[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRE5UK6NQU[/youtube]
just another townhall meeting…
this marine had a few questions.
He pointed out that the Nazis (German for National Socialism):
See the parallel? Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
the military did not swear an oath to enact obama’s tyranny
the revolution is coming friends.
-Imp
Where were the Marines leading to the build up of Iraq War II? Oh yea, they were hooting and hollering about “protecting America’s freedom”, which actually meant invading a foreign nation with no justification or cause for war, except oil. And now, all of a sudden, the right wingers come out of the woodwork to start a “revolution”. Who is at fault here? Who is to blame? Perhaps you and the other marines should start pointing the finger in the right direction, toward yourselves. Then again, those in the military service aren’t exactly known for thinking on their own since they are trained to follow orders.
Begin by, blaming yourself. After that, you can spill as much blood of your neighbor’s onto his doorstep as you thirst for it desperately, Impenitent. There is a word for it: Warmonger. Those nutcases on the far, far right are bloodthirsty. And they will kill whomever they need to retain their “wealth”, you know, oil for blood. Everybody is innocent? Some people need a reality check according to who the ‘good’ guys and ‘bad’ guys truly are. How many mpg does your vehicle get, Impenitent? Oh wait, do not answer that question. That would require you to consider from who you are stealing from. God only knows your selective thinking might not connect the dots there but I hope that you can.
These are rhetorical questions and should not be taken literally.
And my final history lesson is to remember, the so called “strength” of America was built on the backbone of Southern slaves.
Now sit back and enjoy the retaliation of centuries of bare knuckle labor. Go drive your SUV to the nearest Starbucks and ponder. 
edited
Hitler drank water
Obama drinks water
therefore Obama is a nazi.
He can only say it because he’s a civilian now.
if you really felt that remorse for acts of your ancestors, you’d leave the continent with every other non-Indian.
history never repeats.
-Imp
Yep, the Nazis definitely invaded sovereign nations without provocation.
On the other hand, Switzerland has public health care, and they’re the least warmongering country around.
I think xzc’s point is spot on: Every one of us does a whole hell of a lot that the Nazis did, and it doesn’t make us Nazis in any relevant sense. That marine is clearly not a philosopher.
There’s also this:
Nazism is a rightist ideology.
no nazism is a very liberal ideology
Left (Socialism) <========================================================================> Right (Individualism)
0-Anarchy, 1-Communism, 2-Feudalism, 3-Theocracy, 4-Timocracy, 5-Democracy, 6-Plutocracy, 7-Authoritarianism, 8-Fascism, 9-Monarchy
0-An Anarchy leaves direct control of government to each & every person resulting in Social Chaos.
1-A Communism connotes no private property or ownership; all is communal and shared without class/social divisions.
2-A Feudalism breaks-up land rites & territories and divides social powers to regulated leadership roles (a Noble class).
3-A Theocracy next regulates order via ideological and often mystical principles; Nobles answer to Theologians and the Church.
4-A Timocracy introduces property-ownership via a Middle Class where wealth and proprietorship govern provinces through property-utilization.
5-A Democracy is the last Central branch of government which adheres to public property; Government or State also owns property in a Democracy.
6-A Plutocracy is both the State-control and Private Ownership of all land by small, various groups of Wealthy Families, Clans, or Corporations.
7-An Authoritarianism is the dissolving of all Private Ownership where State and Federal Law rules all, rich and poor alike.
8-A Fasicsm is a Totalitarianism where Private Ownership is replaced by Government Ownership over all aspects of life.
9-A Monarchy is Absolute Control of a society by one figurehead who may be called a King, a Dictator, or a Tyrant.
As one moves left on the spectrum, social power becomes dispersed through many.
As one moves right on the spectrum, social power becomes consolidated by a few.
Right now, as of 2009, the former United States of America has turned into Plutocracy headed toward Authoritarianism. The former American Republic has become an Amerikan Empire. The Constitution must be revoked and replaced. The State Government and Institutionalization of American Power will continue to shift to the RIGHT as long as the two-party-political-system stays intact. Wealthy Corporations and only a dozen Wealthy Families control the Major Assets and Interests of the Amerikan people, mostly-fueled by the Military-Industrial-Complex. Amerika will continue to create war until foreign nations ally themselves and collectively-resist. Amerika will continue to shift to the right until people wake-up and smell the sewage we have all immersed ourselves in.
