John B. Wells, National Socialism, etc. etc....

[CrabbyOld Bat]

Are all Jews Leftists?  Homosexuals?  I'm not sure what you meant.

Well, not "all" of any race or religious group leans one way or the other. But generally speaking, Jews tend to vote Democrat (at least here in the US) and lean to the left. The same is true of gays; most vote Democrat and lean to the left. The point being Hitler didn't lean to the left; most things he hated were left-leaning.

BTW, I could be considered a 'Progressive' I suppose, but I'm not calling you a racist or a Nazi. 

[Elflord]

I think that John B Wells is making C2C in to Alex Jones's show but at night.

[VtaGeezer]

Those buying into that noted historian Glenn Beck's "Hitler was a socialist (i.e. a liberal)" bunk need only investigate the German industries he nationalized when he came to power.  You'll find none.

Yes, Germany had national health care...since Bismarck.
And yes they had gun control...imposed by that evil Treaty of Versailles.


"Hitler the Socialist" is a chapter in the same book that has already has chapters titled "The 6,000 Year Old Earth", "Dinosaurs in Human History", and "Obama's Kenyan Birthplace".

[mombird3]

Maybe what is interesting here is Hitler did not plan that the German Army would run out of food and ammunition. And their blunder was going into the Soviet Union without proper clothing, Tanks that were not able to take the extreme cold and snow. And the troops themselves were starving as were the peasants.


A cousin of my husband was a concentration camp survivor who had to work on the rail road building it without warm clothes or protection.  He was liberated when the allies broke through.


The Germans ran out of money. They had no more gasoline for the trucks and tanks. When the money was gone the war machine ended.


And on the sharing part of the show the guest made. Nobody likes to share,trickle down never worked. It is all fantasy and crap.

[PB the Deplorable]

... "Hitler the Socialist" is a chapter in the same book that has already has chapters titled "The 6,000 Year Old Earth", "Dinosaurs in Human History", and "Obama's Kenyan Birthplace".

Who is saying Hitler was a Socialist?  Nice try though.  If I were on the side of the scale that included Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che, Pol Pot, and the rest of them, I'd cling to the Big Lie that Hitler was somehow a 'right-winger' too. 

Anti-Semitism isn't right or left wing - although it's starting to show up among US and European Leftists again now, which should give pause. 

He was a Big Government guy - by definition that's on the Left side of things.  He certainly was not an advocate of low taxes, limited government, personal liberty and responsibility that help identify 'right-wingers'.

Here is a link talking about Fascism in Economic terms.  The main thrust of it is '... Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners...' 

This is disturbingly similar to where the modern day Democrat Party and the Republican Party establishment would like to take us..

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

[PB the Deplorable]

... And on the sharing part of the show the guest made. Nobody likes to share,trickle down never worked. It is all fantasy and crap.

Well, plenty of people donate or volunteer. 

A truer comment would be no one likes to 'share' when it's the government deciding who, how much, where it goes, then ends up using the money to hire too many people, pay them too much, handing it out to very undeserving people that should be providing for themselves, stealing it for themselves and their donors, buying votes from favored votes, building massive bureaucracies that start telling us what to do, and wasting much of the rest.  Put me down for not wanting to share 'more'.

Trickle down, was what the critics described under Reagan when he said a lower tax rate would free up the economy to the point there would be more overall tax revenue, more jobs, more new businesses, and more income and wealth for everyone.  The benefits of his policies favoring producers trickled down to everyone.  And he was right.  It worked.  Spectacularly.  Regardless of what the opposition Democrats say.  Coming out of the disasterous Nixon and Carter eras, his economic polices kicked off 25 years of growth (1982-2007) with only 2 or 3 very shallow recessions. 

Look at the technology alone produced in that time - communications, everything computerized now, efficiency in production.  That would not have happened if investors had continued to be taxed at horrific rates - no one invests significantly if the gains are taxed away and the losses are on the investors.

