there were some who voted for him just because he's black, just like there were some who voted for McCain because he's white. But that was not the majority, on either side, whether you believe it or not. Your opinion on his leadership, is just that -- your opinion. There are millions who disagree.

Your statement that "some racism" existed up until the 70s is quite interesting because I can tell you that it is alive and well in this country (read some of these posts). I grew up in the 60s and 70s and I can tell you that it was not pleasant being around a lot of whites at that time. I went to all white schools, and I had to fight almost daily.

Your first paragraph began as if you really were a person who shared Dr. King's dream. But in your second paragraph, your true nature is revealed and it speaks volumes.

Paul-2539759

Read the statement again, I believe you will find that it says exactly what you are saying it should!
#6.13 - Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:12 PM EDT

You're absolutely right, I mangled that one and have no explanation as to why or how. My apologies, we were in agreement.

commonsense....

A good citizen is productive, involved, and makes informed votes. Anyone who is not a good citizen, is part of the problem.

These days, people making mis-informed votes and getting involved in spite of their ignorance are a huge problem.

In the 2010 elections, more voters were misinformed on key subjects than the population in general.

#6.15 - Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:24 PM EDT

I think you've confused the 2008 elections with the 2010 election, but I agree with your overall message. It is important to note that there is a difference between being "informed" and being "mis-informed" or just plain "ignorant." Those that vote without having any knowledge of the issues at hand ARE a huge problem. I wouldn't count them as meeting the criteria for being good citizens.

Discriminate: "I still won't eat broccoli!"

Okay that's getting too far. Sure, slavery was a birth defect, but that doesn't nullify all the good stuff the Founding Fathers did.

Slavery may have been a "birth" defect of this United States, but it was imported from all the immigrants that came FROM OTHER lands. We were not just criminals fleeing England. Are you familiar with the term "great american MELTING pot?" if not, do some research on it first.

We do not do everything right in this country, but our founding fathers started "this great experiment". This great experiment has lasted over 200 years. I am damn proud to be an American and a citizen of the world.

john julius, you are so full of sh*t. The USA was founded by criminals from England?

yes, THE ORIGINAL SLAVES- WHITE INDENTURED SERVANTS!

a majority of the "criminals" shipped over from England were in prison because of DEBT, not crime. They came here to work off their 7 years of hard labor to pay off their debts, most of which were not outstanding enough to warrant 7 years. Most of these were not let off the hook after their 7 years were up, meaning they were slaves into perpetuity. The Revolutionary War solved most of that.

As far as African warlords selling Africans to the British, French, Portuguese, etc..., that's an entirely different thing, just as evil, but entirely different.

ps- for every slave brought to the USA, Brazil (through the Portuguese) bought 6. That's right- Brazil had 6 times the slaves the USA did...

hmmmm, turns out we're not the only bad guys...

I don't think it matters. Associating or complying with a Nazi lobbyist would be career suicide, so I don't see anyone doing that.

But the sad thing is is that there will be someone making back-room deals with him and although it wouldn't come out now it will in the future.

I think that comparing number of slaves (evil) brought to America to number of laves brought to another country will convince anyone that slavery was not evil and reprehensible!!!

I think the Nazi lobbyist's main purpose is to convince voters that other lobbysists calling on our politicians don't represent the Nazi viewpoint, when in actuality, many do.

If you owe me and don't pay, I want you held until you do pay. The crime is fraud.

Hey lacywild. That might be the first time that I've ever laughed at that poisonous name.

Hi chefaz. And poison, it is. Nice to see you again. Now this old gal is gonna head on outta here for now. You have a great night and a better tomorrow.

right back atcha. always good to see you, as well.

lacywild- I'm assuming that was a dig on black people?

c'mon racists- stop being so vague! be proud of your backwards beliefs!

Couldn't agree more. Love your update of N. A.Z.I.

doyourhomework,

i'm pretty familiar with lacywild's posts and i've never known her to post anything inappropriate. if i may speak for her, i'm sure there was nothing racist about this post, at all. it's disheartening that you have viewed this post as a possibility for racism. she is most definitely not a racist.

doyourhomework

so referring to the term Nazi as poisonous is now racist? Nazi isn't a race it is a belief and a very @!$%#ed up belief at that.

name1, lacywild used the acronym to describe nazism and it was to this acronym that doyourhomework referred since it began #10. i was the one who used the word "poisonous" to describe nazism in response to lacywild's post.

it is a belief and a very @!$%#ed up belief at that.

you've pretty much nailed it there, name1. hagd. :)

@John...