Nazism is about a 7.5 to the right because under Hitler’s Fascism in Socialist Germany, power actually-was held by a very select few. The citizenry and public had little-to-no direct-or-indirect control over their lives as Hitler governed all as a Figurehead to a consolidated (Nazi) party. In-fact, some of the first people and groups the Nazis ordered hits & murders against were Communist-Socialist parties. Why do you think this was, bike_seat??? I will give you the answer: Nazism consolidates power to a few, not to the masses.
I recommend that all people on this philosophy website go back to Grade School and pay-attention to basic Civic Principles and Definitions.
That continuum is nonsense, honestly it is garbage.
But To add to Original’s post anyway, bike seat, the term “liberal” doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It differs from political system to political system, and usually denotes people who under that system are considered center-left. But then your statement doesn’t make sense in its very formulation, let alone in its content.
Or alternatively you may have meant Liberal as in liberalism, in which case you have said that Naziism is very free market, concerned with positive rights, rule of law, and individual liberties in general. However, even that is uncertain as there exists multiple types of liberalism that go from relatively free market democracies to managed economy democracies.
Wonderful argument! 
=D>
What argument? I thought you knew, and that is why you said grade school. Like you were trying to say we need to simplify it all down to…oh n/m. Anyway, I doubt that is something you came up with, so no need to be defensive. Perhaps I misunderstood your whole post. You’ll just have to forgive me, you are new and I had to take certain liberties in interpreting your persona.
I’ll explain why it’s stupid if I need to, but someone will first have to make me believe that they think it is an accurate way of understanding comparative political systems. Don’t want to be superfluous, ya know.
You began with an Emotional Declaration. The conversation was over before it even began. I have no interest in responding to emotional dialogue. If you have nothing relevant to add or subtract to my response then I suggest you ignore it and allow others to garner from it what they will. Democracy is a leftist political process when viewed by Totalitarian-Fascists. Most people are clueless about placing themselves as most people do not think very much about real politicks, or about anything important or significant in life for that matter.
Anybody who claims that Obama or the Nazis are leftists or communists need to pull their heads out of their asses. People view politics from where they set themselves on the chain. For example, an Authoritarian will accuse a Democrat of being a Communist because the Democrat appears left of the Authoritarian.
Libertarians are Timocratic, renouncing a centralized (federal) government. That is 4.5.
If you go anymore to the right then you promote a Centralized Government. 
Hmm, the congeniality of my last post emboldened you to focus on condemning me further, when there was a clear window laid out that allowed you to win pissing match and address the issue of your original post. This is particularly curious considering you elaborated on a point I made in my post…about “liberal” not existing in a vacuum.
You’re delightful
=edited third time to return to original content.
Some say I have a magical touch with people. 
It’s hard to even tell what standard people are using when they say that nazism falls on the left side of the political spectrum.
For example, the continuum you provided seems to rank 1-3 based on sheer number of people in control, 4-6 how many people can own land, and 7-9 on level of consolidation of power in the government/consolidation of government power in number of people.
Better models use an X and Y axis that allows both personal liberties and the development of elitist/aristocratic elements to be measured simultaneously. I prefer this model which places communism and nazism as polar opposites, and places American conservativism on the same side of personal liberties and aristocracy as nazism.
So what standard is used to put nazism next to communism/socialism? Assuming we aren’t silly enough to think that socialism/communism is the same thing as Stalinism, the only measure where Naziism isn’t closer to the American right than socialism is the measure of property rights. On this measure Naziism falls somewhere in between the two, but it manages it’s economy for reasons dissimilar to socialism, and the same could be said of Nazi free market and the American right.
This lead me to think that your diagnosis is correct, the reference point is skewed. The only way the nazi/socialist comparison makes any sense is if, first, property rights are seen as identical to personal liberties and personal liberties are seen as being exhausted in property rights. and second, the whole spectrum is shifted by a dictatorial belief in absolute property rights meaning that any “infringement” on property rights is an absolute infringement on personal liberties.
