The Undeniable Truth: Hitler was a Leftist

Hitler was a Leftist ^ | 2-23-03 | Republican_Strategist

[beavus]

God creates—parents pro-create. God gives us everything (Most importantly our immortal souls) He makes us in His image and likeness (with intellect and will) we are each a Masterpiece in the eyes of our Creator, so much so that A pastor once remarked that Heaven is so enthralled with each of us, God’s unique masterpieces, that angels walk before us crying “Behold, a child of God!” I believe this includes U.S. citizens waiting to be born!

I have tried to be frank. Most of us avoid frankness in discussing Hobson's choices because the choice we necessarily support, in isolation, makes us appear as monsters. Frankness should, I believe, merit frankness in polite debate. It appears to me that in referring to God's authority you are obfuscating to hide your own responsibility for the choices and values you hold.

You have not, to my estimation, denied my summation of your view: that you value all humans equally. This can lead to unpleasant choices, as I previously described. I suggest that you not avoid analyzing the consequences of your beliefs.

EXACTLY like Adolph Hitler.

Instead of furthering the debate, you restate the point of disagreement. What saddens me more than people who are cold to those uniquely human qualities, are those who refuse even to recoqnize their existence.

Good day, and thank you for your time.

[Conservative til I die]

I thought the title gave it away "the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany" = NAZI - least we remember!

No no no no no! You see, he only called himself a "Socialist Worker" in order to fool the people into thinking he wasn't a right winger, ya see?

Just like all those Republicans who call themselves Communists and those Libertarians that call themselves Greens.

/sarcasm

[Conservative til I die]

Funny I have no recollection of any existence at the time, not even of the responses of my fetal nervous system

Comatose people aren't conscious of pain or anything else either. Would that make it OK to cut one of their arms off?

[Conservative til I die]

Whatever your reason, you do admit that the life of any human fetus has more value to you than the life of any adult.

When did he say that? Why are you setting up strawmen?

Just keep the reach of your bloody ideology away from my wife in case she should have a complicated pregnancy or delivery. I don't want your cult groupies crying for the sacrifice of, or increased risk to, my wife for the sake of the fetus.

"Bloody ideology?" "Cult?" "Fetus?" How pro-choice are you exactly?

Many many more embryos and fetuses die from spontaneous abortions than die from elective abortions. What do you propose to do about that?

What the hell should he or anyone else do about it? There's a major moral, ethical, and hell medical and biological difference between a spontaneous abortion and an elective abortion. If you can't see that then frankly my friend, you're a retard.

[antaresequity]

Whats the point?

Your oppenents minds wont be changed...and the rest of the public is to ignorant to notice...

Chrimeny already...

PS: Hitler was evil...right or left who cares?

[beavus]

ME: Funny I have no recollection of any existence at the time, not even of the responses of my fetal nervous system

YOU: Comatose people aren't conscious of pain or anything else either. Would that make it OK to cut one of their arms off?

Your reply is incongruous since I said nothing about consciousness. Keep reading the thread, the context will become clearer.

[Conservative til I die]

Your post was full of strawman arguments and tangential counter-questions. You're losing the argument.

[Conservative til I die]

It is not worthless. It is not okay to destroy them. However, they cannot be equated with a living adult

You just contradicted yourself in three sentences. You say that a fetus is not worthless and it is not okay to destroy one. Yet in the next sentence and in your other posts on the thread, you say that fetuses are not equal to adults and hence, it is OK to destroy them. It's either OK to destroy or not. Can't be both.

[Conservative til I die]

Your reply is incongruous since I said nothing about consciousness.

Yes you did. To have recollection or awareness of one's own existence is consciouisness. To not have that is to not have consciousness. You're either conscious of your own existence or you're not.

[beavus]

When did he say that? Why are you setting up strawmen?

Keep reading the thread.

"Bloody ideology?"

"Bloody" as it could, realistically, result in my wife being unnecessarily put to death for the sake of the fetus.

What the hell should he or anyone else do about it? There's a major moral, ethical, and hell medical and biological difference between a spontaneous abortion and an elective abortion.

