Frivolous litigants crucified by court-Rachel Maddow melts down

[2aguy]

I love the revisionist propaganda that University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt (nope, not a historian) loosely applied to what happened under the Nazis in respect to firearm ownership. This is the "study" idiots like Jo(ke) regurgitate, the so called study that claims German gun laws were massively "relaxed" for all German "citizens", if one actually looks at the law this is not really so easy a generalization. The devil is in the details..........
It allowed most German citizens, who were not Jews or other persecuted classes (millions of those) to own a rifle or a shotgun only once their application for a permit was approved, all it took was the approving official to deny an application was dislike of the applicant and/or hearsay accusations of the applicant not being a "trustworthy" citizen.

which was still better than what they had under the Weimar Regime, which tried to confiscate all the guns. And better than what they had under the Allied Occupation, where all the guns were indeed confiscated

Fact is, Nazi Germany was a right wing paradise. Lots of guns, lots of religious assholes....

nazis were left wing socialists. moron.

No they weren't, that's a modern interpretation used exclusively by the far right as an attack (propaganda) position against the far left. Like associating the Democrats of the 1800s through mid 1900s with the Democrats of today, it's not based in modern reality.

Sorry to disagree with you but they were left wing socialists.....everything they believed confirms that.....

Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.

Exactly in the context of the times.....their socialism differed only in its overt racism and the national characteristic.....

 

[Ringel05]

which was still better than what they had under the Weimar Regime, which tried to confiscate all the guns. And better than what they had under the Allied Occupation, where all the guns were indeed confiscated

Fact is, Nazi Germany was a right wing paradise. Lots of guns, lots of religious assholes....

nazis were left wing socialists. moron.

No they weren't, that's a modern interpretation used exclusively by the far right as an attack (propaganda) position against the far left. Like associating the Democrats of the 1800s through mid 1900s with the Democrats of today, it's not based in modern reality.

Sorry to disagree with you but they were left wing socialists.....everything they believed confirms that.....

Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.

Exactly in the context of the times.....their socialism differed only in its overt racism and the national characteristic.....

Which made them the "right-wingers" of their era. Every reputable historian and social scientist will confirm that. Doesn't mean it equates to all but a small minority of extreme "right-wingers" in this country today. To make a point concerning cultural/political differences within specific historical eras, without looking it up was TR (Teddy Roosevelt) a Republican or a Democrat? He is considered one of the founders of Social Liberalism in this country.......

 

[2aguy]

nazis were left wing socialists. moron.

No they weren't, that's a modern interpretation used exclusively by the far right as an attack (propaganda) position against the far left. Like associating the Democrats of the 1800s through mid 1900s with the Democrats of today, it's not based in modern reality.

Sorry to disagree with you but they were left wing socialists.....everything they believed confirms that.....

Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.

Exactly in the context of the times.....their socialism differed only in its overt racism and the national characteristic.....

Which made them the "right-wingers" of their era. Every reputable historian and social scientist will confirm that. Doesn't mean it equates to all but a small minority of extreme "right-wingers" in this country today. To make a point concerning cultural/political differences within specific historical eras, without looking it up was TR (Teddy Roosevelt) a Republican or a Democrat? He is considered one of the founders of Social Liberalism in this country.......

He was a socialit/progressive......believed in central government...even eugenics.....

and those "reputable" historians and social scientists are wrong, many of whom are leftists trying to distance the national socialism from the international socialism....and you can see why....everyone hates nazis.....their crimes were made public...the communists are still loved in europe and even here in the U.S.....Paul McCartney's daughter used people dressed as castro and che in her fashion show.....and people didn't say crap about it....imagine if she had them dressed as hitler and in ss uniforms.....that is why they try to separate nazism from the socialism of the internaitonal socialists......

 

[Ringel05]

No they weren't, that's a modern interpretation used exclusively by the far right as an attack (propaganda) position against the far left. Like associating the Democrats of the 1800s through mid 1900s with the Democrats of today, it's not based in modern reality.

Sorry to disagree with you but they were left wing socialists.....everything they believed confirms that.....

Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.

Exactly in the context of the times.....their socialism differed only in its overt racism and the national characteristic.....