WE GET IT. This is like the 8th comment of which you said the EXACT same thing. Slavery ended long ago and many White people died to END it. I'm LDS and we were tarred and feather'd across the whole damn country and you don't hear us whining about it to this day.

..when people see the swastika on the ballot, they’ll know what they’re getting."

I have to give them credit for truth in advertising. Of course, Hitler announced his intentions in his best-selling book and Germans voted for him anyway.

I'm LDS and we were tarred and feather'd across the whole damn country and you don't hear us whining about it to this day

Technically, I am hearing you whining about this today. For the record, I think plural marriage is fine, and attempts to limit it are provincial. I also find the fact that several of my ancestors living in the 18th century are now Baptised as Mormon very distasteful.

If you look at the history of the Nazis, they were right wing and you discover that they were not for helping anyone except the elite and well connected, all others be damned. There's only one party in America that currently subscribe to this principle and they are represented by the initial "R." The Nazis feared everything and everyone and use violence to stay in control. Furthermore, they was ever in search of master or superior race. Sorry friends, that do not sound like any American Democratic party, but points directly to the capital "R." Just saying!!

From Wikipedia:

A majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as being a far right form of politics

Julius,repeating the same tired excuse for your failure as a human has nothing to do with this story.

@JOHNJULI... America? You mean North and South America combined? That's nearly an entire hemisphere of the planet.

On a side note: What the heck does "born-ed" mean?

Swastika?............. What was wrong with the elephant?

lordpyric-

many of the South American sugar producing countries had as many if not more slaves than the USA, so, sadly yes, an entire hemisphere...

interested observer- I see you classify David Duke as an "extremist" because of his beliefs.

Please tell me exactly what makes David Duke and extremist. I have read Mr. Duke's book My Awakening, and there is nothing "extremist" about his views or statements at all. Have you read anything by this man?

I know you have been conditioned by the leftist media to cringe at the very mention of his name, but you don't know squat about him, and that's the way the leftist media wants it.

Machinehead - you should read more than his books (these books are also known as public relations for him).

He has publicly stated that all non-whites are inferior to the white race. He tried to pass a law in LA that whites could not receive non-white blood in a hospital -so that the whites would not be 'contaminated'. He has advocated 'lynching' for mixed race families. He urged home schooling to prevent white children from being forced into close interaction with inferior races.

That you defend him says a lot about you and your belief system.

The concept of biological race is archaic and belongs in history books with the rest of the 19th century.David Duke is also archaic and belongs in history books with the rest of the 19th century.

I must defend the Republican Party to some extent on the racism issue. On one hand, when they took in the Dixiecrats and the Moral Majority, they pumped a huge infusion of intolerance and exceptionalist philosophy into their party. On the other hand, many Republicans still maintain party affiliation because of convictions related to small government and personal liberty. If Republicans ever want to be known as intolerant, I suggest they realign their party platform to exclude these Racists and Dominionists that have hijacked the party of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater. Currently the party is schizophreninic on a good day. To do this would require a faith that the majority of conservatives realize that society will not implode if every personal belief is not codified into law.

interested observer-He has publicly stated that all non-whites are inferior to the white race.

He has stated that the results of testing for intelligence quotient show that Africans score an average of 15 points below whites, as referenced in the 1994 book by Murray and Hernstein, The Bell Curve, and coincided by other data gathered over the years by other researchers like Philippe Rushton, who corrected for socio-economic status and level of parental education. He is correct about this.

He tried to pass a law in LA that whites could not receive non-white blood in a hospital -so that the whites would not be 'contaminated'.

So what?

He has advocated 'lynching' for mixed race families.

You're going to have to source this one. I don't buy it.

He urged home schooling to prevent white children from being forced into close interaction with inferior races.

