LIBERALS and NAZIS (Send this to your left wing acquaintances)

[Capitalism2003]

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."

– From the political program of the Nazi Party, adopted in Munich, February 24, 1920

[Bonaparte]

"Nazis supported the systematic extermination of millions of people."

What do you call the liberal New York Times covering up for Stalin's mass murders? What about liberal coddling of mass-murdering communists like Mao? Or their continuing love affair with Castro?

Liberals have facilitated the murder of 100 million people this past century.

It's actually an insult to nazis when they are equated with liberals.

[Prime Choice]

There's one big difference between Liberals and nazis though:
Nazis supported the systematic extermination of millions of people.

Pardon me, but what the hell do you think abortion is?

[Prime Choice]

Another big difference between Nazis and Liberals:
The Nazis supported a massive military, which was used to conquer much of Europe.
Liberals do not support a massive military.

No? They sure don't seem to mind the U.N. being in control of the militaries of various nations...including the United States military. If that isn't "supporting a massive military," then what is?

[The Scourge of Yazid]

This may be a little off-topic; but what's the dope on Shostakovitch?

Communist apparatchick?

Subversive poet?

Average Dimitry looking to keep his head down so that Stalin doesn't have it decapitated?

I'd really be interested in knowing the true story behind this man's cryptic life.

[swilhelm73]

Well, the value a monarchy can have, IMO, is in areas where the tribe is the highest social unit most of the people have faith in.

Since the nation belongs to the monarch as a whole, the tribal structure is an impediment to his natural urges to consolidate power. This will then ideally lead to efforts to replace tribal loyalty with national loyalty. Further, the petty nobility that tends to be the scourge of such societies will be converted or replaced by a bureacracy where merit plays at least some role.

This certainly happened in Europe, though the process was neither clean nor efficient. Look at the Spanish in the Netherlands or the power plays by the Hapsburgs in Germany for just how bloody a consolidating monarch can be.

That being said, at times I think the best thing we can do in regards to Africa now is install monarchies. The problems with such an endeavor would be legion but I see no other suggestions that have much merit.

As for the larger point, traditionally there were three forces in European politics (and to a lessor extent American);

Socialists/Communists - the predecessors of the modern Left

Conservatives - monarchists and predecessors of the European Right and *perhaps* RINOs

Liberals - the predecessors of American conservatives and libertarians.

I'd really love to know how liberal came to mean socialist. In European parlance, liberal still generally means conservative/libertarian thought I see the term "liberal-left" coming into use.

[Prime Choice]

I am neither liberal nor conservative.

Riiiiiight.

Bye-bye troll...

[Stretch]

How right you are, my friend.... With the degree of hate this party has built up, anything is possible. Once they pack the courts with their "people", the purge would begin. Polosi has shown her true colors... her and Hillary are one and the same. The Clilntons are evil, and they have a HUGE following... enough so to overthrow this government. They will pack them any way they can...assination if need be. Hit men are available to start this removal of our conservative judges and replace them with liberals who would not hesitate to burn the constitution.... and then have a free reign to completely usurp power.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

I don't think reinstalling monarchs in the heart of Africa is the solution; just look at the only two nations there that still have regents-Lesotho and Swaziland.

Though it could prove profitable in certain circumstances; Haile Selassie was certainly a better steward of Ethiopia than Mengistu Mariam, rest assured.

The only truly conservative-or "liberal" if you prefer-parties in Europe are the remnants of the Yavlinsky/Chubais parties; extant only in the Russian oligarchs who now vie for power with Vladimir Putin, and the Pim Fortuyn bloc in the Netherlands.

[G.Mason]

"Mainstream liberals do not have enough in common with nazis to warrant such a comparison."

As were the "mainstream" people of Germany, are the "mainstream liberals" of these United States.

Germans did, and American liberals will, allow the decimation, should their leaders choose to carry it to that extent.

After all, are the liberals crying about the slaughter of Iraqis under Saddam? Slaughters in Africa? And elsewhere in the world?

I think not.

Trolling are we?