The irony, ofcourse, is that this free market free for all with strong property rights leads to a revolving door between business and government that introduces elements that are functionally equivalent to fascist elements. That is, the government doesn’t regulate business restrictively, but business and government work together for the mutual benefit of an elite aristocracy. Power, wealth, and property are consolidated by a minority who have undue influence and control over both the “free market”/property and government.
Well as a guideline I connect “Nazism” with Hitler’s Fascist control over the Third Reich. The thing about Nazism is that common people use this as an insult or a negative lingual device to be thrown around at will. If you dislike a person in a political conversation then call them Hitler. If you dislike a person in a political conversation then call their views Nazism. Or call them a communist. These “insults” seem to me to stem from the fact that one firmly-positions him/herself on the politickal spectrum without even considering a very in-depth approach to their own views. Such people sure-as-hell cannot determine where they fit when they toss around meaningless accusations and slander.
Like you said, politicking (Liberalism or Conservatism) does not exist in a vacuum. People place themselves on the spectrum to connote a politickal view.
I made my continuum on the spot and the principle (and measurement) I used reflected the amount of Societal Control relegated into the direct-hands of each and every citizen. For example, in a Communism, all voices and all voices of politickal dissidence are equally-counted, based on the context of the society. I see in a Communism that a woman or child has just as much (social) power as a politician, or even a politickal leader, since (as I stated) the notion of propriety and land-ownership is communal. For example, you wouldn’t own your television, your clothes, your means-of-production, your skill, your labor, etc. All of these things, including your own body as a citizen, would be under State-control as the State is evenly-dispersed across the masses. I personally-liken Communism to one of the most long-lasting means of operating a Sociality. No single figurehead owns everything; everybody owns everything. Therefore the mentality of such a (large or small) group of people is contingent upon the ideals that reflect the union of the people as a mass. I think China is a very good example of such a system which is NOT to say that I personally-favor or disfavor the idea of a Communism. Rather, this system, like other politickal systems, reflect the mass ideology of the people, and all their implicit actions as a society.
Well you are free to make and posit your own continuum as you see fit. I wrote mine out as a guide for thinking and discussing politicks.
You can note that in my estimations, Communism and Hitler’s (fascist) Nazism are-in-fact polar opposites (#1 v #8). The singular mean of becoming more Socialistic than a Communist is to advocate socio-politickal Anarchy, a revolt of Government. Classically-speaking, Amerikan Conservatism was based on political Libertarianism and Isolationism. As another recent thread in the SS sub-forum stated, “Amerikan Conservatism is dead”. In other words, the classical values of the American Republic have all been redefined to fit the mould of the 21st Century, where Traditional Values mean little-or-nothing. The Constitution thus becomes archaic, uninspiring, and a matter of political rhetoric insofar as the Document is a reduced to a mere, meaningless artifact/artifice.
Amerika was built on Libertarian values. I place this as a #4.5 on my scale here, which slowly then quickly-fell to the right, into a Democracy, a Plutocracy, and now an Authoritarianism where Money and the Media influences elections more than politickal values. This reflects and represents how sheer laziness of thinking, and civic virtues, destroys a Democracy over time. I see that when Citizenry are cut-off and disallowed access into the politickal process, the scale tips to the right more & more until power consolidates into the hands of a few, and then, into the power of one (a Tyrant, King, or Queen).
England, for example, was/is a Monarchy for the longest-time. Its Democracy is representative and symbolic which pays homage to the Crown. However I am unsure how England’s politicking has changed over the past century. If I were to know the specifics on that then I would learn the Laws to see if the King/Queen can still usurp the whole politickal process (which I believe they can). This means that if Harry or whomever-the-hell is in-charge in England decides to assume the throne, then the England Monarchy presumes and resumes itself. The Prime Minister is a symbolic, politickal figurehead that answers to the Royalty. A Monarchy is the epitome of Totalitarianism, which transgresses Authoritarianism. Hitler, for example, was a temporary occurrence during a time of chaotic German politickal upheaval. In Hitler’s Germany, Communists were some of the first to be banished from the Third Reich, well-before the Jews were, if I am not mistaken.
Yes, you are correct here.
