The Nazis were Socialists (yawn)

[Pumpkin Row]

YOU gloss over the actual political beliefs and activity of the Nazis, and you try to spin it so that racism is inherent to one party. You have absolutely ZERO evidence and historical backing for your assertion. I actually wonder if there's anyone left on this forum that takes you seriously, given that rather than address any of my points, you stopped to call your political opponents racist.

Supremacy is a right wing trait not a party trait. Whatever they call themselves, if they believe in that shit they are fascists.

My Taid fought the Nazis in the second world war. He quite liked the Germans he met and thought that they had been duped. He despised Nazis and this was reinforced after he liberated one of their camps. You know,one of those camps that didnt exist and full of those people who didnt exist either.

Why do the right cling to these lies ? Its shitting on the memory of those who fell.

You have nothing to support that claim whatsoever.

I've told no lies and will continue to tell no lies. Not a single part of your post even addresses mine.

6 million slaughtered is all the proof needed.

Thank Hitler for being a leftist, then. If he were a rightist, he wouldn't have murdered people for being different from himself.

He wasn't a leftist, that is you rightwightwingers redefining history with your talking points.

Leftist ideologies move towards class equality, state ownership or people's ownership of means of production and an abolition of private property.

Hitler controlled production direction of those industries critical to the war effort but ownership remained with the industrialists whom he courted and who supported his regime and they retained profits as well. All other manufacturing as well as agriculture remained in private hands.

Hitler espoused some leftist rhetoric early on, but much of that remain ed rhetoric after he killed off the socialists and became powerful.

Both extremes of left and right trend towards authoritarianism despite the right's attempt to redefine left and right on recent times.

Hitler was also anti-union, pro-capitalist. Promised workers rights never materialized and trade unions were busted and made illegal. That is in line with rightwing policies.

What is also defining is once he took control of the party, he hunted down the leading socialists and all movement towards socialistic change ended.

No healthcare for all, no social equality, no workers rights. No wealth distribution. All of those define leftist movements. It was empty populist rhetoric. You have to look at what he did, not said. He was a populist who promised what a desperate Germany wanted to hear.

The only argument rightwing revisionists can marshal up is he took control of some portions of production and the rhetoric he employed before he came into power.

Compare that to what is associated with extreme rightwing ideologies.

Did I address your points? Or is there more?

No, it's us rightwingers pointing out facts to the left.

Not necessarily class equality, but beyond that, Hitler did all of those things.

The government controlled roughly 500 industries through Germany, including:

• Land and forests
• Brick factories
• Stone quarries
• Fine porcelain and pottery factories
• Building materials factories
• Cement factory
• Mineral water extraction and bottling
• Meat processing
• Bakeries
• Small arms manufacturing and repair
• Wooden furniture design and production
• Military clothing and accessories
• Herbal medicine
• Fish processing
• Publishing of books and magazines on Germanic culture and history
• Art acquisition and restoration
• Production of Damascus blades

Sounds pretty Socialist to me. You leftists can only argue that while he controlled the means of production, he let some people think that they still owned their businesses.

Killed off the Socialists? I think you mean "Killed off all that opposed him". He eliminated all other parties, not any specific ones.

And exactly what pro-capitalist moves did he make? Last I checked, taking control of private industry is hardly pro-capitalism. The only thing he did was import car parts to prevent Socialism from completely destroying his economy, yet he still controlled the means of production that built and sold the vehicles. If it's the government doing it, it's not Capitalist, it's statist.

Actually, National Socialist Germany did have Universal Healthcare. The workers were all owned by the government, and because of that, were ALL part of a Union, a big statist Union. The government even ran holidays for their state-owned workers.

I actually haven't pointed to his rhetoric one single time, I've been pointing to his policies through this entire discussion.

I feel like you don't check the quotations before replying, as that was ALSO a reply to Tommy. If you don't feel like checking the quotations for who I'm replying to, you can tell a reply to you from the fact that I treat you like a person.

 

[Boss]

So the only difference between Hitler and Stalin was that Hitler did not own industry in name and Stalin did? Make no mistake, both tyrants dictated what industry did in order to achieve their goals, the only difference was, Hitler realized he was not a CEO and had no business trying to run industry.

Volkswagen.

 

[Coyote]

Supremacy is a right wing trait not a party trait. Whatever they call themselves, if they believe in that shit they are fascists.