People have the right to home school (so far). This is merely an effort to protect freedom of association, a right which is increasingly being denied white Americans. Every school, workplace and organization now imposes "diversity", but only on whites. All black or all Hispanic organizations are fine and even celebrated.

That you defend him says a lot about you and your belief system.

It says I believe in freedom, not a government mandated tyranny of "multiculturalism" and "Diversity".

primate guy-The concept of biological race is archaic and belongs in history books with the rest of the 19th century.David Duke is also archaic and belongs in history books with the rest of the 19th century.

Ahh yes, the old "race is a social construct" argument. It is all the rage in today's university sociology departments and media attitudes. The problem with this is the assertion is not scientific (though it is often disguised as such), and it is factually incorrect.

You see, the liberals in the media and education have convinced themselves (and many others) that the truth is not nearly as important as what people believe. In other words, they think that if people all believed that race is a social construct, that "racism" would therefore end. But beliefs about people cannot change their physical traits or real behavioral patterns.

Race is a real, measurable quality that geneticists and forensic scientists can verify. Mental qualities can be (and have been) measured in terms of intelligence, propensity for violence and abstract reasoning skills. Physical differences between blacks and whites for example, are found in the ratio of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers, limb proportions and the presence of certain diseases.

Two African parents of a lineage of Africans will never produce a blue-eyed blond-haired offspring, and vice-versa, because of genetics.

I am not condemning any particular people or suggesting that people should be treated differently under the law, but lies and distortions will help no-one.

Two African parents of a lineage of Africans will never produce a blue-eyed blond-haired offspring, and vice-versa, because of genetics.

So, what you're saying is that blue-eyed blond-haired offspring will never produce two African parents? Is that only because of genetics, or do cause and effect and the space-time continuum also play a role in that?

Seriously, machine-head, have you done much travel? How many 'races' do you think exist? And if the only way you can measure it is through 'average' differences, what is the point?

If an African American gets a score of 2300 on the SAT, is he less intelligent than a 'white' person who scored 1250, if the average score for 'whites' is higher than the average for African Americans?

What's your slow-twitch versus fast twitch ratio? And who cares?

hard to believe in this day and age, isn't it??? terrorizing.

Nazi party; Police, FBI what the different to black peoples; they are all the same

Actually the Swatika goes back a thousand years - it is not the symbol but who carries it and what they represent

I am more concerned about Grover Norquist and his ties to Hamas and the Koch Brothers and their beginings with roots to the Birch Society and A.L.E.C and their influence on our legislations and ties to the NRA than some fringe little group with a thousand year old emblem

Get a grip and focus what influences your lives

Good post, Barbara. I haven't seen your name in a while. I hope you're well. The swastika is actually a bastardization of the cross which is a marriage of a pagan symbol with the actual means of Jesus' murder-stauros", or an upright stake. The Romans didn't actually use a cross until nearly 2 ceturies after the death of Jesus Christ. The cross has many myths. And you're dead on time about Grover Norquist and todays reactionaries, by whatever name you want to call them. They are dangerous. If anyone wants to stop paying taxes, all they need to do is leave this country. SImple enough. I'm pretty sure that many countries in Africa and southern and central Asia don't pay income taxes. In fact, I'll be glad to chip in on a one way ticket for any of Grover's buddies that want to go with him. Of course, you'll have to suffer all of those darned blacks and muslims...always a fly in the ointment...

I agree with all of that, except the part that "we all know who the Nazis ... still are".

When we have media stars and political candidates gaining money and power by vilifying entire groups of Americans, successfully instilling fear, hatred, and contempt among large swaths of 'majority' America, it's pretty clear to me that we DON'T know who the Nazis are.

That type of hate speech is more the rule than the exception these days. Mix together equal parts of vitriol from the politicians and ignorance and viola. I find it ironic that with so many huge issues facing this country right now the election will be focused solely on blame and divisiveness.

Nationalism, xenophobia, and religious bigotry are all traits of extreme right wing behavior. Europe is a prime example. Whether your ignorance is willful or genuine, it's still ignorance.

Unfortunately Anna, there is not one single statement in your post that's true or that could not be said about the democrats as well.

Anna: You forgot about the extensive use of propaganda and control of media.