Keep reading.

my friend, you're a retard

Your friends are retards? Is that some kind of retard club? No wonder you're having so much trouble following this thread.

I ' l l t r y t o r e s p o n d v e r r r y s l o o o o w l y.

[finnman69]

See this FR thread

A Little Secret About the Nazis (They were left-wing socialists like the modern left of today)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630472/posts

[foreverfree]

He didn't care for Jews so he tried to kill them all. He didn't like Poles, French, Russians or Brits either.

Had no qualms about Italians or Japanese though. He waged war alongside them. Any theories as to why?

Hitler was not only a leftist, he was a hypocrite.

foreverfree

[Archimedes2000]

>>>>>This assertion happens to be wrong. The Nazi party was founded as a lefist party but Hitler captured it. For a decade he was opposed by the leftist populist wing of the party lead by the Strasser brothers and Goebbels. Eventually, he won over Goebbels, killed one Strasser in the Night of the Long Knives and drove the other into exile. The only thing socialist about the Nazi Party was the name. It was a classic fascist party.<<<<<<

Your entire post is factually inaccurate. Hitler was one of the founding memebers of the NSDAP. The first meeting Hitler attended of what was to become the NSDAP was a lecture entitled "How and by what means is capitalism to be destroyed."

In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote about the origins of the NSDAP, and how they deliberately chose the color Red for their flags, both to indicate the socialist aspects of the Party, and to appeal to communists to attend their meetings. Hitler also stated flatly that the NSDAP was created to appeal to the extreme Left.

[beavus]

ME: It is not worthless. It is not okay to destroy them. However, they cannot be equated with a living adult

YOU: You just contradicted yourself in three sentences. You say that a fetus is not worthless and it is not okay to destroy one. Yet in the next sentence and in your other posts on the thread, you say that fetuses are not equal to adults and hence, it is OK to destroy them. It's either OK to destroy or not. Can't be both.

You are sadly slow, son. I will try to help. "Fetuses not equal to adults" does NOT equal "OK to destroy them". The thread is a bit beyond you since you obviously missed the context of choosing between bad alternatives. That is, abortion is bad AND holocaust is bad. The thread is about comparing the two.

Think before you post, son. It will result in less embarrassment.

[AntiDemocrat]

I've been saying the same thing for years!
In fact...Hitler led the National Socialist Peoples Party (NAZI), Benito Mussolini led the Italian Socialist Party.

What continent gave birth to 'Marxism, Socialism and Communism? -EUROPE.



In fact, look and you will find that socialist nations like Iraq make war all the time. Pacifists (the naive ones) think they are really stopping War, when in reality their leftist leaders want War. VietNam fought PolPot and the Commie Chinese. The Chinese have even come to blows with the old Soviet Union over borders.
Compare that to democratic nations that try to avoid war but find they are always brought into it by some socialist group that wants to conquer the world.
Get rid of socialists and we will have Peace! Just like President Reagan use to say... "Peace Through Strength"

[beavus]

To have recollection or awareness of one's own existence is consciouisness.

Oh man. It was such an intelligent thread before you came along. "Recollection" is a different process than mere "consciousness". And, recognizing those recollections as fetal stimulations is a higher process still. I can analyze any recollections I may have (though I have none) of fetal stimulations I received. A dog, also conscious, cannot.

Even at your age you ought to know how to use a dictionary. There are some online if you'd like a link.

[Conservative til I die]

Do you have to be a condescending prick?

[Conservative til I die]

You are sadly slow, son. I will try to help. "Fetuses not equal to adults" does NOT equal "OK to destroy them".

While you may think it's bad to abort, you do feel it is something allowable. Hence, OK.

[Conservative til I die]

You didn't respond to one point. Just being a condescending jerk. Again. You still haven't explained why you equate elective abortion with spontaneous abortions. Or why you feel the pro-lifers on the thread do.

[Pres Raygun]

I would hope that your value for the fetus is not a mere product of consciousness or response to pain. Not unless you are a vegetarian. Humans are different from other animals in many ways, but in those two regards, they are the same.

