• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does liberalism contribute to the issues this woman demonstrates? [W:232]

Does liberalism contribute to the issues this woman demonstrates?

  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 7 36.8%

  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im not American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    Votes: 10 52.6%

  • Im not American, no.

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Total voters
    19
US Conservative said:
Well, I said "Enough to not bite the hand that feeds them." So the "not" in that statement would imply no.
Click to expand...

Okay, why would they vote for a party that doesn't believe in public services and wants to privatize nearly everything? How is that going to help anyone?
 
calamity said:
She can invite him to sit on her porch in the public-housing project with the half a dozen older people and kids in front of that government house where the door is usually open, people who have nothing to do because they are basically on government subsidy, aborting their young children and putting their young men in jail...pick cotton. They can always talk about picking cotton, wondering "are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, all the while watching as their cows graze on public land for free.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Okay, why would they vote for a party that doesn't believe in public services and wants to privatize nearly everything? How is that going to help anyone?
Click to expand...

Your statement is incorrect. Public services at the bare minimum are appropriate for a govt. Handouts, to get votes-not so much. And privatized means accountability to its customers-a need to remain competitive or they will go under.

Pretty much the opposite of our public schools, as an example.
 
US Conservative said:
Your statement is incorrect. Public services at the bare minimum are appropriate for a govt. Handouts, to get votes-not so much. And privatized means accountability to its customers-a need to remain competitive or they will go under.

Pretty much the opposite of our public schools, as an example.
Click to expand...

Does either party want to get rid of such programs such as welfare? I think the bigger issue is to privatize social programs more and more which goes hand and hand with stripping the government of revenue. Many people disagree with this ideology.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Does either party want to get rid of such programs such as welfare? I think the bigger issue is to privatize social programs more and more which goes hand and hand with stripping the government of revenue. Many people disagree with this ideology.
Click to expand...

One side wants to minimize it-the other wants to call the other evil. :roll:

Theres nothing funny about robbing an individual of his/her initiative.
 
NoC_T said:
Neither Wing holds a monopoly on any of these traits. But to suggest the KKK were Lefties betrays an utter ignorance of the most fundamental and abiding political definitions. You've basically re-written every contemporary political syllabus, the world over. You're probably one of those guys who believes Hitler was a Socialist.
Click to expand...

I guess when you are the head of the socialist party of Germany it doesnt mean you're a socialist?? Um ok
 
Gringo allstar said:
I guess when you are the head of the socialist party of Germany it doesnt mean you're a socialist?? Um ok
Click to expand...

Actually, they called themselves socialists mostly within the context of creating a master race that wouldn't be divided by social classes. Not because they cared about creating a society where workers regardless of who they were controlled the means of production. It's kind of like people who say they're in favor of freedom & liberty, and then turn around and support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Or people who say they're against authoritarianism and then turn a blind eye to police brutality.
 
NoC_T said:
Neither Wing holds a monopoly on any of these traits. But to suggest the KKK were Lefties betrays an utter ignorance of the most fundamental and abiding political definitions. You've basically re-written every contemporary political syllabus, the world over. You're probably one of those guys who believes Hitler was a Socialist.
Click to expand...

What's next, eugenics was a rightwing movement?? If you're going to be a lefty at least don't be ashamed of your movements past! You clowns need to find someone that doesn't know history, and nooo Chomsky history doesn't count.
 
Hatuey said:
Actually, they called themselves socialists mostly within the context of creating a master race that wouldn't be divided by social classes. Not because they cared about creating a society where workers regardless of who they were controlled the means of production. It's kind of like people who say they're in favor of freedom & liberty, and then turn around and support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Or people who say they're against authoritarianism and then turn a blind eye to police brutality.
Click to expand...

Ohhh so they were lying?? So I guess Stalin really wasnt a communist he was just pretending?? Because you guys get all giddy about being commies dont cha??? See what you really mean is you dont like how the nazis made the leftwing look so you try and distance yourselves from them. But alas this con job only works on people who are ignorant of history, im not so run that BS on some drone in your own party. Also make sure to tell your fellow leftist buddy Noc T who said I was full of **** and the nazis were not socialst, that YOU just said they were, in name only haha ya right.
 
And to connect the dots for you drones, who do the clan idolize????? Drum roll please,brrrrrrrrrrrrr psh THE GERMAN SOCIALISTS AKA THE NAZI'S!! Now I'll wait for the guy in the dingy robe who looks to need a shower.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Evil as in those evil leebruls:lol:
Click to expand...

Actually I dont feel the majority of liberals are "evil" at all. 90+% of folks I know are not liberal even though they vote dem! Most people who vote left aren't leftist at all, they just genuinely dont understand it a philosophical war. Most people I personal know who vote dem are really conservative both fiscally and socially.
 
Gringo allstar said:
Ohhh so they were lying??
Click to expand...

How in heaven's name did you get that idea from my post? If anything, my post explained that their concept of "socialism" was restricted to solidarity entirely dependent on the race of the individual. In short, they were "socialists" in so far as they believed that the white race (and the white race alone) would better benefit from a generally classless system.

However, this classless system didn't include things normally associated with socialism. For example, most socialists agree with the foundational framework laid out of by Marx in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Though they disagree on major details with communists: for example socialism believes in each receiving according to what they do, communism believes in each receiving according to their need.

