Black unemployment: Highest in 27 years

ThePlayDrive · Sep 14, 2011

Grant said:
If he made the statement then you should quote it in order to justify your response.

I quoted his post in my original comment. That's the point.

ThePlayDrive · Sep 14, 2011

ric27 said:
The first thing the Nazi's did was to nationalize all the German industry and everything else they could get their hands on. That's totally counter to "right wing" conservative thinking. I think you are confusing "right wing" with "anti communist" or "nationalist", which the Nazi's certainly were. Read up on it and you will find that Nazi ideology is startlingly similar to the American left wing hippie ideology of today, ...minus the nationalism.

First, the majority of "left wing" individuals in this country do not socialism so suggesting that we do automatically lowers your credibility.

Second, the Nazis did not nationalize all of German industry. They did nationalize SOME of it which is, in fact, a left-wing aspect of Nazi philosophy which I already said existed.

Third, the rest of Nazism was overwhelming right-wing: nationalism, supremacist ideals, militarism, eugenics, etc. Hitler hated pretty much everything about left-wing politics which is why leftists were one of his targets for the Holocaust. He purposely executed SOCIALISTS, communists, liberals, trade unionists, Marxists and most other members of the left-wing in Germany.

Here's a good explanation of Hitler's economic ideology and the reason why most historians put him in the right-wing category:

Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system",[9] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[10] At a later time, Hitler said: "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."[11] In private, Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".[12] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[13] Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."[14] While not espousing a specific economic philosophy, Hitler employed anti-semitic themes to attack economic systems in other countries, associating ethnic Jews with both communism ("Jewish Bolsheviks") and capitalism, both of which he opposed.[15][16] Hitler also believed that individuals within a nation battled with each other for survival, and that such ruthless competition was good for the health of the nation, because it promoted "superior individuals" to higher positions in society.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Non_Jewish

ric27 said:
The nationalism part is what makes it confusing for most folks *like YOU* these days.

I hope that wasn't supposed to be an insult because you just put me in the category of most historians which is a category I'll gladly belong to.

RiverDad · Sep 14, 2011

theplaydrive said:
Third, the rest of Nazism was overwhelming right-wing: nationalism, supremacist ideals, militarism, eugenics, etc.

This is a laugh-riot to read. All you're doing is identifying characteristics and then assigning them to the Right because you don't like the Right.

Eugenics was a Progressive movement and the groups that fought against Eugenics were those stodgy religious church groups that the Left still mocks to this day.

They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior. Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, and Oliver Wendell Holmes who ruled on the infamous Carrie Buck trial and declared "three generations of imbeciles is enough."

American eugenic crusades proliferated into a worldwide campaign, and in the 1920s came to the attention of Adolf Hitler. Under the Nazis, American eugenic principles were applied without restraint, careening out of control into the Reich's infamous genocide. During the pre-War years, American eugenicists openly supported Germany's program.

As for supremacist ideals, they still infuse and animate the Left to this day - the Left thinks that they're more intelligent, more enlightened, and just all around higher developed beings than their political opponents. It was the same back in the Nazi era. This ego-inflating belief is seen in modern day progressives, the original progressives, socialists, communist, Marxist, for all all believe in the a New Man, someone who is unshackled from many limitations by adopting the correct and enlightened political and ideological principles.

As for nationalism, yes that is more frequently seen on the Right than on the Left, but with respect to Nazism, that alone doesn't mean anything for there was an ideological battle taking place in the socialist movement between "International Socialism" (the Communists) and "National Socialism" (The Nazis). This battle was ideological fratricide - the fight was about which variant of socialism was best.

Even on the issue of militarism, this is not a strictly Right wing phenomenon, for some of the most Communist countries were the biggest practitioners of militarism.

ThePlayDrive · Sep 14, 2011

RiverDad said:
This is a laugh-riot to read. All you're doing is identifying characteristics and then assigning them to the Right because you don't like the Right.

Eugenics was a Progressive movement and the groups that fought against Eugenics were those stodgy religious church groups that the Left still mocks to this day.

Eugenics wasn't a "progressive" movement - that revisionism. Eugenics was wildly popular in the United States in general although that support died quickly after the whole Nazi fiasco. However, eugenics is primarily associated with right-wing politics because of the fact that right wing extremism is more closely associated with ideas of supremacy based in nationalism and rejection of social equality.

Regardless, take out eugenics and you're still left with nationalism, rejection of social equality/egalitarianism, rejection of trade unionism, supremacist ideals and targeted removal or execution of left-wing members - all prominent aspects of Nazism and right-wing extremism.

As for supremacist ideals, they still infuse and animate the Left to this day - the Left thinks that they're more intelligent, more enlightened, and just all around higher developed beings than their political opponents. It was the same back in the Nazi era. This ego-inflating belief is seen in modern day progressives, the original progressives, socialists, communist, Marxist, for all all believe in the a New Man, someone who is unshackled from many limitations by adopting the correct and enlightened political and ideological principles.

Dude, every group thinks they have something against opposing groups. However, left-wing ideology primarily advocates social equality and right-wing ideology, particularly extremist right-wing ideology, rejects this nation and enters into supremacist ideals particularly with regards to ethno-national groups.

As for nationalism, yes that is more frequently seen on the Right than on the Left, but with respect to Nazism, that alone doesn't mean anything for there was an ideological battle taking place in the socialist movement between "International Socialism" (the Communists) and "National Socialism" (The Nazis). This battle was ideological fratricide - the fight was about which variant of socialism was best.

Nationalism is bottom-line a right wing ideology. I'm not interested in your rationalizations. Germany was a very just straight up nationalistic nation and that can't be softened with your "but it was really about socialism" talk.

Even on the issue of militarism, this is not a strictly Right wing phenomenon, for some of the most Communist countries were the biggest practitioners of militarism.

Please show me where I said that militarism was strictly a right-wing phenomenon.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to admit that you lied about one of my previous posts.

ric27 · Sep 14, 2011

theplaydrive said:
Also, Hitler was a right wing extremist who supported a particular form of right-wing socialism. No amount of revisionism will change this.

I really get a laugh when the left calls Republicans and conservatives "fascists" and "Nazis". Nazi is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist Workers Party. Socialist.

Fascism was coined by Benito Mussolini and was derived from the Italian word fascio, which means bundle or union. Socialism.

The Fascists of Italy and the Nazis of Germany were not right wing, they were left wing. Socialists. Little different from the Communists they hated. And the goal of the American socialist left, i.e. Democratic party.

You seem confused because the Nazi's had snappy looking uniforms.

Conservatives, i.e. the right, have been the champion of individual rights and the least amount of government and government control. The "far right" is not fascism, it is anarchism. No government, no controls, only the individual. So the spectrum isn't a circle with far right being virtually indistinguishable from far left. Far left is big government, total control, "we know best" (we being the gov't), all of it done for the "good of the people". Sheep. Human nature being what it is however, picture Animal Farm. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

The far right at its extreme would best be described as Mad Max. No government, no laws, no restrictions, no protections. You live or die by your own strengths and voluntary alliances and associations.

What American President was responsible for, the Tuskegee experiment, infecting black Americans with syphilis without their knowledge or permission and tracking the progress of the disease? What American President rounded up Japanese-Americans and put them into camps, destroying and confiscating their businesses. In nature, little different from what the NAZIs were doing, just a lesser degree???

ThePlayDrive · Sep 14, 2011

ric27 said:
I really get a laugh when the left calls Republicans and conservatives "fascists" and "Nazis". Nazi is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist Workers Party. Socialist.

I'll just leave you with this since you're clearly beyond fruitful discourse at this point:

Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system",[9] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[10] At a later time, Hitler said: "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."[11] In private, Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".[12] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[13] Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."[14] While not espousing a specific economic philosophy, Hitler employed anti-semitic themes to attack economic systems in other countries, associating ethnic Jews with both communism ("Jewish Bolsheviks") and capitalism, both of which he opposed.[15][16] Hitler also believed that individuals within a nation battled with each other for survival, and that such ruthless competition was good for the health of the nation, because it promoted "superior individuals" to higher positions in society.[17]

The Holocaust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nazism possessed the main aspects of right-wing ideology: nationalism, rejection of social equality and egalitarianism, populism, ethno-national supremacist ideals, rejection of trade unions, social Darwinism and militarism. Moreover, whatever amount of "socialism" existed in Nazi Germany is not enough to be considered traditionally socialist since there was a fair amount of private industry within Nazi Germany. Finally, Hitler removed or killed SOCIALISTS, MARXISTS and most other left-wing individuals specifically because he despised them and their ideologies.

RiverDad · Sep 14, 2011

theplaydrive said:
Eugenics wasn't a "progressive" movement - that revisionism.