My Taid fought the Nazis in the second world war. He quite liked the Germans he met and thought that they had been duped. He despised Nazis and this was reinforced after he liberated one of their camps. You know,one of those camps that didnt exist and full of those people who didnt exist either.

Why do the right cling to these lies ? Its shitting on the memory of those who fell.

You have nothing to support that claim whatsoever.

I've told no lies and will continue to tell no lies. Not a single part of your post even addresses mine.

6 million slaughtered is all the proof needed.

Thank Hitler for being a leftist, then. If he were a rightist, he wouldn't have murdered people for being different from himself.

He wasn't a leftist, that is you rightwightwingers redefining history with your talking points.

Leftist ideologies move towards class equality, state ownership or people's ownership of means of production and an abolition of private property.

Hitler controlled production direction of those industries critical to the war effort but ownership remained with the industrialists whom he courted and who supported his regime and they retained profits as well. All other manufacturing as well as agriculture remained in private hands.

Hitler espoused some leftist rhetoric early on, but much of that remain ed rhetoric after he killed off the socialists and became powerful.

Both extremes of left and right trend towards authoritarianism despite the right's attempt to redefine left and right on recent times.

Hitler was also anti-union, pro-capitalist. Promised workers rights never materialized and trade unions were busted and made illegal. That is in line with rightwing policies.

What is also defining is once he took control of the party, he hunted down the leading socialists and all movement towards socialistic change ended.

No healthcare for all, no social equality, no workers rights. No wealth distribution. All of those define leftist movements. It was empty populist rhetoric. You have to look at what he did, not said. He was a populist who promised what a desperate Germany wanted to hear.

The only argument rightwing revisionists can marshal up is he took control of some portions of production and the rhetoric he employed before he came into power.

Compare that to what is associated with extreme rightwing ideologies.

Did I address your points? Or is there more?

No, it's us rightwingers pointing out facts to the left.

Actually, you rightwingers are avoiding inconvenient facts.

Not necessarily class equality, but beyond that, Hitler did all of those things.

The government controlled roughly 500 industries through Germany, including:

• Land and forests
• Brick factories
• Stone quarries
• Fine porcelain and pottery factories
• Building materials factories
• Cement factory
• Mineral water extraction and bottling
• Meat processing
• Bakeries
• Small arms manufacturing and repair
• Wooden furniture design and production
• Military clothing and accessories
• Herbal medicine
• Fish processing
• Publishing of books and magazines on Germanic culture and history
• Art acquisition and restoration
• Production of Damascus blades

Sounds pretty Socialist to me. You leftists can only argue that while he controlled the means of production, he let some people think that they still owned their businesses.

Since I have more time and am not having to do this on a stupid phone, I will try to answer more thoroughly and substantively.

Some of the facts you ignore:

When Hitler became Chencellor of Germany, in 1933, Germany's economy was in dire straights. Add to that, the Great Depression had spurred state ownership in capitalist European countries. One of Hitler's first actions was to introduce policies to improve the economic situation in Germany. One of those policies was privatization of state-owned industries. Included in the privatization were many public services previously provided by the government. The rationale behind it though, was more then just economic, it also became a political tool to gain support for the Nazi party among key German industrialists and oligarchs.

Killed off the Socialists? I think you mean "Killed off all that opposed him". He eliminated all other parties, not any specific ones.

He specifically targeted the socialists and ended any talk of further socialization of the party agenda and in fact, removed it from the platform. He then targeted socialism as the enemy, as an ideology.

And exactly what pro-capitalist moves did he make? Last I checked, taking control of private industry is hardly pro-capitalism. The only thing he did was import car parts to prevent Socialism from completely destroying his economy, yet he still controlled the means of production that built and sold the vehicles. If it's the government doing it, it's not Capitalist, it's statist.

As I pointed out - he privatized state owned industries as well - hardly leftwing.

In reality - Hitler frequently contradicted himself and his economic philosophy was a cobbled together patchwork of ideas that were not well organized. It's somewhat misplaced focus on the Nazi economy as an identifying characteristic because the Nazi's were less about economics then they were about other things such as nationalism and the idea of a Greater Germany, and an extreme form of racial nationalism.

Actually, National Socialist Germany did have Universal Healthcare. The workers were all owned by the government, and because of that, were ALL part of a Union, a big statist Union. The government even ran holidays for their state-owned workers.

That is not a union. Hitler abolished the unions. That is fascism - workers are owned by the state and are an organ of the state.