Yes, I do value human life based on consciousness and the ability to feel pain among other things. Animals appear to share these minimal qualities with humans, and it is those minimal qualities, that I believe make it immoral to treat animals inhumanely. I am not a vegetarian, because humans are omnivores. I have no problem, killing animals for food after they have lived a good life and are killed with the minimal of suffering as possible. If only fetuses were granted the same rights as animals in our society. Further a human fetus if nurtured will develop into an adult, with the qualities you cherish that animals do not share. If it is morally allowable to take the life of a fetus, because it has not yet acquired these higher qualities, then it should also be morally allowable to kill infants and children, since they have not yet developed those traits. You have not stated your position on the morality of infanticide. What is your position?

My point was simple. The murder of an adult human is worse than the murder of a fetus.

Even if I were to grant you this point, which I won't, the murder of a fetus is still murder and is still a gross injustice.

You may consider me tasteless for ranking the relative tragedy of elective abortion and adult murder, but those who *equate* the two are engageing in the same unpalatable practice.

Once again, even if you are correct, defending the practise of abortion by saying, "Well it isn't the Holocaust", is not much of an argument. If you feel that it denegrates the memory of the victims of the Holocaust by comparing abortion to the Holocaust, then go ahead and be offended, but surely such a denegration (not the actual Holocaust) pales in comparison to the actual ongoing slaughter of unborn children. Or more simply, if comparing abortion to the Holocaust offends or disgusts you, then you should be outraged by the millions of needless abortions each year. Little in your posts would suggest such outrage.

Of course a person's history of choices, his waking desire to remain alive and agreement to not violate other's rights do not go away because of any temporary sleep state.

What does the direction of the arrow of time have to do with the intrinsic value of a human being? A fetus if allowed to be born, will surely in the future have a will to live. Why does a will to live have to proceed any right to live? Seems artificial to me. Also your premise that fetuses do not have a will to live is questionable. They at a minimum have a survival instinct, like animals. A more sophisticated will to live develops after birth, so your argument for abortion from a lack of a sophisticated will to live also applies to infanticide.

I don't know of any ongoing reseach to stop the death of the hundreds of millions of embryos each year. No one is trying despite it being one of the leading causes of human death. I assume that is because no one cares.

I suspect although, I don't know for sure, that there is a great deal of research into reducing miscarrages for women who have had multiple ones. Since the failure of the zygote to implant, in the lining of the uterus is a major cause of infertility, it would be foolish not to do research of this type, even if the motivation is for increasing fertility and not to save the life of the zygote. Also there are millions being spent on ways to keep 3rd trimester fetuses alive. Those techniques are directly aimed at saving a life, not at increasing fertility. As our medical technology increases it will be possible to push this back to the 2nd and 1st trimester.

We cannot agree. It denigrates not only the infinitely greater suffering of the holocaust but also all those qualities that distinguish humans from other creatures.

If you don't want to agree with me on that, then at the least fight with us pro-lifers against, infanticide, partial birth abortion, banning third trimester abortion, second trimester abortions, all abortions except when the life of the mother is at stake. Draw the line somewhere and start fighting at least some of the needless abortions each year. You can also join us in the fight to stop the current Holocaust (your definition, i.e. adults) that is going on as we speak, which is the mass killing of Christians in the southern Sudan. Anyone who feels as strongly as you do about the Holocaust, should also take up the cause of the persecuted Sudanese Christians.

The act of creating a tragedy adds to the tragedy itself. The combination of the two would create a personally paralizing situation for me. However, I would not stand in the way of my wife choosing to save her own life.

By having sex with your wife, unless one of you has been sterilized, involves potentially creating such a tradgedy. For women in the third world, but more importantly for us, women in our ancestry, the risk of death in pregnancy and child birth was substantial, but they still chose to take the risk. If women had not been willing in the past to take this risk, then the human race may have gone extinct. If you think this is a remote possibility consider that most developed countires are experiencing births rates lower than 2.1, the rate which is required to sustain a population. China's one child policy, (which in practise means one boy policy) is going to result in the collapse of China's population in the next 50 years. We all have responsibilities in this world and giving birth and the risks and burdens that go with it happen to fall to women. If they choose collectively to not fulfill their responsibility, then mankind will go extinct.