Walker Has No College Degree...

[Boxlicker101]

Apparently you haven't read the constitution since it clearly states that no religious test can be applied to anyone in office, so the above comments couldn't be less relevant to any office holder or anyone running for office.

There is no religious test to qualify somebody to run for office, but individual voters can certainly establish one of their own. If somebody says "I (will/won't) vote for X because I believe he is (Protestant/Catholic/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Atheist/etc./etc./) that person has every right to do so. It may be short-sighted, but it is still a right.

 

[CandiCame]

Apparently you haven't read the constitution since it clearly states that no religious test can be applied to anyone in office, so the above comments couldn't be less relevant to any office holder or anyone running for office.

That shit kills me. No, he's not Muslim. But if he were, this is the USA. You can be Muslim if you want to. What the actual fuck?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Damn, you have to learn how to talk.

Oh no, a typo.

You didn't deny that you think that the Nazi's were "left wing" though huh dumbass?

 

[CNYCarol]

Walker Has No College Degree... For those who don't know that the first President with a college degree was the America hating, terminally clueless Progressive, Woodrow Wilson. He hated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, much like the current "college educated" revolutionary President who despises, tramples on, and dismisses the law of the land.

Who cares, overeducated arrogant asshats got us into this mess. I think it's time for a real President.

I remember an old joke: What do you call 100 politicians at the bottom of Lake Ontario? Answer, A GOOD START. How about we throw them all in the Florida Swamp?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Who cares, overeducated arrogant asshats got us into this mess.

W has the diplomas, but I wouldn't call him overeducated. Nor educated.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by CNYCarol View Post

Who cares, overeducated arrogant asshats got us into this mess. I think it's time for a real President.

I remember an old joke: What do you call 100 politicians at the bottom of Lake Ontario? Answer, A GOOD START. How about we throw them all in the Florida Swamp?

Great idea!

No, I think it would be better to throw them all into the middle of the Pacific Ocean. That way, somebody - the sharks - would benefit.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Yes the liberal invented faux political spectrum is for children who don't know any different. The real, the practical, spectrum places total government (totalitarianism) on the extreme left, no government (anarchy) on the extreme right. Communism, Socialism, Nazism, are all totalitarian command order systems.

Your conventional Faux spectrum is designed by academe to mask the relationship of modern liberalism to totalitarianism, especially Nazism. However, a true spectrum reveals the real truth, that totalitarianism is a single characteristic of the left with different names and aspects. Just as today's liberal has no relationship to the classical liberals who founded this country, your faux political spectrum has no relationship to the political reality of today.

That's some serious Glenn Beck level bullshit right there.

Newsflash dumbass, totalitarian governments can be left or right.. true socialists and communists on the left (The Nazi party was in no way shape or form a socialist movement, it was military, authoritarian, in fact Hitler despised political leftists and made no secret of it). Theocratic totalitarian governments (as conservative as you can get) are most definitely on the right. Anarchists also occupy both ends of the political spectrum.

The only faux spectrum is yours and Beck's who I can only guess was your source since he's been preaching that particular brand of horseshit for quite some time (and was in fact pushing it again just a couple of days ago on "The Blaze")and gained zero traction among anyone with an IQ over room temperature.

IN reality the far left and far right have much more in common with each other than they do with centrists (look up the Horseshoe theory).

Take the anti-pragmatic side of the United States Republican Party (especially the Religious Right) and compare it to the modern Communist Party of the Russian Federation and you can find quite a few similarities (besides the obvious one that both are ideologues focused on the "purity" of their movement), especially on social policies. In fact, if each party's leaders avoided talking to each other about economics they would find more common ground than they may expect, especially considering their vehement hatred for each other.
For example:
Both strongly endorse "tough on crime" policies and the death penalty.
Both strongly support "traditional values," meaning hardcore social conservatism, hostility to LGBT rights, and pro-life attitudes.
Both have weaknesses for conspiracy theories, especially the conspiracy theory that there is some deliberate effort to destroy morality.
Both are convinced the media is heavily biased against them.
Both are fervently patriotic and support some form of nationalism while holding the belief that each of their countries are the greatest in the world. This leads to some supporting a degree of historical revisionism as well.
Both are reactionary in nature and extremely nostalgic for some sort of "golden age" (Stalin for the commies, Ronald Reagan or the 50's for the GOP).
Both support increasing spending on an even larger national defense while rarely questioning if it's necessary. Also, they both tend to admire "masculinity" and militarism.
Both have a weakness for "boogeymen," with liberals being a common target for both parties.
Both make populist appeals to the lower classes, mainly by promising to cut their taxes, regardless of whether it will be done or whether it can be afforded.
Both have a love of dramatic rhetoric, even by political standards.
Both support largely discredited economic crankery that is usually defended with "common sense" type arguments.
Both have strands of anti-intellectualism, with intellectuals who question them being seen as "elitist."
Both are currently trying to appeal to the religious majority in each of their respective countries, with even CPRF leader Zyuganov citing the "spiritual values" of communism in his speeches to appeal to followers of the Russian Orthodox Church, despite the party being historically atheist.
Both support censorship, and passing legislation to stop the "degradation" of national symbols.
Both, hilariously, blame each other for the supposed "degredation" of art, literature, culture, and philosophy. The commies claim that the embrace of capitalism has left these areas bland because artists are only concerned about profit, not quality, where the Republicans like to say that "leftists" or "secularists" have ruined these areas because their "hostility" to religion has harmed creativity.
Both like to reference revolutionary heroes from their nation's past in their arguments, usually by claiming that they are fighting for the same values they were, which is commonly followed up by saying that what they stand for is "True American/Russian values," whereas their opponents stand for evil/radicalism. They may also liken themselves to being the "underdogs" in their current fight, like said revolutionary leaders. Expect for these historical figures to be glorified and their flaws to be ignored/excused/downplayed.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The Florida swamps would be good too, and let the alligators eat them. But not Lake Ontario. Their corpses would just pollute the water.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yes the liberal invented faux political spectrum is for children who don't know any different.