In terms of healthcare - national healthcare preceded Hitler. It began in the 1880's under Bismark, with idea that allowing a "little" socialism, it would prevent "a lot of" socialism. It expanded greatly under Weimer Republic. The Weimer Republic, after the horrific injuries from WW1, instituted a government policy of health care for ALL it's citizens. The Nazi's however took it much further. They instituted a "genetic health court", forced sterilizations and much worse.

I actually haven't pointed to his rhetoric one single time, I've been pointing to his policies through this entire discussion.

When I responded, I was short on time and space, and was responding to others who did point to rhetoric. Sorry for the confusion.

I feel like you don't check the quotations before replying, as that was ALSO a reply to Tommy. If you don't feel like checking the quotations for who I'm replying to, you can tell a reply to you from the fact that I treat you like a person.

Thank you.

 

[Coyote]

Just to add...genocide is not unique to any one ideology. For every Hitler there was a Stalin. It's really not even accurate to define people like that in a simple left right binary. They resemble each other more than mainstream left and right.

For every authoritarian leftist, there's an authoritarian leftist, got it!

Or...for every authoritarian rightist, there's an authoritarian rightist.

Are you totally stuck on binary left-right ideology? Or, is it possible that ideologies can be neither or both - or in their own category? Or authoritarianism as a category since it seems that is what each extreme leads to.

What defines left and right?

Rightwing ideologies are usually defined by:

Nationalism
Nativism
Traditional - supporting traditional values and culture
Pro-religion as a cultural force
Pro-authority (law and order) - police, military etc.
Equality as defined by everyone starts with a level playing field with the same opportunities before them
Supports traditional heirarchy and social classes.
Anti-immigrant
Greater role for the individual in protecting rights and general welfare
Pro-private property rights
Corporate/Business rights over workers rights - pro business
Exclusive
Extremes would be authoritarian fascism.


Leftwing Ideologies are usually defined by:
Pro-cultural diversity
Anti-traditional religion
Anti-authority
Anti-traditional values
Workers rights over Corporate/Business rights - pro worker
Opposes traditional social classes and gender roles
Equality as defined by not where you start from but where you end up at.
Pro-immigrant.
Emphasis on greater role for the state in protecting rights and general welfare
Anti-private property rights.
Inclusive
Extremes would be authoritarian communism.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Actually, you rightwingers are avoiding inconvenient facts.

I didn't avoid anything, I addressed all of your attempted points with counterpoints.

Since I have more time and am not having to do this on a stupid phone, I will try to answer more thoroughly and substantively.

Some of the facts you ignore:

When Hitler became Chencellor of Germany, in 1933, Germany's economy was in dire straights. Add to that, the Great Depression had spurred state ownership in capitalist European countries. One of Hitler's first actions was to introduce policies to improve the economic situation in Germany. One of those policies was privatization of state-owned industries. Included in the privatization were many public services previously provided by the government. The rationale behind it though, was more then just economic, it also became a political tool to gain support for the Nazi party among key German industrialists and oligarchs.

That doesn't change that as Dictator, he Socialized all of the aforementioned businesses, and still controlled any privatized businesses through the government.

He specifically targeted the socialists and ended any talk of further socialization of the party agenda and in fact, removed it from the platform. He then targeted socialism as the enemy, as an ideology.

He eliminated all of the other parties, as he stated in one of his speeches, "Perhaps some of you are unable to forgive me because I eradicated the Marxistic Party, but friends I also eradicated the rest!". I'd also like to point out that he never called Socialism the enemy, he called Communism the enemy, and that was because Communism erodes the state in order to form a classless society. He never called Socialism the enemy, because he and his followers were Socialist, hence his taking over the means of production, Social ownership.

As I pointed out - he privatized state owned industries as well - hardly leftwing.

In reality - Hitler frequently contradicted himself and his economic philosophy was a cobbled together patchwork of ideas that were not well organized. It's somewhat misplaced focus on the Nazi economy as an identifying characteristic because the Nazi's were less about economics then they were about other things such as nationalism and the idea of a Greater Germany, and an extreme form of racial nationalism.

The 500 industries he used the government to take over says he's left wing, AFTER a few things were privatized, when he held another position.

That is not a union. Hitler abolished the unions. That is fascism - workers are owned by the state and are an organ of the state.