Not to mention the fundamentalist Chistianity both the Nazis and 2012 conservatives espouse.

It is sad to see all the posts equating Conservatives with NAZI's. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though, The far Left always demonizes their opposition

I agree, the far left does demonize their opposition. As does the far right. In this nation, since the late 1970's, the far left has lost influence, and the entire nation has gradually shifted right. The far right has become the center right. In the 1950s, the John Birch Society was an extremist group with little following. Eisenhower called them "stupid" for their attacks on social services. Barry Goldwater fought fiercely against the derailment of conservative principles by the religious wing of the Republican party. In 2008, Mitt Romney was the more conservative alternative to John McCain.

We can use hyperbole all day, and call our opposition the party of Hitler, but it is really irrelevent, and ultimately stupid. That said, the far left is tremendously disappointed with Obama, because he is not far left. The far right is farther right than any time since before the New Deal.

primate guy

It is sad to see all the posts equating Conservatives with NAZI's. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though, The far Left always demonizes their opposition

I agree, the far left does demonize their opposition. As does the far right. In this nation, since the late 1970's, the far left has lost influence, and the entire nation has gradually shifted right. The far right has become the center right. In the 1950s, the John Birch Society was an extremist group with little following. Eisenhower called them "stupid" for their attacks on social services. Barry Goldwater fought fiercely against the derailment of conservative principles by the religious wing of the Republican party. In 2008, Mitt Romney was the more conservative alternative to John McCain.

We can use hyperbole all day, and call our opposition the party of Hitler, but it is really irrelevent, and ultimately stupid. That said, the far left is tremendously disappointed with Obama, because he is not far left. The far right is farther right than any time since before the New Deal.

#18.8 - Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:17 PM EDT

The far right is now the center right? Hardly. Those frequently referred to by the leftist media as "far right" and "extremists" are the Tea Party members. Wanting individual freedom and limited gov't interference is what the country was founded upon. If that counts as "far right" now, then the country has most decidedly shifted toward the LEFT, not the right. The New Deal is leftist, so are welfare, food stamps, etc. The right emphasizes individual effort, individual accountability, and individual freedom (provided it does not undermine societal structure). These are concepts you seem to have conveniently ignored. The country has been flirting with the left for too long, and as a result, we are now seeing a pushback and demands for a return to more conservative and traditional values.

If you want to know what the founding fathers considered the proper role and limits of gov't, you don't have to look much further than the writings of Locke and Montesquieu.

Try reading Liberty and Tyranny, and Ameritopia, both books by Mark Levin. I'm not in 100% agreement on every point in the books, but he does an excellent job overall in comparing and contrasting the various influences and ideologies at work.

The far Left always demonizes their opposition

Hahaha.. Isn't that statement inherently hypocritical? That's like saying "stop name-calling, you namecaller!"

I agree with Darthdon. There is nothing - I repeat - NOTHING conservative about nazism.

Actually, I think there is and was. Both were very anti-union. And for the same reason. Both want tp prevent any or any group from being organizes against them. Unions were pretty early victims of Hitler. They are tagets of the TP/GOP today. There are other similarities.

Hitler's Nazis were all about racial purity. It maddened him when Jesse Ownes won at the Berlin Olympics. And I think few outside the repugnican party would argue that the far right favors racial purity even though they'll never admit it. I love Colin Powell but he was nothing more than a poster boy and token for bushco. The only black who had a meaingful role was Rice and Clinton was who elevated her, not bush. Michael Steele and Alan Keyes were also just poster boys so the GOP could give the appearance of appealing to blacks. In fact, I think it shows the shallowness of their thinking they felt they had to oppose Obama in Illinois and in nationals with a black man, as if blacks are to stupid and prejudiced to see past skin color. Let's see how long it takes to collapse this comment.

Thomas, I will disagree with portions of your post but hope that it does not collapse. I think you've made a huge disservice to General Powell by your statement, though and will respectfully disagree.

Well said, Anna. Worth repeating! Especially since the typical right-wing censors, who cannot tolerate other opinions, collapsed your post. Nothing new!!

There's a difference between 2012 Conservatives and Nazis? Really?