This is your history, own it. All those rubes in the Churches were adamantly opposed to Eugenics for it violated God's laws - man was interfering with procreation, eugenics was treating man like he was an animal to be bred. It was the Progressives and the Socialists who went bonkers for this idea. There is no revisionism here - the records are very clear on this. The fact that you don't like it means squat.

If you want to talk revisionism, then take a look at what the Smithsonian Museum has done with their revision of Sanger's history:

Journal of Economic Perspective

Eugenic ideas were not new in the Progressive Era, but they acquired new impetus with the Progressive Era advent of a more expansive government. In effect, the expansion of state power meant that it became possible to have not only eugenic thought, but also eugenic practice. As eugenics historian Diane Paul (1995, p. 6) writes, eugenics legislation had to await “the rise of the welfare state.”

Progressives were drawn to eugenics by the same set of intellectual commitments that drew them to reform legislation. Paramount was the reform idea that laissez-faire was bankrupt. Sidney Webb (1910–1911, p. 237) said flatly, “[N]o consistent eugenicist can be a ‘Laisser Faire’ individualist unless he throws up the game in despair. He must interfere, interfere, interfere!” Similarly, Frank Fetter (1907, pp. 92–93) pronounced at the AEA meetings: “Unless effective means are found to check the degeneration of the race, the noontide of humanity’s greatness is nigh, if not already passed. Our optimism must be based not upon laissez-faire,” said Fetter, “but upon vigorous application of science, humanity, and legislative art to the solution of the problem.”

Progressive opposition to laissez faire was motivated by a set of deep intellectual commitments regarding the relationship between social science, social scientific expertise and right governance. The progressives were committed to 1) the explanatory power of scientific (especially statistical) social inquiry to get at the root causes of social and economic problems; 2) the legitimacy of social control, which derives from a holist conception of society as prior to and greater than the sum of its constituent individuals; 3) the efficacy of social control via expert management of public administration; where 4) expertise is both sufficient and necessary for the task of wise public administration.

It is no accident that so many notable eugenicists were pioneers in statistics. Francis Galton, Karl Pearson and Ronald A. Fisher were all founders of modern statistics and were, in addition, leading lights in the eugenics movement. Many proponents of eugenics in economics were also statistically oriented. Francis Amasa Walker, Richmond Mayo-Smith, Irving Fisher and Walter Wilcox were all statisticians, by training and/or by inclination. They regarded statistical measurement and inference as the method that put the “science” in social science.

Karl Pearson’s (1909, pp. 19–20) “bricks for the foundations” of eugenics emphasized statistical methods as the guarantor of better social science: “[first] we depart from the old sociology, in that we desert verbal discussion for statistical facts, and [second] we apply new methods of statistics which form practically a new calculus.” American progressives also saw statistics as providing a scientific foundation for their legislative reforms. Said reformer Lester Ward (1915, p. 46): “if laws of social events could be statistically formulated, they could be used for scientific lawmaking.”. . . . . . . . . .

American eugenics went into decline in the 1930s, increasingly burdened by its political, demographic and scientific liabilities. Politically, the close association of eugenic ideas with the Nazi regime increasingly discredited American eugenic policies, and the newly powerful Catholic Church also opposed eugenics, both because Church doctrine forbade interference with conception and because many American Catholics belonged to groups the eugenicists considered unfit. But the Progressive Era vogue for eugenics was also undone by demographic and scientific developments.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to admit that you lied about one of my previous posts.

I don't need to lie about any of your posts. I destroy them just fine by using your own words against you.

AdamT · Sep 14, 2011

ric27 said:
The first thing the Nazi's did was to nationalize all the German industry and everything else they could get their hands on. That's totally counter to "right wing" conservative thinking. I think you are confusing "right wing" with "anti communist" or "nationalist", which the Nazi's certainly were. Read up on it and you will find that Nazi ideology is startlingly similar to the American left wing hippie ideology of today, ...minus the nationalism.

The nationalism part is what makes it confusing for most folks *like YOU* these days.

This is so assinine it's hardly worth addressing, but nonetheless.... Hitler was a dictator, a nationalist, and a fascist. Hence the right-wing description (fascism is considered right wing, though it is not the same thing as conservatism). He clearly was not a socialist. He often crticized Marx. One of the first things he *actually* did was break up the unions and make collective bargaining illegal. There was a socialist branch in the early Nazi party, but they were purged as soon as Hitler came to power. In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism."

The truth is that nazism was unlike both today's liberalism and today's conservatism. Hitler had some beliefs held by today's conservatives and ohter beliefs held by today's liberals. And of course he had many views that are only held today by despicable white supremacists.

