Does some of this sound familiar? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Does some of this sound familiar?


Dbltapglock
07-03-2012, 15:30
Deleted

Cycletroll
07-03-2012, 15:42
It's already happening here; been happening for decades :(

Gunhaver
07-03-2012, 15:43
Why is Hitler always portrayed as the only alternative to conservatism?

JFrame
07-03-2012, 15:45
It's interesting that the destruction of the family unit has been the desire of every leftist, including Hitler.


.

JFrame
07-03-2012, 15:46
Why is Hitler always portrayed as the only alternative to conservatism?


Oh, come on -- he's hardly the only one. We can give you Mao, Fidel, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hugo Chavez...


.

Dbltapglock
07-03-2012, 15:48
deleted

JFrame
07-03-2012, 15:50
Don't forget Amin.


Heck -- don't even get me started on that continent... :shocked:


.

Mister_Beefy
07-03-2012, 15:57
Molon Labe

certifiedfunds
07-03-2012, 23:06
Why is Hitler always portrayed as the only alternative to conservatism?

Tyranny always comes from the left. The far right is maximum liberty.

All great murderous tyrants in history have been leftists. That's why we stay so vigilant with you folks.

countrygun
07-03-2012, 23:14
Why is Hitler always portrayed as the only alternative to conservatism?

Hitler's party wasn't the "National Capitalist Party"

it was the "National Socialist Party'

Gunhaver
07-03-2012, 23:45
The far right is maximum liberty.



Somebody needs to tell that to the GOP.

Dbltapglock
07-04-2012, 01:00
deleted

automatic slim
07-04-2012, 06:41
I never understood how people could call Hitler "right wing". He always seemed pretty "left wing" to me, you know, being a socialist and all.:dunno:

JFrame
07-04-2012, 09:32
I never understood how people could call Hitler "right wing". He always seemed pretty "left wing" to me, you know, being a socialist and all.:dunno:


I suspect it has been a huge (and largely successful) propaganda push by leftist academics, politicos, historians, etc., of portraying "leftists fighting for their motherland" (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.) versus "a mad, racist, right-wing nut bent on global domination" (Hitler).

Hitler was a leftist.


.

Cavalry Doc
07-04-2012, 09:37
I never understood how people could call Hitler "right wing". He always seemed pretty "left wing" to me, you know, being a socialist and all.:dunno:

He was very left wing, not quite as much as the communists that wanted to own industry, Hitler just wanted to control it completely. Both Hitler and Stalin were totalitarians though. Not all that far apart politically.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/Anarchyconservative.jpg

JFrame
07-04-2012, 09:41
He was very left wing, not quite as much as the communists that wanted to own industry, Hitler just wanted to control it completely. Both Hitler and Stalin were totalitarians though. Not all that far apart politically.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/Anarchyconservative.jpg


Cool chart, Doc -- a picture/diagram speaks a thousand words...


.

Ruble Noon
07-04-2012, 09:44
I suspect it has been a huge (and largely successful) propaganda push by leftist academics, politicos, historians, etc., of portraying "leftists fighting for their motherland" (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.) versus "a mad, racist, right-wing nut bent on global domination" (Hitler).

Hitler was a leftist.


.

Correct. Hitler tainted their ideology.

Skyhook
07-04-2012, 09:49
Liberal? Left?


One word: HATE.

http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=44f26fde-6a87-4802-a6df-2a4614481937&url=roberts_blankenhorn_and_the_power_of_liberal_intimidation

steveksux
07-04-2012, 09:54
Why is Hitler always portrayed as the only alternative to conservatism?It isn't.

Some Democrats were passing around basically the same theory when Bush was in office. Apparently, Hitler is the only alternative to liberalism also.

Randy

Dbltapglock
07-04-2012, 09:56
deleted

countrygun
07-04-2012, 10:04
Here are a few right wing tyrants:
Emperor Bao Dai
Ngo Dinh Diem
Chiang Kai-shek
Syngman Rhee
Park Chung Hee
General Chun Doo Hwan
Laurent Kabila
Idi Amin
General Sani Abacha
Adolf Hitler
Benito Mussolini
Francisco Franco
General Humberto Castelo Branco
Marco Vinicio Cerezo Arévalo
Roberto Suazo Cordova
Anastasio Somoza (in fact, all the Somozas who ruled for 30 years)
General Suharto
Colonel Hugo Banzer Suarez
Reza Muhammed Shah Pahlawi
Augusto Ugarte Pinnochet
Fulgencio Batista
P.W. Botha
Saddam Hussein
Muammar al-Qaddafi
Rafael Leonidas Molina Trujillo
Porfirio Diaz
Manuel Antonio Noriega
Anwar Al Saddat
Husni Mubarak
King Hussein
King Abdulla
Francois Duvalier
Jean-Claude Duvalier
The shah of Iran
Augusto Pinochet
General Miguel Ydigoras



Exactly!