1. Suppression of civil liberties for women and minorities... both the same.

2. Fear mongering and scapegoating of their opponents... both the same.

3. Expressed desire to eliminate gays and lesbians by any means required... both the same.

4, Use of brainwashing with cult ideals to convince their members of their own superiority and perfection... both the same.

Actually, the only difference between Nazis and 2012 Conservatives are that the Conservatives are not in power to inflict their reign on people.

The country has been flirting with the left for too long, and as a result, we are now seeing a pushback and demands for a return to more conservative and traditional values.

After taking me to task for not emphasizing the classically conservative aspects of the right, and instead emphasizing the changes wrought by the union of the dixiecrats and the Moral Majority into the party, I then am expected to accept that " flirting with the left" is the reason that the Republicans want to return to more conservative and traditional values?

No, I repeat, No. The "flirtation" with the left did not cause the Republican party, which you so eloquently explained, was the party of Locke and of personal liberty, to suddenly decide that a socially conservative approach to one's personal and religious life now requires legislative protection or it will wither up and blow away. The left never forced anyone with conservative and traditional values to change their values. The left simply made room for values that were not conservative and traditional.

The Right got in bed with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and they woke up with a bad case of the self-righteous herpes. When the left in the 1920's pushed prohibition, the right disagreed. They were proven correct. Today, when the left occasionally presents extreme limitations upon 2nd amendment rights, the right is ethically self-consistent when they object. Then they turn around and try to push a socially conservative agenda that limits individual freedoms, and blames the left for it, because they are under attack. You claim your party is all Barry Goldwater, and when someone points out that it is Pat Robertson, yourresponse is that it is because the left made me do it.

Ah, Toasty:

The acronym nazi means National Socialist German Workers' Party. Nazis are first and foremost socialists. Hence, the non-aggression pact between Stalinist, commie Russia and Germany in 1939.

Also, the nazis were secular and occultist, in addition to being socialists. Hitler's description of Jesus was that "He was the son of jewish whore." The nazis had and have far, far more in common with today's leftwing of the demonRatic party than they do with conservatives of any stripe.

The right emphasizes individual effort, individual accountability, and individual freedom (provided it does not undermine societal structure).

I also find the little phrase (hidden at the of the sentence in pretty little ()s). Undermine societal structure.

Let's list things that have undermined societal structure, shall we:

Abolition of slavery.

Desegregation

Women's suffrage

The two world wars

access to contraception

rural electrification

The Civil Rights movement

the end of Jim Crow

I am convinced that a prohibition on undermining societal structures is not listed anywhere in the Constitution, or in either Montesquieu or Locke. That is because a prohibition on undermining societal structures is a formalized way of saying that it is the government's job to ensure that society remains static, that the status quo is maintained. That is a lot of power and expectation to be given the government. It is also in direct opposition to the concept of limited government, because the benefit of limited government often argued as a vibrant, dynamic, adaptive society.

the nazis were secular and occultist, in addition to being socialists. Hitler's description of Jesus was that "He was the son of jewish whore."

Hitler used this phrase because Hitler had his own version of "positive Christianity" that eliminated much of the Jewish influence in the religion (He did not like Jews much, I hear). He outlines Positive Christianityin his programme (party platform, in item 24):

We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they
are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense
of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity,
but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It
combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and
is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on
the principle: the common interest before self-interest.

Hitler was often speaking of God, and his Christianity.

Hitler, as onward Christian soldier:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It
points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers,
recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them
and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In
boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which
tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive
out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.- 1922.

Hitler as Christian Socialist, that is where he learned to hate Jews:

I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to
time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought.

At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the
movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the
Christian Social Party.- Mein Kampf

Hitler, as Mel Gibson:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the
Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the
work of the Lord.-Mein Kampf

Hitler, although Catholic, as an admirer of Protestantism:

Thus, Protestantism will always stand up for the advancement of all Germans
as such, as long as matters of inner purity or national deepening as well as
German freedom are involved, since all these things have a firm foundation in
its own being; but it combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue
the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward
the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established.-Mein Kampf

Multi-denominational Hitler:

As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their
duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic
priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed
in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future
each man turned to his own heaven- (Mein Kampf)

Hitler as fundamentalist:

For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his
people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics,
but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes!