Furthermore, Nazi Germany's views on "socialism" were not only critical of Marx, they entirely redefined the ideas he laid out. Hitler's views on the matter:

Mein Kempf p. 60 said:
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
Click to expand...

Wait... Hitler, the socialist... saying Marx, the father of socialism would bring about the end of man? That can't be right. Wait... there's more:

Slowly fear and the Marxist weapon of Jewry descend like a nightmare on the mind and soul of decent people.

They begin to tremble before the terrible enemy and thus have become his final victim.

The Jew’s domination in the state seems so assured that now not only can he call himself a Jew again, but he ruthlessly admits his ultimate national and political designs. A section of his race openly owns itself to be a foreign people, yet even here they lie. For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.
Click to expand...

In short, Hitler thought Marxism and socialism (as practiced by the only other socialist nation at the time - the USSR) to be nothing but a Jewish conspiracy to oppress the true socialism that he was presenting.

- He wasn't interested in worker's rights. He actually banned trade unions and strikes in Nazi Germany. Trade Unions and Nazi Germany
- He wasn't interested in taxation as a means to ameliorating any social issues. In fact, he decreased taxes. Hans-Joachim Braun, "The German Economy in the Twentieth Century", Routledge, 1990, p. 83
- He was neutral when it came to big business. He saw it as a passive observer for the most part:

"Hitler's failure to follow up vigorously on the entree he had gained to the business community through his Industry Club speech tends to substantiate the hypothesis that he sought merely to neutralize big business, not to bring its leaders actively behind the NSDAP or to exploit its financial resources for his party."
Click to expand...

The picture of the relationship between German big business and the Nazi party which Turner provides us is one that reveals how little big business had to do with the party's success. In Republican Germany, the big business community was a loosely organized, politically ineffective interest group that was held together primarily by its opposition to the growing menace of Sozialpolitik, that is, the modern welfare state. Its political dealings were mainly with the so- called bourgeois parties of the center and right the DVP (Deutsche Volkspartei), the DDP (Deutsche Demokratische Partei), and the DNVP (Deutschnationale Volkspartei). However, the general disdain big business had for the republican form of government, a government that jeopardized the privileged position it once held under the defunct Imperial order, precluded any serious attempt to use the system to its advantage, a system where "votes, not money" were the determining factor in political success.
Click to expand...

In short, Hitler didn't bother them. They didn't bother them. Weird thing for a socialist to do. If anything, the only other self declared "socialist" entity at the time and those that followed went an entirely different route. In Russia for example, private enterprise was nearly wiped out by the 1920s. Why not in Nazi Germany? In Cuba, the first thing the country did was create unions for groups of all sorts of professions. Why did Nazi Germany do the opposite? Well, the answer is obvious. In the German context, socialism was being redefined to meet the calls for white supremacy. The Nazis basically gutted the entire concept of socialism and simply applied the label to their beliefs about solidarity amongst whites independent of what nations they were born in.

Anyways, I hope you have enjoyed this history lesson.
 
Last edited:
Does liberalism contribute to the issues this woman demonstrates?

LOL. I can imagine the reply to the above post....

....but,but,but...the name of the party was 'National Socialist'!"

It reminds me of Spinal Tap. 'But this amp goes to 11.'
 
Gringo allstar said:
Ohhh so they were lying?? So I guess Stalin really wasnt a communist he was just pretending?? Because you guys get all giddy about being commies dont cha??? See what you really mean is you dont like how the nazis made the leftwing look so you try and distance yourselves from them. But alas this con job only works on people who are ignorant of history, im not so run that BS on some drone in your own party. Also make sure to tell your fellow leftist buddy Noc T who said I was full of **** and the nazis were not socialst, that YOU just said they were, in name only haha ya right.
Click to expand...
Isn't it remarkable how the left can pick and chose from the historical record as they please?
 
US Conservative said:
Isn't it remarkable how the left can pick and chose from the historical record as they please?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't actually expect you to engage me in any kind of debate about this subject. Specially to do so in a way that doesn't involve making snide remarks about a subject that goes so far over your head you need a ladder just to see it. You know, the Nazis were overly patriotic too ;) But I won't reduce myself to little snide commentary. I'd rather just let you do that.
 
US Conservative said:
Isn't it remarkable how the left can pick and chose from the historical record as they please?
Click to expand...

They took power as a socialst party and these guys act like this never happened, then try and link it to the right!! Its truly pathetic how low and dishonest the left is. Everytime I get into these skrimishes with these lowsome leftist it just solidifys to me that im on the right side of things.
 
Gringo allstar said:
They took power as a socialst party and these guys act like this never happened, then try and link it to the right!! Its truly pathetic how low and dishonest the left is. Everytime I get into these skrimishes with these lowsome leftist it just solidifys to me that im on the right side of things.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for your reply. :)
 
Gringo allstar said:
They took power as a socialst party and these guys act like this never happened, then try and link it to the right!! Its truly pathetic how low and dishonest the left is. Everytime I get into these skrimishes with these lowsome leftist it just solidifys to me that im on the right side of things.
Click to expand...

They are revisionists with an awful history. Its one reason they must move from name to name-as they ruin each.
 
Gringo, why are you running away from my reply?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom