quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Great quote - "Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right."

Further, I believe that a big part of the reason Saddam Hussein is so universally adored by so many leftists was that his dictatorship, which was far more sadistic than anything Adolf Hitler perpetrated, was also a socialist dictatorship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Like that other socialist Adolf, many leftists just hate Jewish people.

So do many rightist so what's your point other than to prove you have one of the most appropriate nicks on here?

No , Conservatives and Republicans, people on the right generally, as a rule, support Israel etc whereas leftists hate the banker, the jeweler, Wall Street... Those who they view as Capitalists / Jews

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

the President needs to take an unpopular position again and rebuild their infrastructure and they repay us in oil.

Aren't we the ones who destroyed their infrastructure?
Now we get paid to rebuild it?
Perhaps we should charge them for the bombs we used to destroy it with also?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

That leftist freaks mock me only makes me laugh.

For anyone more honest and open minded than the typical leftist, the article I linked to above is called "Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History" and it is a very good read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/09/01/obama-hitler-and-exploding-the-biggest-lie-in-history/

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Its righties like .....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
That leftist freaks mock me only makes me laugh.
For anyone more honest and open minded than the typical leftist, the article I linked to above is called "Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History" and it is a very good read.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/09/01/obama-hitler-and-exploding-the-biggest-lie-in-history/

Interesting article. The thing that always floors me about arguments comparing Hitler, Stalin, Fascism, Socialism, Communism, etc. (and trying to use that brush to tar U.S. politicians) is that they typically fail to take into consideration the extreme conditions in those countries which led to men like Hitler and Stalin taking power. You'd think that the lesson from history should be for society to not create the conditions which lead to such desperation as to cause such upheavals.
For example, Lenin gained power on a slogan of "Peace, Land, Bread." It would have been wise for the powers that be in Russia to provide (at least) land and bread to the people before Lenin rose to power, wouldn't it? So, why didn't they make things better for the people so they wouldn't turn to Lenin and the Bolsheviks? That's all they had to do, yet the wealthy in that country were too unreasonably intransigent. All they had to do was share some of their wealth, not all of it, but they refused to even make the slightest concessions, so they ended up losing it all. They would rather have lost everything than share one penny of wealth with the "little people," and that's what ended up happening.
But sure, blame it all on Lenin. Or blame it on Rasputin. But never, ever blame the ever-wise and all-knowing wealthy classes who create the air we breathe and the land we stand on.
A somewhat similar situation could be discerned in pre-Hitler Germany, where people had to carry wheelbarrows full of money just to buy a loaf of bread. Of course, somebody could have clued in the wealthy and business elite of that country to not be so greedy and demand so much money, especially with guys like Hitler wanting to gain power and causing a ruckus. It didn't matter if he was a socialist, communist, fascist, or whatever you want to call him. He was an extremist, and the elite of that country should have realized that the best way to weaken an extremist's position is to make concessions to the lower classes. People will only go along with extremism in times of desperation, so the elite have to learn to not create times of desperation.
I once thought that our elite in America learned to do just that, which is part of why we have social programs and gave moderate support to the labor movement and civil rights movement. That's the reason for having such programs, not because of a bunch of bleeding hearts, but because it is clear that not having moderate social programs and moderate policies to rein in business would lead to the extreme conditions found in pre-Soviet Russia or pre-Nazi Germany. But it seems as if this article wants us to forget these lessons of history.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Wasn't Hitler's rise to power preceded by major expansion of the money supply? Didn't that massive expansion essentially make the currency nearly worthless (which is why it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy bread)?

You're right, though. You'd think we'd have learned from history. It's a great thing that we haven't inflated our money supply to the extent the Weimar Republic, Hungary, Bolivia, or Zimbabwe. We're just too smart to make those mistakes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Wasn't Hitler's rise to power preceded by major expansion of the money supply? Didn't that massive expansion essentially make the currency nearly worthless (which is why it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy bread)?
You're right, though. You'd think we'd have learned from history. It's a great thing that we haven't inflated our money supply to the extent the Weimar Republic, Hungary, Bolivia, or Zimbabwe. We're just too smart to make those mistakes. [8|

In Germany's case, they were saddled with immense war debts and demands for reparations. The Weimar Republic inherited a damnable situation that wasn't even their own doing, since it was really the Kaiser who put them in that unfortunate spot. They didn't have a lot of options, so the massive expansion of the money supply was a last resort measure.

quote:

In our case, I think we were smart. Whether you love or hate FDR, I think he was, overall, a rather shrewd geopolitician. He got us through the Great Depression and most of World War II, while keeping the enemy at bay, away from our soil, and suffering relatively fewer casualties than any other major Allied or Axis power during that war. That's not to say he didn't make mistakes or that there isn't plenty of room for criticism. But FDR was smart, no doubt about that.
But for whatever reason, we don't seem to be as smart as we used to be. I just think it's rather interesting that in an article discussing contemporary U.S. and global politics, we find ourselves revisiting "old ghosts" from the past. That's what prompted me to respond as I did, since drawing parallels between our current situation and previous eras in other countries can always be a bit problematic, to say the least. But if we're going to look back on old ghosts and try to learn something from history (which is quite necessary, so I'm not knocking the exercise), then a more complete, accurate, and objective assessment may be called for.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Money is an agreement between government and citizens in which everyone agrees to give value to something that is essentially worthless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Money is an agreement between government and citizens in which everyone agrees to give value to something that is essentially worthless.

That's a pretty poor understanding of value. It's backed by the earning/producing/taxing power of the government, and in the modern age, that value is validated by the market value in the global money market.

Because carrying around bags of gold, and especially exchanging them over the Internet, would be unwieldly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Money is an agreement between government and citizens in which everyone agrees to give value to something that is essentially worthless.

That's a pretty poor understanding of value. It's backed by the earning/producing/taxing power of the government, and in the modern age, that value is validated by the market value in the global money market.

Because carrying around bags of gold, and especially exchanging them over the Internet, would be unwieldly.