In terms of healthcare - national healthcare preceded Hitler. It began in the 1880's under Bismark, with idea that allowing a "little" socialism, it would prevent "a lot of" socialism. It expanded greatly under Weimer Republic. The Weimer Republic, after the horrific injuries from WW1, instituted a government policy of health care for ALL it's citizens. The Nazi's however took it much further. They instituted a "genetic health court", forced sterilizations and much worse.

It's a compulsory union.

See? The Nazis took it further. Even more Socialist than it already was.

Hitler used the government to employ every citizen. He also used the government to take care of children, like government day care. Bismark only insured the poor, Hitler made it 'free' for everyone, fully Socializing it. The government disarmed the entire populace, yet another leftist policy.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Just to add...genocide is not unique to any one ideology. For every Hitler there was a Stalin. It's really not even accurate to define people like that in a simple left right binary. They resemble each other more than mainstream left and right.

For every authoritarian leftist, there's an authoritarian leftist, got it!

Or...for every authoritarian rightist, there's an authoritarian rightist.

Are you totally stuck on binary left-right ideology? Or, is it possible that ideologies can be neither or both - or in their own category? Or authoritarianism as a category since it seems that is what each extreme leads to.

What defines left and right?

Rightwing ideologies are usually defined by:

Nationalism
Nativism
Traditional - supporting traditional values and culture
Pro-religion as a cultural force
Pro-authority (law and order) - police, military etc.
Equality as defined by everyone starts with a level playing field with the same opportunities before them
Supports traditional heirarchy and social classes.
Anti-immigrant
Greater role for the individual in protecting rights and general welfare
Pro-private property rights
Corporate/Business rights over workers rights - pro business
Exclusive
Extremes would be authoritarian fascism.


Leftwing Ideologies are usually defined by:
Pro-cultural diversity
Anti-traditional religion
Anti-authority
Anti-traditional values
Workers rights over Corporate/Business rights - pro worker
Opposes traditional social classes and gender roles
Equality as defined by not where you start from but where you end up at.
Pro-immigrant.
Emphasis on greater role for the state in protecting rights and general welfare
Anti-private property rights.
Inclusive
Extremes would be authoritarian communism.

Only leftist ideology leads to authoritarianism, and every example of a big government has risen from leftist ideology. Socialism is entirely left wing, and it outright REQUIRES big government.

Nationalism is not right wing, you're simply saying that because you're a leftist. You can't even follow that up with anything that supports it, either.

How is leftism even remotely anti-authority? Pretty sure authority is required to eliminate our rights, you know, like our second amendment rights that the left is so giddy to trample all over.

Affirmative action came from the left, and that's hardly equality.

HA "emphasis on greater role of the state". With a greater role for the state comes a reduction in freedom, maximized safety and minimized freedom defines leftism, which points to eventually becoming authoritarianism.

 

[impuretrash]

America is already mostly a socialist nation and to be perfectly honest, it's not so bad. I'm no expert on the subject but isn't capitalism more about economics than government? Anyway if america stops sending tax dollars to prop up foreign nations and instead focuses on helping it's own people, wouldn't that equal national socialism?

 

[Coyote]

Just to add...genocide is not unique to any one ideology. For every Hitler there was a Stalin. It's really not even accurate to define people like that in a simple left right binary. They resemble each other more than mainstream left and right.

For every authoritarian leftist, there's an authoritarian leftist, got it!

Or...for every authoritarian rightist, there's an authoritarian rightist.

Are you totally stuck on binary left-right ideology? Or, is it possible that ideologies can be neither or both - or in their own category? Or authoritarianism as a category since it seems that is what each extreme leads to.

What defines left and right?

Rightwing ideologies are usually defined by:

Nationalism
Nativism
Traditional - supporting traditional values and culture
Pro-religion as a cultural force
Pro-authority (law and order) - police, military etc.
Equality as defined by everyone starts with a level playing field with the same opportunities before them
Supports traditional heirarchy and social classes.
Anti-immigrant
Greater role for the individual in protecting rights and general welfare
Pro-private property rights
Corporate/Business rights over workers rights - pro business
Exclusive
Extremes would be authoritarian fascism.


Leftwing Ideologies are usually defined by:
Pro-cultural diversity
Anti-traditional religion
Anti-authority
Anti-traditional values
Workers rights over Corporate/Business rights - pro worker
Opposes traditional social classes and gender roles
Equality as defined by not where you start from but where you end up at.
Pro-immigrant.
Emphasis on greater role for the state in protecting rights and general welfare
Anti-private property rights.
Inclusive
Extremes would be authoritarian communism.