AdamT · Sep 14, 2011

ric27 said:
I really get a laugh when the left calls Republicans and conservatives "fascists" and "Nazis". Nazi is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist Workers Party. Socialist.

Again, this is ridiculous. East Germany was officially called the German Democratic Republic, but there was nothing democratic or republican about it. The official name of North Vietnam was the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Again, there was nothing democratic or republican about it. This is a completely trivial argument.

RiverDad · Sep 14, 2011

AdamT said:
One of the first things he *actually* did was break up the unions and make collective bargaining illegal.

You think that the Soviet Union was a hotbed of unions and collective bargaining?

AdamT · Sep 14, 2011

RiverDad said:
You think that the Soviet Union was a hotbed of unions and collective bargaining?

I think it was indeed a hotbed of unions, though there wasn't much collective bargaining. But it's not a very good analogy, as Hitler did not nationalize industry the way that the USSR did.

ric27 · Sep 14, 2011

AdamT said:
This is so assinine it's hardly worth addressing, but nonetheless.... Hitler was a dictator, a nationalist, and a fascist. Hence the right-wing description (fascism is considered right wing, though it is not the same thing as conservatism). He clearly was not a socialist. He often crticized Marx. One of the first things he *actually* did was break up the unions and make collective bargaining illegal. There was a socialist branch in the early Nazi party, but they were purged as soon as Hitler came to power. In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism."

The truth is that nazism was unlike both today's liberalism and today's conservatism. Hitler had some beliefs held by today's conservatives and ohter beliefs held by today's liberals. And of course he had many views that are only held today by despicable white supremacists.

AdamT · Sep 14, 2011

Jonah Goldberg -- now there's an unbiased source. :2rofll:

RiverDad · Sep 14, 2011

AdamT said:
I think it was indeed a hotbed of unions, though there wasn't much collective bargaining. But it's not a very good analogy, as Hitler did not nationalize industry the way that the USSR did.

Unlike labor unions in the West, Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU. As such, they were partners of management in attempting to promote labor discipline, worker morale, and productivity. Unions organized "socialist competitions" and awarded prizes for fulfilling quotas.

You pointing to the Nazis disbanding labor unions as a sign that they weren't truly socialist kind of fails when worker interests in the socialist motherland were similarly jettisoned overboard.

ric27 · Sep 15, 2011

AdamT said:
Jonah Goldberg -- now there's an unbiased source. :2rofll:

Part 2 Liberal Fascism (2) -- Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED ** - YouTube

Part 3 Liberal Fascism (3) - Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED ** - YouTube

Part 4 Liberal Fascism (4) - Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED ** - YouTube

Part 5 Liberal Fascism (5) - Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED ** - YouTube

ThePlayDrive · Sep 15, 2011

RiverDad said:
This is your history, own it. All those rubes in the Churches were adamantly opposed to Eugenics for it violated God's laws - man was interfering with procreation, eugenics was treating man like he was an animal to be bred. It was the Progressives and the Socialists who went bonkers for this idea. There is no revisionism here - the records are very clear on this. The fact that you don't like it means squat.

It's not a matter of disliking it. I can't stand Maoism, but I freely admit that it's a left-wing ideology. It's matter of what is and what isn't and the fact that your logic is "the Churches didn't like it so it MUST be all about the left" is blatantly stupid, particularly since the Catholic Church is not all "Churches" and since many religious organizations and leaders did, in fact, support eugenics. Here's an apology from the United Methodist Church for supporting it back in the day.

Eugenics was supported by much of the progressive movement and it was also supported by most of those outside of the progressive movement. It was a nationally supported idea. The Immigration Act of 1924 was one of the central pieces of eugenic legislation and it was passed in the Senate 62-6. Twenty-nine states created marriage restriction laws based on eugenics. Moreover, there was immense public support for eugenics which is why it became such a part of society and government action.

GovTrack: Senate Vote #126 (May 15, 1924)

If you want to talk revisionism, then take a look at what the Smithsonian Museum has done with their revision of Sanger's history:

How does this prove that eugenics was a progressive movement and not simply a popular idea in the United States in general. You're so bad at this. :roll:

I don't need to lie about any of your posts. I destroy them just fine by using your own words against you.

You don't destroy things you distort them. I'm starting to think you really believe your own hype. :lol:

American · Sep 15, 2011

RiverDad said:
Unlike labor unions in the West, Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU. As such, they were partners of management in attempting to promote labor discipline, worker morale, and productivity. Unions organized "socialist competitions" and awarded prizes for fulfilling quotas.