Hitler as social conservative:

"The church is certainly necessary for the
people. It is a strong and conservative element." Albert Speer quoting Hitler

Hitler, as not a secularist:
An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of
going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)...

Hitler as Jerry Falwell:

Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the
soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas
and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies,
vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not
the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...

Hitler as the Moral Majority:

The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for
compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in
its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.

nobeliefs.com

@chefaz-1319563 ...I mean no disrespect to Colin Powell. He was the onle one in the bush admin. that really understood the nature of war. I think he was suckered and used by bush and I suspect that's why he left after 1 term. He was/is a good man but I think Bushco just used him for image. He could have been an incredible asset to them but they didn't want people whi thought for themselves. They just wanted people to "yes sir" and follow orders. Colin Powell is a credit to America. If bush had listened to him, things would have wound up very differently, I'm sure. BTW,thanks for the civility in your disagreement.

and thank you, Thomas. it's such a pleasure to discuss or respectfully disagree without all the trama and drama. have a great night.

primate guy:

Thanks for proof that hitler wasn't in the least bit a Christian. Many Lutheran pastors fled Germany, because hitler simply wanted to abolish Christianity and replace it with worship of secular state - same as communist countries.

Read WWII accounts written by German and Russian soldiers. All were amazed at the similarities of their societies. Also, the very liberal History Channel did a series on the nazis and this made it quite clear tha the nazis were occultists and very secular.

What you've posted was hitler's version of a religion, but it bears not one iota of semblence to Christianity.

So I bring you direct quotes from Mein Kampf, a personal correspondence with a collegue, the German Programme, and you bring me the History Channel. Several Nazi Party members dabbled in the occult, but Hitler was a Christian. He did not purge Christians, he purged Jews. He purged Jews because he learned to hate Jews when he was entertaining the idea of going into the clergy.

Was that History Channel episode the one on after Ancient Aliens and before Famous Ghosts in American History?

So you concede that Hitler was religious. So he was not secular, if he was religious. He claimed to be Christian. So he was Christian, but not Christian?

I think I see what you mean, the Inquisition was not really Christian? The 30 years War, not really Christian? So any Christian who does bad is not a Christian. Convenient.

Hey, PG, hitler wrote MK years before he become the dictator of Germany. Read about what he did as dictator and watch the History Channel special on the nazis. You can buy the DVD set at Amazon. Give me some facts, not BS. Also, hitler imprisoned and killed many protestants. You're quite obviously not very well versed in this subject. There are several books published by many protestants, mostly Lutheran pastors, and others detailing hitler's attempt to co-opt the churches into the state.

hitler simpy was smarter than the commies. The commies tried to replace religion with the state; the nazis simply tried to co-opt religion for its own use. Same goal, different means.

Any form of socialism, including national socialism, requires a totalitarian gov't. BTW, stalin thought that hitler would be an ally, b/c hitler hated capitalism. Or did you miss that part when you read Mein Kampf?

Actually, any form of socialism, except for democratic socialism. Any form of capitalism devolves into feudalism, except for democratic capitalism. Most successful nations pragmatically mix capitalistic and socialistic strategies. It truly is incomprehensible to you that a gradient exists, isn't it? That idea will make in irreparable crack in your understanding of society. A totalitarian regime can be instituted into any type of economic system, as long as dissent, human rights, and the democratic process are suppressed. "the commies" were also a totalitarian regime.

So, because Hitler felt that Christianity was in tune with his Final Solution agenda, then he was not a Christian?

He said he was a Christian , the "constitution" of his party platform explicitily states that the Nazi party is Christian. So if a Christian co-opts Christianity for his political gain he is not a Christian.

Sure he persecuted dissenting Christians, he persecuted them because they were dissenters. Where were all the commies during this period? the socialists? the Jews? They were already rounded up or exiled, why did he selectively persecute Christians. Because he was persecuting them only because they were dissenters.

