Nazism Based on Marxism

[carlfense]

The Supreme Court of the United States, who has the FINAL say on the matter, says it is constitutional. I would venture a guess that they researched the matter a bit more fully than you have.

 

I agree with everything you said except for parts of this. It is constitutional, but then doesn't the constitution also give the government the ability to do whatever it sees is in the best interest of the nation? When people throw out "unconstitutional" claims, I think they mean that something is opposed to the spirit of the constitution.

 

No, the government cannot do whatever it sees is in the best interest of the nation. The government may not limit the freedoms put forth in the constitution. Many on the left believe that things like restricting free speech and the press with nonsense like the 'fairness doctrine,' and restricting gun ownership are in the best interest of the country. In which case the people have the right and sacred duty to hoist the finger and send them packing.

 

The entire concept of our government is that it cannot do whatever it wants. We would call that a tyranny, and unfortunately our government flirts with the idea far too often.

 

I agree, but in Article I, Section VIII, I believe, it says something like, the government has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution...powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States." So, all I'm saying is don't loose interpreters often use this to do whatever they want?

 

You're correct about Art. I Sec. VIII, but the government is still limited by the restrictions put upon it by the other parts of the Constitution.

[carlfense]

Spartness, If you create a thread with a provocative topic as this, be prepared to take on all-comers. The hit and run tactic doesn't work in this forum.

 

Sarge87: Sorry if I'm acting dumb here. But why are you saying my tactics are hit and run? Please send me a personal message because I won't see it on this thread. Yes, it was my bad when I said I was done and I continued on, but I promise this one is it for me. I want to leave before it gets personal.

 

Carlfense: Listen. It comes down to one big picture. I didn't need to bring up the little things. Nazi Germany, as you pointed out, was a totalitarian state, and it wasn't based on religious law. It couldn't have been more massive government. The bigger the government, with its additional intrusions, the more left it is. So any further argument you want to present or try to disprove, it doesn't matter -- it was clearly left. The totalitarian element outweighs anything else. End of story. As I said, I won't be back here -- only on the huskerboards. Bye.

A large government does not indicate left OR right wing. Both the left and the right have taken turns expanding the size of the government. In fact, W. Bush, who is undoubtedly a right winger (despite the Republican party and others attempts to disown him) expanded the US government significantly.

 

Right wingers AND left wingers can have large governments. That is absolutely not determinative.

[carlfense]

Those secular progressives who compare conservatives to Nazis have no idea what they are talking about. Hitler clearly was left. Progressive's socialist beliefs are a bit (edit) closer to Nazism. (Edited out video. Carlfense is correct that I contradicted myself by saying I don't trust the media but yet I do trust a You Tube video. Unfortunately, I'm unable to edit the title of this thread.)

 

 

I did'nt read this thread, just the edited OP. But i don't see how you would be contradicting yourself by trusting a youtube video(with some research/verification, ofcourse) but not trusting the cooporate media.

 

The internet is the only form of mass communication that isn't restricted by the FCC/cooporations(for now). Beyond that, it isn't pushing a cooporations beliefs/agenda 24/7. You'd be insane to trust the cooporate views of CNN and Fox over a person's views, through youtube..... obviously though, everything should be taken with a grain of salt, and verified.

 

just my 2cents

Here's the problem . . . if you watch the video you'd see that the primary source of the entire clip is an article from the New York Times. That's about as "corporate" as you can get.

[jnkyrdoff6]

 

You're correct about Art. I Sec. VIII, but the government is still limited by the restrictions put upon it by the other parts of the Constitution.

 

Okay, but don't politicians find loopholes that allow them to, in effect, circumvent the Constitution fairly often? I'll go with a W. Bush example because I've already stated that I'm less against his administration than the current one. Doesn't the Patriot Act allow the government to conduct warrant-less searches and violate due process for terrorist suspects? I was never against this because I had an immediate fear W. Bush was going to abuse this on me, but isn't it still in place, and won't it still be in place for future Presidents? That's the only reason I'm against this type of thing. I'm forever fearful that things like the definition of a "terrorist suspect" will be broadened to mean anyone with a dissenting opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it just feels like like the prelude to 1984.