Leave it to a Californian:upeyes:

I wonder what website that list was copped from.

BTW tell them that

Reza Muhammed Shah Pahlawi

and

The Shah of Iran

Are the same person. I know it's hard to keep straight when compiling long, meaningless lists.

Also ask your controllers if they think that, in the Shah's era, women attending school, wearing western clothes driving cars was a sign of tyranny, then what is Iran now?

Mention to them that Hitler was a Socialist.

Interesting to note that the list includes Islamic theocracies as automatically "Right Wing". Theocracies should have their own category.

JFrame
07-04-2012, 10:11
Leave it to a Californian:upeyes:

I wonder what website that list was copped from.

BTW tell them that

Reza Muhammed Shah Pahlawi

and

The Shah of Iran

Are the same person. I know it's hard to keep straight when compiling long, meaningless lists.

Also ask your controllers if they think that, in the Shah's era, women attending school, wearing western clothes driving cars was a sign of tyranny, then what is Iran now?

Mention to them that Hitler was a Socialist.

Interesting to note that the list includes Islamic theocracies as automatically "Right Wing". Theocracies should have their own category.


Good points -- I'm not sure that lands with royalties shouldn't have their own distinction also. Also, a lot of the lands mentioned are tiny tinpot banana republics. I doubt that their populations taken en toto reach a fraction of the Soviet Union and Red China.


.

HexHead
07-04-2012, 10:12
Some of you get hung up on a word, and miss the meaning. The key word in National Socialist is National. It was an offshoot of Mussolini's Fascism. Socialists want to benefit the people. Fascists and National Socialists benefit the government. Private industry can flourish, as long as it benefits the state.

Dbltapglock
07-04-2012, 10:14
deleted

JFrame
07-04-2012, 10:16
Exactly! Both are pretty much the same, so the labels are meaningless. Both use brutality and control to achieve their goals. That is why people debate over weather Hitler was right wing or left wing, really no difference.


Excuse me, but it was a resident leftist who brought Hitler into this discussion in the first place, vis-a-vis conservatism.


.

countrygun
07-04-2012, 10:17
Good points -- I'm not sure that lands with royalties shouldn't have their own distinction also. Also, a lot of the lands mentioned are tiny tinpot banana republics. I doubt that their populations taken en toto reach a fraction of the Soviet Union and Red China.


.


Indeed, a monarchy is not elected, it is inhereted and must perpetuate itself, as such they tend to be authoritarian, which of course will be labled "right wing" when it is convenient for some.

HexHead
07-04-2012, 10:17
Exactly! Both are pretty much the same, so the labels are meaningless. Both use brutality and control to achieve their goals. That is why people debate over weather Hitler was right wing or left wing, really no difference. Socialists also want to benefit the government.

Other than the difference that he rounded up Socialists and Bolsheviks and sent them to camps.

Dbltapglock
07-04-2012, 10:20
deleted

JFrame
07-04-2012, 10:36
I realize they are the same, I did not notice both in the list. That was still a totalitarian government, not elected by the people and people did experience tyranny. Wearing Western clothes does not make the people free. The difference is which group benefits and which gets screwed, but in a tyranny someone always gets screwed. People seem to confuse right wing and left wing tyranny because they only look at who benefits in each form of tyranny. Again, the point of the thread is getting lost here.


I do think you also need to look at the totality of impact on the world and global events that leftist tyranny has had. Excluding theocratic and royal tyrannies, the greatest tyrannical influences imposed on the world, and its people, have been by the left since the inception of Marxism and its offshoot doctrines.

I agree that the impact on an individual, from any tyranny, is not pleasant.


.

countrygun
07-04-2012, 10:39
I realize they are the same, I did not notice both in the list. That was still a totalitarian government, not elected by the people and people did experience tyranny. Wearing Western clothes does not make the people free. The difference is which group benefits and which gets screwed, but in a tyranny someone always gets screwed. People seem to confuse right wing and left wing tyranny because they only look at who benefits in each form of tyranny. Again, the point of the thread is getting lost here.