Nazism is contextual to Hitler insofar as Stalin’s Communism does not mean Marxist/Lenin-Communism or Mao’s Communism. Property rites are a key issue in politickal paradigms as I see it. Amerika was founded on proprietorship as the Native Americans forcefully-were-removed from their land. They had no conception of property in the same sense as early American colonists (who desired to impose Manifest Destiny onto the West, and civilize the savage-lands). As Early America was a colony, based on Monarchical rule, the Founding Fathers created a general (Amerikan) Libertarian Society, which fell into Anarchy during the American Revolution. Land-ownership was crucial to determine the roots of an American Society. This is where the North and the South differed. Rich, elite, Aristocratic were land-owners on both sides. Therefore it was in everybody’s interest to institute a society based on (white) land-ownership which exactly-is-what they did! American Citizens were land & property-owners. The American Dream was founded on the concept that everybody could have their ‘piece’ of the Western Frontier. Everybody could own land (with the exception of Civil customs and general Law, which emphatically-stated that white men were first-class American citizens).
Exactly!!!
This is what is ironic and sometimes humorous when people throw around the label of “Nazi”, “Hitler”, or “Communist” as-if these terms connoted some kind of evil or insult. Such politickal leaders and governmental systems reflect the “Will of the General Populace”. Those who most emphasize property-rites (in Amerika) are those same people who oppose the socialistic mindset that slips-left where ownership of goods is shifted to the left. In Amerika, ironically-speaking, consolidation of property-rites keeps shifting to the right despite the polarization on politickal issues. If you are not a land-owner in Amerika right now (meaning you probably-are poor, colored, black, Hispanic, or a woman) then the Democratic Party of “Change” reflects a divergent style of usurping the classical control (over White proprietorship). Thus you see White males (like some in this thread) who fervently-attack any notions of Socialism on grounds of Socialism itself. This politicking is bound to fail, and in Amerika, it has. This is why American Republicans are set to lose over & over & over again. But to believe Democrats are Communists reeks of a great misunderstanding. Land-ownership itself, in Amerika, is undisputed (until the politickal paradigm changes, which it probably-will very soon).
Amerikans see Individualism, Property-rites, and Liberty (Libertarianism) as synonymous. This is ironic.
Yes!!!
This is where Plutocracy and Authoritarianism fit in. Money-itself becomes influential in the politickal process, which leads to Corruption. Neo-Conservatives are Corporate Owners who control huge-huge-huge-vast-quantities of land in Amerika. These (white) elites fear losing their control through the politickal process, where power shifts from the Neo-Conservatives (Fascists) to Neo-Liberals (Authoritarians). Then the two parties accuse each other of Socialism or Nazism. This is contradictory to the full-scope because land-ownership-itself is not discussed! In-fact, no Amerikan (that I know of) fervently-contends against Libertarianism (still) unless they are an Anarcho-Communist. And I live near the Anarcho-Coummunist capital of Amerika. There are plenty of Anarchists and Communists who live in my area while I entirely-remove myself from the politickal process in the first place.
Amerikan Conservatism might be dead in the sense that Libertarians are out-of-office but the ideals still remain. If I were a “Conservative” in Amerika right now then I would not worry about Obama or Hillary. I would worry about getting a Libertarian back into Congress, into the Senate, and into the White House. But then Amerika probably-would lose its military interests overseas. The hardliners and warmongers would beset themselves, and they will. This was already-mentioned in this thread. And this is why I claim that Amerika is an Empire. Politickal Libertarians are so fucking confused that they do not know which way to spin. Amerika is stuck in the last-spot it wants to be, traditionally-speaking, as a nation which has become responsible for “world affairs”. This contradicts its lasting Isolationism, and, Individualism. Thus the politickal spectrum becomes evermore polarized, and ideological schisms appear.
Liberals and Libertarians go hand-in-hand. So I question the perspective of the OP, calling for Liberal blood.