You are just getting angry because you do not want Hitler associated with Christianity. Unfortunately, the historical record repeatedly shows him to be. If it makes you feel better, you can still say this: "Hitler was not a (insert denomination here, Roman Catholics, and arguably Positive Christians if there are any of you, you are out of luck)

PG, I'm not angry; I'm not the one writing long, ranting posts. You are doing do, b/c you're embarrassed by the fact that leftist politics always leads to repression, poverty, and/or decline. And wherever did you come up with "democratic socialism?" Do you mean welfare states? What silliness.

No, I mean democratic socialism. An economic system in which people elect leaders, they institute policy, and if it is ineffective, they are voted out. They are a recognized political party and you can go to their website if you wish to learn more about their "silliness" A component of their platform is called social welfare. That is designed to aid the welfare of those in a society. I think you mean the demonized term "welfare" that was once commonly accepted as beneficial, similar to society, liberalism, and more recently, feminism. Or are you referring to the caricature that the right paints of the social safety net as the welfare state? Ifthat is the case, I am not referring to that non-existent construct you are using to invalidate points that I made.

I am not sure why you decided to use and/or, because whenever repression and poverty are introduced, decline ensues, so it is redundant. The decline would be like in 2008, when unfettered capitalist speculation collapsed the economy because the long-standing regulation put in place after the earlier unfettered capitalist speculation that caused the Great Depression?

My posts are long, they are not ranting. They are long because I generally try to be specific about my positions, and support them with specific examples.

I do not yet feel embarrassed. Maybe I am shameless. I will give you one more chance to prove that Hitler was not Christian. He was baptized. It is a historically documented fact. Provide a link that shows any documentary evidence that he was ever excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.

I would expect you to provide me with the sources cited by the history channel, if you want to keep citing them. I am citing primary historical sources. I could provide some for you, but then I would have to refute myself, and explain why Nazi dabbling in the occult does not preclude Hitler from being a Christian, which I would then do.

If you are arguing that Hitler does not have love in his heart like many liberal and tolerant Christian denomination members seem to, I wholeheartedly agree that you are correct. Unfortunately for this Earth, if that were the actual criteria for being a Christian, then Christianity would be a very small sect indeed.

You know what, this is getting a little silly, and I am being a little obtuse for no good reason. To any good Christian, Hitler was not a Christian. To most American-type Christians, the occult and Christianity are mutually exclusive. If my assumption that you are one of these Christians. I would not want Hitler associated with my religion either. He killed 12 million people. Hitler was not a Christian in any humanistically meaningful sense of the word.

Your understanding of socialism and mine are fundamentally different, and probably irreconcilable, so let's each vote for our respective candidates, respect the process, and tolerate our differences. That way neither of us will be contributing to the climate that let this guy come into power in the first place.

If you are so certain about your position ,why don't you just make comments so we can all comment on yours.You pull everything from the internet ex post facto and intertwin various conservatives in your diatribe.That;s not a dicussion,that's propoganda which the left is a amster at! Try exposing yourself and i'll start reading your trash!

There is no relationship between propaganda and factuality. Propaganda is a strategy for dissemination of information. Propaganda can be fact or a lie. If it is a lie, it should be possible to disprove it. Calling an argument trash is not a refutation. Adding exclamation points does not strengthen an argument.

Chef de la meute made an argument concerning the religious affiliation of Adolf Hitler, my understanding of the historical record led me to contend that his argument did not reflect the bulk of the evidence. I argued based on materials I felt were more legitimate because they were primary sources, not a compilation of sources. Some of his points introduced the nature and feasibility of socialism in a real-world application. I disagreed with his understanding, so I presented a counter-argument. At some point, the discussion became heated, and my tone became baiting, such as my comment concerning the shows on the history channel. I made a post that I felt would be reconcilitory, because, quite frankly, I started to feel that I had made my argument, and anyone was free to accept or reject it, and since I was convinced that chef was arguing in good faith, to argue any further would be, quite simply, mean and small.

I am not sure of my opinion. I present the argument I that I accept at the time, present my evidence, and wait for a response.

I intertwine conservatives in my "diatribe" because conservatives are not a monolithic group that any reasonable person should discount wholesale. Barry Goldwater was a conservative, so was Jerry Falwell. If Barry Goldwater makes a well-reasoned observation that Jerry Falwell's particular type of social conservativism is contrary to fundamental conservative principles of limited government.