Look, pretty much the whole Western world sees it like this:

The terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" originated in the years following the French Revolution of 1789, when the nobility were seated on the right side in parliament meeting, and representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie sat on the left. Thus, the term "right-wing" became associated with maintaining the status quo and protecting the interests of the established elites, like the nobility, clergy and the wealthy. The "left-wing" is associated with demanding progress and equality, although the extent can vary from liberals who seek change through economic reform (while retaining a market-based system) to socialists, who advocate the destruction of capitalism and collective ownership of the means of production.

The following is the classic left-to-right political spectrum that still makes a good deal of sense to many people in the United States of America and resonates strongly throughout Western civilizations. Included in this basic linear political spectrum are examples of western ideologies and where they would fit:

Communism ---- Social democracy ----- Liberalism ----- Centrism ----- Conservatism ----- Reactionism ----- Fascism

Granted, there is the Horseshoe Theory, and granted, are other models, see Nolan Chart and Pournelle Chart -- the latter is especially interesting because it acknowledges similarities between Communism and Fascism while still providing a principle to distinguish them (they are alike in worship of the state but dissimilar in worship of reason).

Your conventional Faux spectrum is designed by academe to mask the relationship of modern liberalism to totalitarianism, especially Nazism.

That relationship is one of mutual hostility and always was.

 

[unregistered]

 

[The_Trouvere]

Newsflash dumbass, totalitarian governments can be left or right.. true socialists and communists on the left (The Nazi party was in no way shape or form a socialist movement, it was military, authoritarian, in fact Hitler despised political leftists and made no secret of it). Theocratic totalitarian governments (as conservative as you can get) are most definitely on the right. Anarchists also occupy both ends of the political spectrum.

Hitler's inclusion of the word "socialist" in the name of his party, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, was a marketing ploy. He knew that socialism was a popular ideal among a large segment of the German public, and he wanted to appeal to as much of that segment as he could.

Nevertheless, Joseph Goebbels made it clear that the Nazis did not intend to nationalize private industry.

The most important difference between Nazism and Communism is that - except for Jews, and obvious enemies of the regime - those who were rich before the Nazis came to power remained rich after the Nazis came to power. Those who were rich before Communists came to power in any country where Communists came to power lost their wealth.

That is why most rich Germans to some extent supported the Nazis, even though most recoiled from the vulgarity of the Storm Troopers, and of Hitler himself.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Hitler's inclusion of the word "socialist" in the name of his party, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, was a marketing ploy. He knew that socialism was a popular ideal among a large segment of the German public, and he wanted to appeal to as much of that segment as he could.

Nevertheless, Joseph Goebbels made it clear that the Nazis did not intend to nationalize private industry.

The most important difference between Nazism and Communism is that - except for Jews, and obvious enemies of the regime - those who were rich before the Nazis came to power remained rich after the Nazis came to power. Those who were rich before Communists came to power in any country where Communists came to power lost their wealth.

That is why most rich Germans to some extent supported the Nazis, even though most recoiled from the vulgarity of the Storm Troopers, and of Hitler himself.

"Socialism" in the 1920s in Germany was extensively promoted by industrialists and the Junkers (today we'd be calling them the "one percenters") as a viable alternative to Communism, which German industrialists feared above all else.