Which made them the "right-wingers" of their era. Every reputable historian and social scientist will confirm that. Doesn't mean it equates to all but a small minority of extreme "right-wingers" in this country today. To make a point concerning cultural/political differences within specific historical eras, without looking it up was TR (Teddy Roosevelt) a Republican or a Democrat? He is considered one of the founders of Social Liberalism in this country.......

He was a socialit/progressive......believed in central government...even eugenics.....

and those "reputable" historians and social scientists are wrong, many of whom are leftists trying to distance the national socialism from the international socialism....and you can see why....everyone hates nazis.....their crimes were made public...the communists are still loved in europe and even here in the U.S.....Paul McCartney's daughter used people dressed as castro and che in her fashion show.....and people didn't say crap about it....imagine if she had them dressed as hitler and in ss uniforms.....that is why they try to separate nazism from the socialism of the internaitonal socialists......

No they're not wrong based on the historical context and yes the communists were much worse, the difference is they were on the "winning side" and were able to hide it or claim Capitalist propaganda for much of the rest of it. This obviously means many in this country and around the world have a skewed view of Communist Socialism.
Oh and TR was a Republican as were most social liberals of the time, the mostly complete ideological flip-flop didn't completely take effect until after the 1960s.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.

Uh, no, in the context of the times, it was pretty right wing. Racist, nationalist, pro-industry, pro-wealth, pro-militarism.

Your desire to hang Hilter aroudn the necks of your opponents is cute and all, but it doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[JoeB131]

He was a socialit/progressive......believed in central government...even eugenics.....

Eugenics is not a left wing idea. Sorry. Argument fail.

 

[Ringel05]

Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.

Uh, no, in the context of the times, it was pretty right wing. Racist, nationalist, pro-industry, pro-wealth, pro-militarism.

Your desire to hang Hilter aroudn the necks of your opponents is cute and all, but it doesn't pass the laugh test.

Where the hell did you get the idea I was trying to hang Hitler around the necks of my opponents when I spcifically said just the opposite???!!!!! You truly are pathetic.

 

[2aguy]

Here are some sources that I use because they can be posted.....

Franco's fascism...more socialism...

Articles Leftist Mythology of the Spanish Civil War

Foss and Gerahty during the war wrote of Franco: "He was in no sense a 'Fascist' leader. At the outside, when the present struggle broke out, there were not more than 8,000 Falangistas in Spain, and even that party was not 'Fascist'"
[ii] and they note that if Franco wins: "Spain...will be in essence a Socialist State."
Hamilton writes of Falangist icon Primo de Rivera: "[His] views on the Church, the landowners, the age-old problems of Spain, were decidedly Left-wing. Even making allowance for the fact that such radical views are a customary part of fascist tactics, the similarity of his views to those of extreme Leftists was remarkable. In the spring of 1936, for example, when he was contesting a by-election at Cuenca against a Socialist candidate, he professed complete agreement with the views of his opposition on all except one point - autonomy for Catalonia and the Basque provinces"[vi] and Hamilton observes that "Many extreme Leftists in fact had joined the Phalanx."[vii] Cardozo wrote in his 1937 book, The March of a Nation: "There are Falangists...little different from the Socialists they have been fighting"[viii] and quotes Franco: "I want Labour to be protected in every way against the abuses of Capitalism."
Why people are confused about fascism, socialism and communism to this day...

Articles Rethinking the Political Spectrum

The soviet story at the 2:30 mark goebbles talks about the similarity of communism and nazism


youtube video... The Soviet Story: Why murder is essential to communism




on mussolini...

Fascism is Merely Heretical Communism Like Liberalism Conservative Colloquium

More sources R.J. Rummel....and pipes...

Rudy (R.J.) Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science. He has published twenty-four nonfiction books (one that received an award for being among the most referenced; another was rated the 26th most important of the last century), six novels, and about 100 peer-reviewed professional articles; has received the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association in 1999 for having intellectually most challenged the field; and in 2003 was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association. He has been frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. His website is here.

Hitler Was A Socialist And Not A Right Wing Conservative DemocraticPeace Blog

Mussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialismwas state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.
To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews
His book, "Death by Government" is great. I think I donated my copy to the library so eventually I'll have to reaquire it for my kindle.