That is not because I am using "propaganda" it is because I agree with Barry Goldwater, he was a well-respected figure, and as a Conservative, his position would be a stronger one for conservatives. Besides, why should I discount a source if I agree with the argument? Political spectrum. It is a phrase that can really enrich. Exposure to positions across the political spectrum elevates the conversation from "don't consider that, it is dangerous", to "I have considered that honestly, and in this case it will work, or not work in my opinion" Besides, if I said Barack Obama did not agree with Jerry Falwell, what kind of argument would that be to someone who hates Barack Obama?

One person can reply to any comment, just as you are doing right now. Every time I post a comment, I am exposed. Frankly, chef made a legitimate argument, and defended it with sources. I think he did a legitimate job of it. In your defense of him, you used the argument ...propoganda, trash, exclamation marks. I think he would do better to defend your post than the other way around. Your argument would be strengthened tremendously, or at least become an argument, if you would start with reading it. Chef and I both read Mein Kampf, and his responses show that he has an understanding of the literature out there,and I assure you, neither one of us agrees with Nazis. If we can do that, you can surely wade through a few quotes posted by a pompous a%$ like myself.

How in the world are they allowing this?!?!! This is a disgrace to our country. I can't believe this-gobsmacked.

From Wikipedia:

A majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as being a far right form of politics

roxi: because no matter how repugnant their ideology might be, it's unconstitutional to not allow them the rights to speech, press, assembly, and petition.

primate guy

...The "flirtation" with the left did not cause the Republican party, which you so eloquently explained, was the party of Locke and of personal liberty, to suddenly decide that a socially conservative approach to one's personal and religious life now requires legislative protection or it will wither up and blow away....You claim your party is all Barry Goldwater, and when someone points out that it is Pat Robertson, your response is that it is because the left made me do it.

#18.16 - Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:31 PM EDT

At no point in the post to which you responded did I say anything about Republicans or the GOP. I spoke only of the left and the right--ideology, not partisan political parties. Your retorts are therefore irrelevant because you focus on political parties that change with the political winds, not on fundamental values and core concepts.

You claimed the country had shifted to the far right, and I provided a conclusive rebuttal illustrating that it has actually gone to the left. Political parties come and go and change the composition of their platforms over time...the underlying concepts involved do not change. Why argue about Democrat vs. Republican when the actual question is what is the best path to follow? More gov't vs. less gov't? More freedom vs. more regulation? Etc.

"stop name-calling, you namecaller!"

Yeah! Like he said!

*she :)

The nation has been shifting right steadily since 1980, both economically and socially. If someone wants to argue that the leftward shift that began with a response to the depression of 1893, and then was followed with a shift right, then the depression of 1929, is somehow a bad thing, I would argue that that shift was responsible for the postwar boom, a shift from the type of economic collapse that occurred in 1929, with starvation, death, and a mass exodus out of the entire state of Oklahoma, to ones like in 1979, with problematic stagflation and inconvenience, but not sheer humanitarian collapse. That leftward shift that defined most of the 20th century, brought the United States from a segregated, sexist rural society to the premier world superpower, with a trade surplus and the premier educational and scientific accomplishments of those decades, and the rise of a substantial middle class.

So to any John Birch Society-following idealogue who wants to continue to repeal the progressive era like we have been doing for over 30 years, and bring on a new golden age of.....what, I will quote Eisenhower, they are "stupid".

*applies for a Nazi Hunting license*

Take the nazi's, the kkk and the black panthers.....put 'em in a pot and stir well. This is a simple receipe for hatred.

If you get rid of all the Jewish people...anyone with a different skin color-black. white, yellow or brown.... Catholic, Islam, Buddist,..........what do you have left?

Thank God I am an American and Stand for diversity and against hatred!

Why can't you lefties make a comment! Because you don't want to get trashed for your lies.You know most of us wont go back five pages of comments to find the original "reply " button! come on out ,cockroaches!I'm turning on the light!

Why can't you lefties make a comment! Because you don't want to get trashed for your lies.You know most of us wont go back five pages of comments to find the original "reply " button! come on out ,cockroaches!I'm turning on the light!

mas098

You're asking lefties to make a comment and yet you post the request under a comment.