I think it's worth noting Obama is doing exactly the opposite of what Reagan did on taxes, regulations, energy policy, etc, and 4 years later we are still stuck at about where we were when he took office.

[mombird3]

I worked for Unemployment Insurance in NY State. Under Reagan we had more unemployment. And we took three pay lags. Not getting paid for a month. And we had a fourth almost lag, but by then we were forced to  lay people off. And we had many unemployed and not enough workers to process the claims.


I worked for the hearings to disqualify the claim and get the money returned to the State. It was a horror. I am glad I am retired now.


Under Reagan we had homeless people released from mental hospitals and living in the subway. I did not find that  good.


And my husband's business went under because of the poor economy. Those were not good years.He got divorced because of that. And he could not find a job after working for 40 years. He was 59 when his business closed on advice from his accountant. Today his busenss (pillows and pillow ticking are made in China).


And when my husband went to look for work they did not want him, because of his age. He ended working retail selling Men's suits at minimum wage. And we were evicted because the rent and our social security pension was not enough. We moved south to lower cost of living. We have no health care. His medicare does not pay the entire expense. And I am waiting until age 65 in about a year for my medicare. And it has not been easy.


Let them do a show of what it is REALLY like to survive. We got here by the skin of out teeth. The government could care less. Obama care will not work.

[MV/Liberace!]

this thread is split from the original john b. wells thread.

[Yorkshire pud]

   
We're not taking it any more.

You tell em daddyo! You have them on the ropes, those nasty leftie, commie, liberal, left wing, socialist, Leninist, Marxist, Maoist bastards!

How can you possibly be taken seriously when you say Hitler was left wing? And then you imply he wasn't--oh and then he is again:

All your posts..P*B...

Of course Hitler and his totalian state was Leftist.  How would it not be.

Who is saying Hitler was a Socialist? Nice try though.

He was a Big Government guy - by definition that's on the Left side of things.

Big government guy? He was a despotic dictator who had people murdered because they weren't 'strong enough'. He had Gypsies murdered throughout Europe because they weren't Aryan. In fact anyone not considered pure or able to be made pure..That's your idea of Left wing is it?

[PB the Deplorable]

You tell em daddyo! You have them on the ropes, those nasty leftie, commie, liberal, left wing, socialist, Leninist, Marxist, Maoist bastards!

How can you possibly be taken seriously when you say Hitler was left wing? And then you imply he wasn't--oh and then he is again:

All your posts..P*B...

Another poster said Hitler wasn't a Socialist.  No one said he was.  I don't know what the other poster was trying to say when he said that - perhaps that it automatically made him right wing or something (which is the case you are also making?).  Whatever that comment was about, I just corrected it.  So sorry, not a contradiction.


Fascism isn't Socialism, but it's related (one controls the means of production through direct ownership, the other controls  the means of production  through heavy regulation and dictates).  Similar end result.  Hitler didn't like Socialism and Communism because he thought they competed with Fascism for the same groups of people.



I think I've already pointed out the ol'  'Hitler was Right Wing' was probably the biggest lie of the 20th Century,  As well as how that  happened, and the reasons he should be considered Left Wing.   Don't feel the need to do so again - if you are still confused, I refer you to those earlier posts. 

... Big government guy? He was a despotic dictator who had people murdered because they weren't 'strong enough'. He had Gypsies murdered throughout Europe because they weren't Aryan. In fact anyone not considered pure or able to be made pure..That's your idea of Left wing is it?

It sure it.  When a govt gets big enough and strong enough, and has complete control of it's peoplethose are the sorts of things that start to happen - the people in the way of 'Progress' and can easily be killed.  As far as State Murder, Hitler is right there with Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.  Or are you saying those guys were all right wingers too? 

[slipstream]

What would you call them then?

Like the Clintons, they are neo conservatives (globalists). 


I think Paper Boy points out something crucial.  Stalin and Hitler, rivals, were both huge supporters of big government.  True conservatives favor a minimum of government. 