You pointing to the Nazis disbanding labor unions as a sign that they weren't truly socialist kind of fails when worker interests in the socialist motherland were similarly jettisoned overboard.

The Nazis had a unique ideological approach in which they hated communists and capitalists at the same time, in theory. But were a little collectivist and capitalist at the same time, in order to build their army and society.

AdamT · Sep 15, 2011

RiverDad said:
Unlike labor unions in the West, Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU. As such, they were partners of management in attempting to promote labor discipline, worker morale, and productivity. Unions organized "socialist competitions" and awarded prizes for fulfilling quotas.

You pointing to the Nazis disbanding labor unions as a sign that they weren't truly socialist kind of fails when worker interests in the socialist motherland were similarly jettisoned overboard.

Not really, given the fact that Germany was nothing like the USSR. Unions are prevalent in most, if not all, socialist-leaning European countries. This is typical conservative double dealing. Conservatives in the U.S. accuse Obama of being a socialist because of his supposed support for unions, but Hitler's antagonism to unions says nothing about HIS socialist tendencies. :roll:

Grant · Sep 17, 2011

AdamT said:
Jonah Goldberg -- now there's an unbiased source. :2rofll:

Are facts biased or so they speak for themselves

Where are the errors in Jonah Goldberg's speech?

The fact is that there aren't any and you're hoping that a goofy symbol will serve as cover for your lack of knowledge..

Grant · Sep 17, 2011

theplaydrive said:
Eugenics wasn't a "progressive" movement - that revisionism.

Really? Who is that generally supports abortion, another form of eugenics, the Left or the Right? You'll find that "progressives" have always been on the side of birth control of some sort, and now the B;lack babies are aborted more frequently than any other social or racial group, just as many eugenicists favored..

Regardless, take out eugenics and you're still left with nationalism,

Nationalism, even moreso than Eugenics, remains an unspecifdied threat to Leftists but is seldom defined. Where are the dangers and how realistic is that charge today?

rejection of social equality/egalitarianism, rejection of trade unionism, supremacist ideals and targeted removal or execution of left-wing members - all prominent aspects of Nazism and right-wing extremism.

All aspects of right wing extremism where?

Dude, every group thinks they have something against opposing groups. However, left-wing ideology primarily advocates social equality and right-wing ideology, particularly extremist right-wing ideology, rejects this nation and enters into supremacist ideals particularly with regards to ethno-national groups.

Where are you finding these groups? How does left wing ideology advocate social equality while promoting rights for one cultural or racial group over another?

I see cliches here but no examples.

Nationalism is bottom-line a right wing ideology. I'm not interested in your rationalizations. Germany was a very just straight up nationalistic nation and that can't be softened with your "but it was really about socialism" talk.

Please show me where I said that militarism was strictly a right-wing phenomenon.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to admit that you lied about one of my previous posts.[/QUOTE]

Grant · Sep 17, 2011

AdamT said:
He clearly was not a socialist. He often crticized Marx.

So true Socialists cannot criticize Marx?

ThePlayDrive · Sep 17, 2011

Grant said:
Really? Who is that generally supports abortion, another form of eugenics

I stopped reading here, but thanks for making this ridiculous point at the start so I didn't have to waste my time reading the rest.

Grant · Sep 17, 2011

theplaydrive said:
I stopped reading here, but thanks for making this ridiculous point at the start so I didn't have to waste my time reading the rest.

At least you were able to get to the point.

The self censorship you practice is probably the best way to remain in your present state.

ThePlayDrive · Sep 17, 2011

Grant said:
At least you were able to get to the point.

The self censorship you practice is probably the best way to remain in your present state.

Eh, I actually get to my "state" by reading reliable sources of information, not silly rants on the internet by people who clearly don't know what the hell they're talking about.

ric27 · Sep 17, 2011

theplaydrive said:
Eh, I actually get to my "state" by reading reliable sources of information, not silly rants on the internet by people who clearly don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Without debating here the truth or untruth of Christianity, Josh McDowell wrote a book titled "Evidence that demands a verdict, Historical evidence for the Christian Faith". In his forward I believe, he relates an incident in which he was speaking before a college class. The professor was an avowed atheist. After putting out all of the facts, he asked the professor if he could refute any of them. The professor answered, "No." So McDowell asked him if he now believed and again, the professor answered, "No." When asked why, he said he chose not to.

Black unemployment: Highest in 27 years

Trump Grump Whisperer