[Capitalism2003]

@ swilhelm73 "I'd really love to know how liberal came to mean socialist. In European parlance, liberal still generally means conservative/libertarian thought I see the term "liberal-left" coming into use."

"If you can cut the people off from their history, then they can be easily persuaded." – Karl Marx

"The revolution will be complete when the language is perfect"--George Orwell, 1984

[rockfish59]

'We have to tolerate dictators!'---Joe Kennedy
'Ol fat Ted didn't fall far from the tree did he?

Spring time
For Hillary
In Germany

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

There's one big difference between Liberals and nazis though: Nazis supported the systematic extermination of millions of people.

The liberal is worse it kills something that hasnt a fighting chance THE UNBORN !At least a grown man or woman has a chance to fight even children fight to survive but the unborn isnt given a chance by these vultures
Nuff said!

[Caipirabob]

I thought statment #24 was interesting, considering in particular that at first the Nazi's claim to be Socialists who worship government over God. Socialism essentially embraces "the state" as religion. The claim to be Socialist and religous at the same time is simply impossible, and we saw that the Nazi's action couldn't have anything to do with belief in God or God's law. The next statement they go on to claim that all actions are to be committed for the good of "common or collective interest" again, right back to the Socialist line of thinking. They seem to promote religion in this section as a statement for open oposition to the existence of other religions within the state. This would also seem to justify some people's thinking that the Nazi's were Christian, but then again, by the time they actually came into power following 1920, I have no doubt they no longer forwarded such claims to Christianity. Suffice to say, their actions were absolutely indicative of the opposite. Then again, if anyone runs across anything to support or dispute that, please send it to me.

[tkathy]

The left substitutes government for god. They believe govt is the be all and the end all.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I don't think this proves much. If you went to the Constitutions of most communist countries, you'd probably find language embodying all sorts of rights, not much different from our own Constitution's.

Does that mean that communism and democracy are similar? Of course not. It just proves that totalitarian governments lie about their true aims.

[Mr. Thorne]

One could point out that the Nazis supported the extermination of people who, by their standards, were less than human.

The Jews, the gypsies, etc.

They managed what, six to ten million? Not counting war dead?

Modern liberals have concluded, in general, that an unborn child is less than human. Since 1973 they've managed what? Thirty-five million?

I know that the liberals are behind in the 'yearly' column, but they've made up for short annual returns with an extended culture of death that continues to reap 1.2-1.3 million dead per year.

So yeah, some people can see a political party with a socialist bent that identifies sub-human humans and makes their destruction a pillar of their political identity as similar to NAZIism.

IMHO, of course.

[JudgemAll]

There's one big difference between Liberals and nazis though: Nazis supported the systematic extermination of millions of people.

Yawn. Abortion, population control, one child policy, population control through female infanticide (source of children) etc...

Liberals are full steam ahead toward extermination of groups which do not obligate.

[JudgemAll]

There's one big difference between Liberals and nazis though: Nazis supported the systematic extermination of millions of people.

Yawn. ANd should I mention race and sexual preference based marriage. If that is not genocidal policy, then what is.

[HenryLeeII]

There's one big difference between Liberals and nazis though: Nazis supported the systematic extermination of millions of people.

With that in mind, your comparison falls flat, and is worthless, and shameless. Enough with the nazi comparisons. Don't we hear liberals use those same rhetorical devices all too much?

Uhhhh, how many pro-life 'Rats are there in the House and Senate? Not that many. Has Kerry ever voted against a pro-abortion bill? Ever read much about partial-birth abortion, which is done for birth-control purposes and not for health-related issues regarding the mother as its practitioners have tried to tell us.

No, the 'Rats (with some Pubbie assistance) have condoned and facilitated the murder of far more than six million people, and its because of such conscienceless acts as this, combined with their socialist beliefs, that the comparison between the two is very valid.

The difference between how a typical Freeper would use the comparison and how the typical 'Rat makes it is simple: Freepers have something factual and logical to back it up; 'Rats are mindless and shameless bomb-throwing mud-slingers. There is no intellectual merit to almost anything they say.

[Ditter]

bump for later read