Who is at-risk here??? White men are. Rich, white, anglo-saxon, Christian protestant males are most at-risk for losing their proprietorship to the Underclass which they have quelled and repressed for centuries. This is why racism is also prevalent and pervasive. The more 1) women-who-vote, 2) non-whites who vote, the worse it is for the “America”. This is why Democracy is bound to fail. The masses are stupid, and complacent. They will vote for whomever the media tells them to vote for. The consequences are determined before the election takes place. You have Status Quo A here and Status Quo B there. Choose one, but, do not choose Status Quo C or ideology X where YOU benefit on a personal level. For example, I-myself have no land-ownership, am jobless, and obtain a small amount of debt. I gain most from a Communistic ideal. Yet I am not going to start parading around as a Communist as I am directed by different principles. If I were to put myself on the politickal spectrum then I would probably-favor a Monarchy and any means that brings a nation toward a Monarchy. This implies that I might claim that Bush or Cheyney were ‘Socialists’ and that they weren’t Hardliner-enough. But such an openly-Fascist stance would be “Anti-American” in the exact same way that a Communist is “Anti-American”. This is leftover Libertarian propaganda.
Amerika was built on property-rites and I do not see that changing anytime soon. The conflicts are beset around who owns what, and which Corporations are politicking-wherever. The Media is a case-in-point. Whatever buys a vote is in. Whatever does not is out (of the process). Principles are out. Conservatism is out. Far-far-far-rightism is in. Whatever emphasizes proprietorship as a rich White man, or a Middle Class white woman, or a Middle Class minority will win elections. Thus Obama wins an election, a half-black, half-white man. This is unprecedented as it reflects “Change” in White (aristocratic) Values. The next politickal fights will be seen by who leads and manages the CIA. When non-white people manage the CIA then you will know that a paradigm has shifted and Amerikan Values have been redefined. The white race still retains its racism to this day. This is the unspoken contract: racial value opposed to politickal value. This fight, however, has not ended. Racism is still a fresh wound in Amerika. New race wars will emerge as White Traditionalists struggle-to-maintain their fading politickal power, and values. They are outmatched, possibly-outclassed, and Democracy now favors Authoritarianism whether its voice be a minority, a woman, or otherwise. All general proprietorship needs, as a Policy, is a speaker.
Race, sex, gender, are all foregone conclusions. The power difference, however, is real.
I’m sorry I didn’t read through all the arguments. I’m having a hard time understanding why people think of anything dealing with social, political, and economic situations are as reliable as physics.
History isn’t bound to repeat, even if two situations have striking similarities. There are no axioms with mankind. Except that one. And that. And that. And that.
Initially we must first discuss the poor choice of rhetoric for the educated. Nazi (though supposed Socialist) actually became more of a corporate government. The high ranking officials were in bed with big business. They are not like the communists. In fact they HATED the communists. Communists were one of the first set of people involved with the purges.
The man in the video is a blatant self-proclaimed hero. He walks mightily back to his wife as if he just won a real victory. But who does he really help? Does he help the majority of American people? I would think not since the majority are paying heavily for health insurance which has many stipulations. For instance, the insurance i have does not cover routine physicals. I have gone to the Doctor’s once in 5 years since I did not have insurance and went for a routine physical and was shocked after the fact to find it was not covered. So I paid 180 dollars for a basic check up. Who needs preventative medicine covered? 
As a former marine I am not sure about his medical coverage from the VA. So, I imagine a couple scenarios here: 1.) He may still be covered by VA 2.) He has a job that pays for his insurance 3.) His wife has umbrella coverage. Now he must live in Washington where the median income is roughly 41,000 a year. So we will assume he makes the median and his wife half of that. Basic premium insurance cost to cover the hospital bills of that little newborn are 7600 dollars.
To cover it to a manageable cost he would most likely be paying 5000 dollars a year. That is fine. Though if we take into account other factors such as property tax/income tax etc. We will assume that he is paying 5000 insurance + another 7000 for taxes. That is 12,000 dollars a year.
Imagine if he got his taxes upped and went with the government program. We will say that it raises his tax rate by 2% a rough estimate. I will even allot for 5% it would only tack on 350 dollars to his taxes.
Simple math here. 7350 or 12,000…which would would you prefer to give away at the end of the year? Cause me being smart with my money would much rather shell out 350 dollars a year instead of 5000.
But alas, if anyone wishes to announce doom and gloom there is nothing to do. Throw out silly rhetoric about “death panels”, and a misinformed comparison to historic groups and you slow advancement for us all.
*Us being anyone who wants affordable healthcare By and by my g/f was paying 260 a month for insurance which did not cover prescriptions/emergencies/mental health when she was only making min. wage. A week’s worth of work to cover just doctor visits essentially. So awesome.