Only leftist ideology leads to authoritarianism, and every example of a big government has risen from leftist ideology. Socialism is entirely left wing, and it outright REQUIRES big government.

Authoritarianism occurs in both the left and the right and is not dependent on "big government".

Examples of authoritarian rightwing governments include governments ruled by military juntas in South America, the fascist government in Italy in the 1940's, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines, most monarchies, etc.

Nationalism is not right wing, you're simply saying that because you're a leftist. You can't even follow that up with anything that supports it, either.

It has nothing to do with my being a "leftist" - that is all you can come up with to counter it?

Nationalism
In France, nationalism was originally a left-wing and Republican ideology.[58] After the period of boulangisme and the Dreyfus Affair, nationalism became a trait of the right-wing.[59] Right-wing nationalists sought to define and defend a "true" national identity from elements deemed to be corrupting that identity.[18] Some were supremacists who, in accordance with Social Darwinism, applied the concept of "survival of the fittest" to nations and races.[60] Right-wing nationalism was influenced by romantic nationalism, in which the state derives its political legitimacy from the organic unity of those it governs. This generally includes, the language, race, culture, religion and customs of the nation, all of which were "born" within its culture. Linked with right-wing nationalism is cultural conservatism, which supports the preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture, and often sees deviations from cultural norms as an existential threat.[61]

How is leftism even remotely anti-authority? Pretty sure authority is required to eliminate our rights, you know, like our second amendment rights that the left is so giddy to trample all over.

Anti-police, anti-military....

Affirmative action came from the left, and that's hardly equality.

And yet that is all you can come up with isnt it? Two things about Affirmative Action - essentially, it states that if two candidates were equally qualified, then OTHER factors (race, gender, ethnicity, religion) should be considered in the decision. All in all - it's a pretty minor issue and it seques with what I said - the left see's equality in terms of OUTCOME, while the right see's it in terms of the STARTLINE. Pro's and cons both ways.

HA "emphasis on greater role of the state". With a greater role for the state comes a reduction in freedom, maximized safety and minimized freedom defines leftism, which points to eventually becoming authoritarianism.

I think that is debatable. With a lesser role of the state comes a greater role for the individual and the majority in overruling the rights of minorities. So increased freedom for some, decreased freedom for others.

Authoritarianism isn't dependent on a powerful state. A powerful individual can become authoritarian.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Authoritarianism occurs in both the left and the right and is not dependent on "big government".

Examples of authoritarian rightwing governments include governments ruled by military juntas in South America, the fascist government in Italy in the 1940's, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines, most monarchies, etc.

None of the above is right wing, as leftist policy is what expands government to that level in the first place.

It has nothing to do with my being a "leftist" - that is all you can come up with to counter it?

Nationalism
In France, nationalism was originally a left-wing and Republican ideology.[58] After the period of boulangisme and the Dreyfus Affair, nationalism became a trait of the right-wing.[59] Right-wing nationalists sought to define and defend a "true" national identity from elements deemed to be corrupting that identity.[18] Some were supremacists who, in accordance with Social Darwinism, applied the concept of "survival of the fittest" to nations and races.[60] Right-wing nationalism was influenced by romantic nationalism, in which the state derives its political legitimacy from the organic unity of those it governs. This generally includes, the language, race, culture, religion and customs of the nation, all of which were "born" within its culture. Linked with right-wing nationalism is cultural conservatism, which supports the preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture, and often sees deviations from cultural norms as an existential threat.[61]

Counter what? That you believe your political opponents are the only place racism resides? It's up the the person making the assertion to back it up with sound evidence. Sure, you quoted wikipedia, but the only thing the section you quoted says is that it's 'totally, TOTALLY right wing, and started at THIS POINT'. I'm sure you'd love for me to act like a leftist and not question it, but how and why? What supposedly caused this thing that 'totally, totally' happened? Oh, I know, the leftist media said it was fact, and it suddenly became so.

Anti-police, anti-military....

Anti-Military, sure, I have noticed the left tends to hate Veterans, but only anti-police recently as they started dumping as much of their voter base as possible. They may hate police, but they love the idea of police states, regardless~

And yet that is all you can come up with isnt it? Two things about Affirmative Action - essentially, it states that if two candidates were equally qualified, then OTHER factors (race, gender, ethnicity, religion) should be considered in the decision. All in all - it's a pretty minor issue and it seques with what I said - the left see's equality in terms of OUTCOME, while the right see's it in terms of the STARTLINE. Pro's and cons both ways.