There WAS a true socialistic movement in Germany at the time, and the authoritarian wing (led by the industrialists who thought of Hitler as a Reagan-class useful mouthpiece) and the "true" socialist wing banded together to fight the Commies for political power.

The Hitler (SA) faction was much better organized than the larger true socialist faction. They eventually co-opted the socialists and instituted their own authoritarian platform. We see something similar happening today with the Tea Party Nazis, small in number, attempting to co-opt the mainstream Republicans.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

We all know that Hitler fought and destroyed Communist aspirations in Germany and blamed the Jews for promoting it; but he didn't do so because he thought communism threatened liberty in Germany, he did it because he wanted to threaten liberty in Germany in his own totalitarian way as opposed to their's.

Well, it wasn't only Communists; Hitler also persecuted Social Democrats, and small-d democrats, and trades-unionists, and even ordinary liberals if they talked too much for his liking. Even Martin Niemoller, a conservative Christian and at first a supporter of Hitler, eventually proved too liberal for him. As Niemoller later said, "First they came for the Socialists . . ."

 

[KingOrfeo]

Gratuitous lie.

You might object to the comparison with Reagan, but it is certainly true that German industrialists thought they had a useful idiot in Hitler, and backed his rise to power for that reason.

They soon learned better.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Nazism's relationship to "socialism" was always complicated.

Political economy of Nazi Germany

Early in his political career, Adolf Hitler regarded economic issues as relatively unimportant. In 1922, Hitler proclaimed that "world history teaches us that no person has become great through its economy but that a person can very well perish thereby", and later concluded that "the economy is something of secondary importance".[9] Hitler and the Nazis held a very strong idealist conception of history, which held that human events are guided by small numbers of exceptional individuals following a higher ideal. They believed that all economic concerns, being purely material, were unworthy of their consideration. Hitler went as far as to blame all previous German governments since Bismarck of having "subjugated the nation to materialism" by relying more on peaceful economic development than on expansion through war.[10]

For these reasons, the Nazis never had a clearly defined economic programme. The original "Twenty-Five Point Programme" of the party, adopted in 1920, listed several economic demands (including "the abolition of all incomes unearned by work," "the ruthless confiscation of all war profits," "the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations," "profit-sharing in large enterprises," "extensive development of insurance for old-age," and "land reform suitable to our national requirements"),[11] but the degree to which the Nazis supported this programme in later years has been questioned. Several attempts were made in the 1920s to change some of the program or replace it entirely. For instance, in 1924, Gottfried Feder proposed a new 39-point program that kept some of the old planks, replaced others and added many completely new ones.[12] Hitler refused to allow any discussion of the party programme after 1925, ostensibly on the grounds that no discussion was necessary because the programme was "inviolable" and did not need any changes. At the same time, however, Hitler never voiced public support for the programme and many historians argue that he was in fact privately opposed to it. Hitler did not mention any of the planks of the programme in his book, Mein Kampf, and only talked about it in passing as "the so-called programme of the movement".[13]

Hitler's views on economics

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",[14] 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."[15] 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."[13] In private, Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".[16] 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.[17] Shortly after coming to power, Hitler told a confidant: "There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism, not such trivial matters as the possibility of privately owning the means of production. Such things mean nothing if I subject people to a kind of discipline they can't escape...What need have we to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings".[18] He 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."[19] 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.[20][21] 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.[22] At Berchtesgaden Hitler held his final speech, drafted by Albert Speer, in front of an audience. He emphasised the "self-responsibility of industry". After the won war "private initiative of German business will experience its greatest moment", and Hitler expressed his belief in "the further development of humanity through the promotion of private initiative, in which alone I see the precondition for all real progress."[23]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

"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"

The first sentence is a self serving attempt move away from socialism by the author, whoever that is. If he opposed capitalism, what other system could he possibly embrace except command order economics?

Dirigisme and Third Positionism.

The real difference between Hitler's National Socialism and Stalin's Communism, is that although Hitler allowed for the ownership of the means of production to remain in private hands, the state owned all that was produced.

Well, no, most of what was produced went on the market just as before; a lot of it, of course, went to the military. Nazi "socialism" meant that the state controlled even what it did not own; intervened in the economy, bossed the executive, nationalized property, to whatever extent seemed expedient to the officials at the time, without any systematic approach; unlike the Bolsheviks, the Nazis were not under any ideological imperative to nationalize everything. For more details see here.

It also meant German workers were allowed only one labor union, the Party-controlled German Labour Front, which was never allowed to strike, and all others were either merged into it or suppressed. (As a union, the GLF didn't do much to raise its' members wages, but did get them a high level of job security -- serving the interests of the state, which wanted a labor force, not necessarily well-paid, but staying on the job and not causing an unemployment problem.)

 

[unregistered]