I just hope he has his basics on political science down.

Also, another great book, "Property and Freedom," By Richard Pipes.

From wikipedia on Mr. Pipes:

Richard Pipes - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Pipes taught at Harvard University from 1950 until his retirement in 1996. He was the director of Harvard's Russian Research Center from 1968 to 1973 and is now Baird Professor Emeritus of History at Harvard University. In 1962 he delivered a series of lectures on Russian intellectual history at Leningrad University. He acted as senior consultant at the Stanford Research Institute from 1973 to 1978. During the 1970s, he was an advisor to Washington Senator Henry M. Jackson. In 1981 and 1982 he served as a member of the National Security Council, holding the post of Director of East European and Soviet Affairs under President Ronald Reagan.[SUP][5][/SUP] Pipes was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger from 1977 until 1992 and belongs to the Council of Foreign Relations. In the 1970s, Pipes was a leading critic of détente, which he described as "inspired by intellectual indolence and based on ignorance of one's antagonist and therefore inherently inept".[SUP][6][/SUP]
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0999h.asp

Pipes concisely and impressively analyzes the differences and similarities in
20th-century Soviet communism, Italian fascism, and German national socialism.
All three systems shared a common hatred for classical liberalism and the
institution of private property. While the Soviets abolished private property
outright and imposed central planning, in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany most
property remained nominally in private hands but was completely controlled and
directed by government central command. His detailed summary of the Nazi
economic system clearly shows that (contrary to the Marxian claim) capitalism
was destroyed under national socialism.
R.J. Rummel

Hitler Was A Socialist And Not A Right Wing Conservative DemocraticPeace Blog

 

[2aguy]

Sorry but historically you're wrong, maybe in a modern day interpretation you're correct but not in the context of the times.

Uh, no, in the context of the times, it was pretty right wing. Racist, nationalist, pro-industry, pro-wealth, pro-militarism.

Your desire to hang Hilter aroudn the necks of your opponents is cute and all, but it doesn't pass the laugh test.

Joe....the marxist theories were just as racist...watch the video where the marxist view of those races too far behind the historical curve will be eliminated.......this is before the national socialists even existed.........hitler hated capitalism...and the marxists were just as militaristic...how else was their "class struggle" going to lead to an overthrow.....

remember....socialism...the government controlling the means of production was the last step before true communism....the national socialists just stopped at that point...they controlled the economy at all levels...thus...socialism and socialism is left wing not right wing......

In Europe, if you look at how they describe their "right wing" it is really just the extreme far left...their "right" wing isn't interested in free market capitalism is it?

 

[JoeB131]

Here are some sources that I use because they can be posted.....

Franco's fascism...more socialism...

Yawn... guy, sorry, you'd get laughed out of a political science class with that shit.

This guy hits it on the head.

Nazism and Fascism were Ideologies of the Right Ph.D. Octopus

Third, the Nazi regime did not completely take over all large businesses and industries, but rather colluded with them, most famously with chemical company I.G. Farben. This is a crucial mistake people make about fascism: businesses in fascist states like Hitler’s Germany are not necessarily government owned, and can to some degree function within a market-oriented capitalist framework subject to the laws of supply and demand. Fascism, in this totalitarian form, functioned occasionally with brute force, like on Kristalnacht, but often through more subtle means. Fascism more frequently used coercive force like that at play in Jeremy Bentham and Michel Foucault’s Panopticon, a prison that exerted social control through fear of being watched rather than naked displays of state power. This, along with Hitler’s popularity, rendered capitalist business compatible with Nazism, so long as those involved with it were Aryans who obeyed the regime.

Most important, we know Nazism was an ideology of the far right because of the very logic behind it. Unlike socialism, Nazism was a hierarchical, Socially Darwinistic vision that encouraged competition, and showed disdain for the masses, who Hitler called “mentally lazy.” Most crucially, it did not denigrate individualism, but in fact celebrated it. This is evident in Hitler’s major work, Mein Kampf.

 

[2aguy]

And from an actual economist....