Except not in the way it was applied in America, by leftists. Instead, people were forced to hire 'colored' people, and forcing businesses to hire who the government wants is hardly free or equal. Another case of the left deciding the nanny-state knows best.

I think that is debatable. With a lesser role of the state comes a greater role for the individual and the majority in overruling the rights of minorities. So increased freedom for some, decreased freedom for others.

Authoritarianism isn't dependent on a powerful state. A powerful individual can become authoritarian.

Even if that were true, you just admitted that it decreases freedom for "some". Though the government can't get involved in anything without first stomping on the rights of the people.

 

[Boss]

Pumpkin Row is just tearing you guys new assholes!

It's amazing to watch a bunch of old commie farts get completely dismantled by a young girl!
No offense, Pumpkin Row ... you rock!

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The German Labour Front, and Council of Trust prove that Nazis were Socialists.

 

[Boss]

The entire meme of Fascists and Nazis being "right wing" was instituted following WWII and the Holocaust.

 

[Coyote]

Authoritarianism occurs in both the left and the right and is not dependent on "big government".

Examples of authoritarian rightwing governments include governments ruled by military juntas in South America, the fascist government in Italy in the 1940's, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines, most monarchies, etc.

None of the above is right wing, as leftist policy is what expands government to that level in the first place.

All of the above is rightwing policy. You seem to be under the delusion that rightwing governments can't possibly be totalitarian. Yet we have example after example where they are. Frankly - the BEST example is a monarchy. Totally rightwing, certainly not leftist.

Rightwing is not JUST "less government" - it's about "more government" in the "right places". Libertarianism is the only ideology that is truly "less government" - meaning, keep the government out of drug use, out of the BEDROOM, out of marriage, etc. That's not "rightwing".

It has nothing to do with my being a "leftist" - that is all you can come up with to counter it?

Nationalism
In France, nationalism was originally a left-wing and Republican ideology.[58] After the period of boulangisme and the Dreyfus Affair, nationalism became a trait of the right-wing.[59] Right-wing nationalists sought to define and defend a "true" national identity from elements deemed to be corrupting that identity.[18] Some were supremacists who, in accordance with Social Darwinism, applied the concept of "survival of the fittest" to nations and races.[60] Right-wing nationalism was influenced by romantic nationalism, in which the state derives its political legitimacy from the organic unity of those it governs. This generally includes, the language, race, culture, religion and customs of the nation, all of which were "born" within its culture. Linked with right-wing nationalism is cultural conservatism, which supports the preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture, and often sees deviations from cultural norms as an existential threat.[61]

Counter what? That you believe your political opponents are the only place racism resides? It's up the the person making the assertion to back it up with sound evidence. Sure, you quoted wikipedia, but the only thing the section you quoted says is that it's 'totally, TOTALLY right wing, and started at THIS POINT'. I'm sure you'd love for me to act like a leftist and not question it, but how and why? What supposedly caused this thing that 'totally, totally' happened? Oh, I know, the leftist media said it was fact, and it suddenly became so.

AGAIN. I'm going to call you on that. First, you claimed your racism rant was directed towards Tommy, but now, you are seem to think that is what I believe. I've not brought racism up AT ALL. You have.

Racism is INDEPENDENT of political ideologies. ANYONE can be racist. Xenophobia is not the SAME as racism.

So are we going to have a discussion on what is actually said or are you going to make stuff up?

Anti-police, anti-military....

Anti-Military, sure, I have noticed the left tends to hate Veterans, but only anti-police recently as they started dumping as much of their voter base as possible. They may hate police, but they love the idea of police states, regardless~

Actually, I don't think the left "hates veterans" per se. I think what we HATE is the way some are so pro-military, pro-starting wars, and pro-supporting our troops UNTIL they come home - damaged, injured, and psychologically fragile. Where are all the funds then? All the funds to support our troops in combat DRY UP when they come home and really need help.

Police states are as much a rightwing thing as a leftwing thing - it goes along with authoritarianism.