 

 

Again, I'm trying to have a discussion, not a heated debate. I know you'd school me in a heated debate. I'm not a political scholar or anything.

[hosker]

Those secular progressives who compare conservatives to Nazis have no idea what they are talking about. Hitler clearly was left. Progressive's socialist beliefs are a bit (edit) closer to Nazism. (Edited out video. Carlfense is correct that I contradicted myself by saying I don't trust the media but yet I do trust a You Tube video. Unfortunately, I'm unable to edit the title of this thread.)

 

 

I did'nt read this thread, just the edited OP. But i don't see how you would be contradicting yourself by trusting a youtube video(with some research/verification, ofcourse) but not trusting the cooporate media.

 

The internet is the only form of mass communication that isn't restricted by the FCC/cooporations(for now). Beyond that, it isn't pushing a cooporations beliefs/agenda 24/7. You'd be insane to trust the cooporate views of CNN and Fox over a person's views, through youtube..... obviously though, everything should be taken with a grain of salt, and verified.

 

just my 2cents

Here's the problem . . . if you watch the video you'd see that the primary source of the entire clip is an article from the New York Times. That's about as "corporate" as you can get.

 

 

ahhh, touche. very true. i figured i was missing something when i wrote that.

[carlfense]

 

You're correct about Art. I Sec. VIII, but the government is still limited by the restrictions put upon it by the other parts of the Constitution.

 

Okay, but don't politicians find loopholes that allow them to, in effect, circumvent the Constitution fairly often? I'll go with a W. Bush example because I've already stated that I'm less against his administration than the current one. Doesn't the Patriot Act allow the government to conduct warrant-less searches and violate due process for terrorist suspects? I was never against this because I had an immediate fear W. Bush was going to abuse this on me, but isn't it still in place, and won't it still be in place for future Presidents? That's the only reason I'm against this type of thing. I'm forever fearful that things like the definition of a "terrorist suspect" will be broadened to mean anyone with a dissenting opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it just feels like like the prelude to 1984.

 

 

Again, I'm trying to have a discussion, not a heated debate. I know you'd school me in a heated debate. I'm not a political scholar or anything.

To some extent, yes laws can be interpreted to get most results. Fortunately anyone can read Supreme Court opinions that lay out there reasoning. It does seem to be getting more and more political.

 

Don't worry about me schooling you in a debate. I'm just a bored student.

[huskertim]

Wow, where do I start. I have to admit I scimmed through some of this so I may be a bit repetitive.

Firstly, to simply define left and right is far too limiting when discussing communism and facism.

One of my professors explained to me that I could better view the political spectrum as globular rather than linear. If I travel far enough to the west, I end up in the east. Likewise far enough north equals south. By this logic, one who persues a reactionary right wing agenda ends up acting very much like one persueing a radical left wing agenda. Ultimately, when you end up with a gun barrel in your face telling you what to do, do you really give a crap what the trigger man calls himself?

So, when the American intellectuals of the 1920's were in love with "Uncle Joe", social darwinism, and yes ugenics. They lent credence to ideas fostered by the National Socialists Workers' Party in Germany even though the German people themselves generally would have seen the Russians as barbarians. Ultimately, the video, while rediculosly bias is not entirely factually unsound.

[huskertim]

As regards Roosevelt, to define him as a conservative by todays standards ignores history. He is widely recognized as the first progressive president and, for his time would have been seen as quite liberal in his policies if not in his person.

 

Look at the way Reagan is portrayed today. To the right he's an icon to the left a hideous monster of the far right. The truth is he was active early on in the Democrat party. His hero was FDR. if you were to ask him if his politics had changed he would say no, his party changed.

 

Conversly, look at the halcion days of JFK. An idle to the left, bane of the right. Today, his inagual address would warrant an impeachment by the Democrat party while being applauded by the GOP.

 

If you can't see the historical relativism going on here ask your self how the party of Lincoln became tried to racism and the party of Jefferson Davis and Andrew Jackson became the "champion of equal rights".