Mises Daily Mises Institute


My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of thesubstantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

He goes on to show how the nazis took over complete direction of the economy as socialism does....

 

[WinterBorn]

When the point is made that gun bans disarm those who might need to defend themselves against tyranny, the fact that Hitler disarmed the Jews and allowed those who followed him to own more guns is actually helping them make their point.

No, it's really not. Anyone who thinks a few guns in the ghetto would be more than a speed bump for the Final Solution is deluding themselves.

Not really. Effective resistance and domestic terrorists have harried occupying forces and slowed superior forces in many situations.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe....the marxist theories were just as racist...watch the video where the marxist view of those races too far behind the historical curve will be eliminated.......this is before the national socialists even existed.........hitler hated capitalism...and the marxists were just as militaristic...how else was their "class struggle" going to lead to an overthrow.....

Guy, I'm not going to follow your bizarre pretzel logic of trying to apply 19th century thought to the modern world.

Hitler loved some capitalism. the Krupps and the other German industrialists did very well under Hitler. Until he lost the war, anyway.

 

[JoeB131]

Not really. Effective resistance and domestic terrorists have harried occupying forces and slowed superior forces in many situations.

Only the ones that aren't keen on killing everyone who opposes them.

So, yeah, i guess you can intimidate a HUMANE enemy into giving up when they don't have anything at stake.

 

[2aguy]

Not really. Effective resistance and domestic terrorists have harried occupying forces and slowed superior forces in many situations.

Only the ones that aren't keen on killing everyone who opposes them.

So, yeah, i guess you can intimidate a HUMANE enemy into giving up when they don't have anything at stake.

Were the Russians "Humane" to the Afghanis during their occupation.......and they held out long enough for the U.S. to get involved and without jets, or tanks, or advanced tech, drove out the Russians.........

 

[WinterBorn]

Not really. Effective resistance and domestic terrorists have harried occupying forces and slowed superior forces in many situations.

Only the ones that aren't keen on killing everyone who opposes them.

So, yeah, i guess you can intimidate a HUMANE enemy into giving up when they don't have anything at stake.

Absolute nonsense. You just make shit up as you go along, don't you?

 

[ChrisL]

Not really. Effective resistance and domestic terrorists have harried occupying forces and slowed superior forces in many situations.

Only the ones that aren't keen on killing everyone who opposes them.

So, yeah, i guess you can intimidate a HUMANE enemy into giving up when they don't have anything at stake.

Absolute nonsense. You just make shit up as you go along, don't you?

He is a waste of band width, plain and simple. He is either a troll or a super extremist nut bar. Anytime when presented with legitimate documentation, studies and proof, he simply denies it with an extremely DUMB comment. It's like a complete waste of time to even waste your typing fingers, seriously.

 

[JoeB131]

He is a waste of band width, plain and simple. He is either a troll or a super extremist nut bar. Anytime when presented with legitimate documentation, studies and proof, he simply denies it with an extremely DUMB comment. It's like a complete waste of time to even waste your typing fingers, seriously.

And yet you do.

Hey, anything coming from a Second Amendment website is kind of the opposite of "legitimate documentation".

 

[ChrisL]

He is a waste of band width, plain and simple. He is either a troll or a super extremist nut bar. Anytime when presented with legitimate documentation, studies and proof, he simply denies it with an extremely DUMB comment. It's like a complete waste of time to even waste your typing fingers, seriously.

And yet you do.

Hey, anything coming from a Second Amendment website is kind of the opposite of "legitimate documentation".

Legitimate documentation of what? I was speaking in general about you.

 

[JoeB131]

He is a waste of band width, plain and simple. He is either a troll or a super extremist nut bar. Anytime when presented with legitimate documentation, studies and proof, he simply denies it with an extremely DUMB comment. It's like a complete waste of time to even waste your typing fingers, seriously.

And yet you do.

Hey, anything coming from a Second Amendment website is kind of the opposite of "legitimate documentation".

Legitimate documentation of what? I was speaking in general about you.

Oh, you mean when I don't accept your gun nut lies?

Fact- 32,000 gun deaths, 78,000 gun injuries, and 400,000 gun crimes a year.

Your fetish is to expensive for the rest of us.