And yet that is all you can come up with isnt it? Two things about Affirmative Action - essentially, it states that if two candidates were equally qualified, then OTHER factors (race, gender, ethnicity, religion) should be considered in the decision. All in all - it's a pretty minor issue and it seques with what I said - the left see's equality in terms of OUTCOME, while the right see's it in terms of the STARTLINE. Pro's and cons both ways.

Except not in the way it was applied in America, by leftists. Instead, people were forced to hire 'colored' people, and forcing businesses to hire who the government wants is hardly free or equal. Another case of the left deciding the nanny-state knows best.

You can argue AA in many ways - it was needed to open doors that were firmly shut. IMO, it is no longer needed. But it was at one time.

The other thing is - and correct me if I'm wrong - but affirmative action only applied to institutions receiving federal dollars didn't it? If so they can opt out.

I think that is debatable. With a lesser role of the state comes a greater role for the individual and the majority in overruling the rights of minorities. So increased freedom for some, decreased freedom for others.

Authoritarianism isn't dependent on a powerful state. A powerful individual can become authoritarian.

Even if that were true, you just admitted that it decreases freedom for "some". Though the government can't get involved in anything without first stomping on the rights of the people.

It is true and yes, it does decrease the freedom for some while elevating it for others. The end result is - a more equitable distribution as opposed to some having a great deal and others very little. I think that is probably the major difference between left and right and goes along with how they view equality - we're all equal at the start line or we are all equal at the finish line. Good and bad in both.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

All of the above is rightwing policy. You seem to be under the delusion that rightwing governments can't possibly be totalitarian. Yet we have example after example where they are. Frankly - the BEST example is a monarchy. Totally rightwing, certainly not leftist.

Rightwing is not JUST "less government" - it's about "more government" in the "right places". Libertarianism is the only ideology that is truly "less government" - meaning, keep the government out of drug use, out of the BEDROOM, out of marriage, etc. That's not "rightwing".

If that were true, I suppose that would make leftism more government in every place.

Though, if it's only more government in the right places, according to you specifically, then how would it be totalitarian?

AGAIN. I'm going to call you on that. First, you claimed your racism rant was directed towards Tommy, but now, you are seem to think that is what I believe. I've not brought racism up AT ALL. You have.

Racism is INDEPENDENT of political ideologies. ANYONE can be racist. Xenophobia is not the SAME as racism.

So are we going to have a discussion on what is actually said or are you going to make stuff up?

It was directed at Tommy, the fact that I'd say basically the same thing, but without being rude about it, doesn't mean I wasn't addressing Tommy. If you go look at the quote, the post I was specifically replying to WAS Tommy.

It's practically the same thing, it's an irrational fear of people from different countries. Though, whether you're claiming racism or xenophobia, you're still making a silyl accusation against your political opponents that can't be backed up.

One of us is making things up, it just isn't me.

Actually, I don't think the left "hates veterans" per se. I think what we HATE is the way some are so pro-military, pro-starting wars, and pro-supporting our troops UNTIL they come home - damaged, injured, and psychologically fragile. Where are all the funds then? All the funds to support our troops in combat DRY UP when they come home and really need help.

Police states are as much a rightwing thing as a leftwing thing - it goes along with authoritarianism.

Wanting veteran care to be privatized doesn't mean we don't want them taken care of, it means that the abysmal care the government gives them isn't enough. Government is incapable, as in it's literally impossible for them to, do anything better than the private sector.

It goes along with authoritarianism, which stems from the left<3

You can argue AA in many ways - it was needed to open doors that were firmly shut. IMO, it is no longer needed. But it was at one time.

The other thing is - and correct me if I'm wrong - but affirmative action only applied to institutions receiving federal dollars didn't it? If so they can opt out.

It was never needed. A business hires the most qualified people for the job until the government interferes.

No rational person turns down money, not that the government should be giving tax dollars to businesses in the first place.

It is true and yes, it does decrease the freedom for some while elevating it for others. The end result is - a more equitable distribution as opposed to some having a great deal and others very little. I think that is probably the major difference between left and right and goes along with how they view equality - we're all equal at the start line or we are all equal at the finish line. Good and bad in both.

How is it equal if the government is stealing rights from some and giving more to others? That sounds like the very definition of 'unfair'. In fact, it sounds like punishing success and rewarding failure, a failure of an ideology. An ideology in which people are taken care of by the nanny-state, protected by a police state, and the government has decided that human-kind is too stupid to make their own decisions, and should be allowed to steal from others, in order to make up for their own failures.