But, since you decided to post the list let's make, what I think might be your point with another person on the list.

If we throw out the old monarchies and theocracies, maybe we should look at when these remainder came to power and under what circumstances. My "model" if you will bear with me would be a revolutionary leader who moves into power on a wave of popularity promising socila change, etc,etc and "flips" and becomes authoritarian.

In that vein as an example, I offer one one your list and his replacement.

Fulgencio Batista. (Odd that his replacement Castro, did not make the list?) Castro's revolution traded a "class system" if you will for a system in which working class people try to escape the Country on inner tubes. Now I would suggest asking Cuban ex-patriots around Miami which of the two created "tyranny".

Cavalry Doc
07-04-2012, 10:47
Leave it to a Californian:upeyes:

I wonder what website that list was copped from.

BTW tell them that

Reza Muhammed Shah Pahlawi

and

The Shah of Iran

Are the same person. I know it's hard to keep straight when compiling long, meaningless lists.

Also ask your controllers if they think that, in the Shah's era, women attending school, wearing western clothes driving cars was a sign of tyranny, then what is Iran now?

Mention to them that Hitler was a Socialist.

Interesting to note that the list includes Islamic theocracies as automatically "Right Wing". Theocracies should have their own category.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:


Public schools today, :rofl: are they even taking attendance anymore?

Cavalry Doc
07-04-2012, 10:50
Cool chart, Doc -- a picture/diagram speaks a thousand words...


.

Only problem is there should also be a "Z" axis, with one extreme being democracy (in the pure sense of the word), the other dictatorship.

JFrame
07-04-2012, 10:57
Only problem is there should also be a "Z" axis, with one extreme being democracy (in the pure sense of the word), the other dictatorship.


Hmmm...That might entail the need of a holographic chart...


.

Jeff82
07-04-2012, 11:36
The simplest and (IMHO) the best way to describe terms of government. Take 10 minutes and get on board:

What is America's True Form of Government? - YouTube

G29Reload
07-04-2012, 12:07
Why is Hitler always portrayed as the only alternative to conservatism?

Because thats the awful results of the road taken.

There is no middle ground with statists.


Anyone who thinks the Left has "moderate" democrats?

O-care was voted for by all of them, and no Republicans.

A couple were let off the hook by Nazi Pelosi once the threshhold had been reached to help them retain their districts by voting against it, once it didn't matter any more.

Every single one of them had to be prepared to vote for it. And were.

Even that "nice" gabby giffords. She voted for that monstrosity the Supreme Court just bastardized.

There are no "moderate" or nice democrats. Every one of them will follow the statist lockstep, straight over a cliff if ncessary.

They love to tax and spend. Not a one of them will ever answer: When is enough enough? How much exactly? What's "too much tax" in your book? When would it be too much for you to support?

They cannot answer. Because they know the truth would frighten people. Those sheep in flyover country.

The truth is, extremism is right up their alley. If the party diktat said we just had to mail it all in and they'd just give us back what we "needed", they'd all go along with it.

Because its NEVER enough. Radical extremism IS their end. Whether Staliinist or a Hitlerite use of force to make it happen, they'd go along with it.

And drive-by leftist that you are, you would too. You'll do what you're told. And ask for more.

You'll work hard with a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day...

Richard Nixon, for all his faults once said something very wise about taxation and control. Something to the effect of taxes (read: control) should never exceed 50%. To the extent they do, you're then working the majority of your time for the government. And when the people serve the government instead of the other way around, that's communism.

For many people in this country, that is already a reality. If they're rich, they're told they're not contributing enough, while the bottom half freeloads. They're attacked ad hominem and derided as selfish and greedy. Not thieves, like Bernie Madoff, the likes of whom we do throw in jail, but people who did nothing more than earn their money honestly.

If they broke the law, throw them in jail. You've got a law enforcement problem.

If not, leave them the f alone.

The rich in this country own the storefronts and factories that give people jobs. Go down the statist road long enough, and the government will own your business. Like GM.

And Hitler's Germany. Too valuable to the government? Your company just got nationalized. Ask the oil industry folk in Venezuela, who it just happened to. Yep. Marxist thugboy just took it over.

There IS NO STOPPING POINT. Its part and parcel of the ideology. If a little control is good to them, think how nice having all of it would be. That's how they roll.