[BobGrau]

I think I'll print out this thread for toilet paper. I'll be sure to use both sides.

[MV/Liberace!]

I think I'll print out this thread for toilet paper. I'll be sure to use both sides.

Haha

[slipstream]

I think I'll print out this thread for toilet paper. I'll be sure to use both sides.

And anytime you want to actually and to the discussion, please go ahead.

[BobGrau]

And anytime you want to actually and to the discussion, please go ahead.

Good idea! Let's see a quick show of hands: How many people, left or right, are in favour of living in a brutal totalitarian regime that forces its citizens to live in a particular way?

None? Great, then you're all on the same side. Happy New Year!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm trying to take a dump here...

[slipstream]

Good idea! Let's see a quick show of hands: How many people, left or right, are in favour of living in a brutal totalitarian regime that forces its citizens to live in a particular way?

None? Great, then you're all on the same side. Happy New Year!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm trying to take a dump here...

  If nobody wants to live in a brutal totalitarian  regime, why do 1 billion people (in the Chinese) put up with one?  Is it because they knew one day they would be able to buy the Iphone, same as most anyone else in the world? Or, is there some other reason people put up with brutal  totalitarian regimes?

[PB the Deplorable]

Good idea! Let's see a quick show of hands: How many people, left or right, are in favour of living in a brutal totalitarian regime that forces its citizens to live in a particular way?

None? Great, then you're all on the same side. Happy New Year!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm trying to take a dump here...

The point being, one popular system of beliefs takes us in the direction of less Freedom and Liberty and towards Totalarianism, and the other one tries to make sure we aren'y heading down that path.. 

Everything the Leftists say sounds good, step by step - it's the proberbial frog in the boiling pot of water all over again. 

[Sardondi]

Why is there this presumption on the left that fascism and socialism are not happy bedfellows? (Well, okay, that's a rhetorical question since it's painfully obvious why the left would like everyone to think fascists aren't really socialists...it's because Hitler and Nazism embarrasses the hell out of them.) Yes, he was a socialist and Nazism was indeed a variety of socialism, just not Marx's brand. No, it's not because "socialist" was in the name, but rather because of the individual's relationship to the state, and the power of the state in the ordinary person's life. The painful truth of it is that the Communism we have seen practiced since 1917 and the fascism of Nazi Germany are virtually indistinguishable.

Let the games begin. 

[BobGrau]

  If nobody wants to live in a brutal totalitarian  regime, why do 1 billion people (in the Chinese) put up with one?  Is it because they knew one day they would be able to buy the Iphone, same as most anyone else in the world? Or, is there some other reason people put up with brutal  totalitarian regimes?

Er, perhaps it's... BECAUSE they live in a brutal totalitarian regime? ie they have no choice?

"oh, well why don't they have a revolution? We here in america had one, threw off the shackles and stood proud etc"
-except you freed yourselves from a government half a world away which couldn't afford to keep you or fight you. Things are very different for the chinese, north koreans and so on.

[slipstream]

Er, perhaps it's... BECAUSE they live in a brutal totalitarian regime? ie they have no choice?

"oh, well why don't they have a revolution? We here in america had one, threw off the shackles and stood proud etc"
-except you freed yourselves from a government half a world away which couldn't afford to keep you or fight you. Things are very different for the chinese, north koreans and so on.

You skipped your lesson on the Chinese revolution of 1911?
   Oh, thats right the communists, after they won the civil war in 1949, took all the guns away.   

[BobGrau]

You skipped your lesson on the Chinese revolution of 1911?
   Oh, thats right the communists, after they won the civil war in 1949, took all the guns away.

Fair enough.

[Juan]

As someone with Cuban ancestors, I look at the island's revolution in 1958.  That was one of Cuba's most prosperous years - it was not a third world country, but ranked economically ahead of a number of European countries (still recovering from WWII) and ranked third or forth economically in the Americas.

But still, their government was a dictatorship and the people revolted.  castro got himself ahead of the revolution, won, and Cuba's economy has tanked.  Everyone is either government or poor.  There has been no successful revolution against fidel.

That raises the question, in my mind, does there need to be a strong middle class to revolt?

[PB the Deplorable]

... That raises the question, in my mind, does there need to be a strong middle class to revolt?

In warfare there is power and there is will.  Power is troops, training, tanks and guns, command and control.  As long as both sides have will, they will continue on.  The side with the power doesn't always win if the other side can retain will and hold out.  See Viet Nam vs the US, Afganistan vs the Russians, the Taliban vs the US, India vs Britain, etc.  It's why Iraq and Afganistan were always lost causes.

If hope is taken away from one side, they will lose will and soon give up.  The mistake the Israelis continue to make is giving the Palestinians hope - peace offers, land, money, Gaza, self limiting rules of engagement - why should the P's quit now.  When people say the Palestinians or others have no hope so they reseort to terrorism, that is not correct - they resort to terrorism because they do have hope (and will) but little other power.

So your answer is there needs to be hope (and will) to revolt.  To check this theory, review details of other current and past Revolutions

PS - This is why it's so dangerous giving in to the demands of Muslims immigrating to the West - they have the will, appeasement gives them hope (while we see it as being 'inclusive').  And by the way, soft on crime in dealing with criminals works the same way.

[onan]

No specific military goal was as much to blame as loss of will and maybe they are conjoined. Will is way too fucking subjective to have any relative meaning.

[Ben Shockley]

sorry for being away a while.
The level of idiocy and angry -isms in here just make me sick, so some times I have to duck out.

P*B as usual saying absolute crap.
Fill: "Does it take a strong middle class to revolt?"  -- Yes.  and they will generally act for rights and privileges, NOT AGAINST those.

[PB the Deplorable]

sorry for being away a while.
The level of idiocy and angry -isms in here just make me sick, so some times I have to duck out...

And here I thought it was embarrassment about of the level you often need to stoop to.

... P*B as usual saying absolute crap.
Fill: "Does it take a strong middle class to revolt?"  -- Yes.  and they will generally act for rights and privileges, NOT AGAINST those.

As a self admitted Marxist, that comment from you is absolutely disgusting.  To begin with, the Marxists are only able to flourish in the most corrupt of places in the first place - things have to get really bad in order for a people to turn to them.  They then do just as you say - claim they are for the rights and privileges  of ordinary people against the corrupt government.  But it's a lie told to enlist and organize the people.  Once entrenched in power, your Marxists manage to make everything worse for everyone - except themselves of course.  Russia, Cuba, China, Viet Nam, Korea, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Poland, the Balkans, Laos, Cambodia, the list goes on and on. 

That's the story of your Marxists.     The history of Revolutions being that people won't arise unless they have Hope - you think that's crap?  Put down the Marxist books professor and look around you.  The Arab Spring was sparked when people realized they could organize over the internet - and when the tanks wouldn't run them over like in Tianamen Square, for the first time, these people had Hope.  Then the next regime fell and the next one.    Put down the Marxist literature and pick up some real history books.  Study the 5 well known Revolutions - the American Colonies, France, Russia, Cuba, China.  Take a look at the events surrounding some of the more modern ones.    Now too often, the Revolutions failed - in that what came after was worse, like in Cuba as the OP noted - and we are seeing that now in Arabia, but that isn't what the OP asked.   

[PB the Deplorable]

No specific military goal was as much to blame as loss of will and maybe they are conjoined. Will is way too fucking subjective to have any relative meaning.

Actually, it's spot on.  I admit it won't fit snugly onto a spreadsheet, but it's an important factor when considering war or examinating one after the fact in order to learn from it.  That it is a broad category does not invalidate it.

Yes, 'no military goal' will erode Will over time.  It's something our leaders should have learned after Viet Nam