The Liberal Gun Club Forum

I see this forum is finally being invaded by right-wing "concern trolls", those who didn't bother to post a damn thing until this tragedy. Now they're engaged in ass-covering.

I'm sick of all this Liberalism=Nazism=Socialism horseshit.

Other people have responded enough to this slander. I'm not going to repeat it, except to say that fascism is a CAPITALIST phenomenon that industry wholeheartedly supports whenever they feel threatened by the left.

Here are two books that illustrate the point:

Fascism and Big Business by Daniel Guerin

The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard Evans.

http://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Big-Busin ... 368&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Third-Reic ... 408&sr=1-1


Read something else besides the garbage published by Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg.

Leucoandro wrote:Simmer down,

Well I am checking the site out, but I sure see a lot of blame this side or that side, jump to conclusions...

I hope you understand this site's citizens do not pretend to be neutral or even 100% right 100% of the time. Some subjects don't have a Truth so opinions and sometimes guessing fills the void.

Things here do lean away from the typical conservative beliefs and that's why the site exists.

Yes, some postings are biased, influenced by a person's personal opinion and strong emotions. Some aren't appropriate. There is no (or little) group think.

Welcome to the place and I hope you can appreciate what we are and don't get hung up so much on what we aren't.

Let me just add one more thing. Socialism in Europe today is quite different from the socialism of 40 or 50 years ago. Today it is more about workers having an influence in decision making , sharing responsibilities as well as profits or loss. Hell, we have a number of employee owned business in the USA and they are doing quite well. Many are doing far better than your typical CEO/board of directors run corporation. Why? Because they have a vested interest in their company staying in business. Lots of corporations are about making money, so if selling the company or dissolving the company is what will bring them money on a short run, that's what they'll do.

mvelimir wrote:Hell, we have a number of employee owned business in the USA and they are doing quite well.

Yep. That, in a nutshell, is socialism. No "absentee ownership". Workers controlling their own businesses and their own destinies.

"The FBI director, Robert Mueller, who travelled to Tucson, Arizona, to take charge of the investigation, said that one focus of the inquiry is whether far-right organisations and websites played a role.

An official familiar with the investigation has said that local authorities were looking at a possible connection between Loughner and an online group known for white supremacist, anti-immigrant rhetoric called the American Renaissance website for possible motives."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... s-politics

The fascist and nazi movement in europe during the 30s was backed by the most conservative people in this country, that is a documented fact. I hope the direction on the debate on this site is different from others in that I hope people are less concerned with his political beliefs, some of the other sites that I frequent they can only scream caps lock about the fact that he was a liberal, one site I deleted my cookies and logged out permanently. I think there is going to be an assault in DC on both the 1st and 2nd ammendments.

Oh, and welcome to the site, Leucoandro. A difficult topic to be your first.

I've got a lot to say on this but lack the time and energy to put it all into type.

First off, shame on me for immediately jumping too the conclusion that this guy was a Teabagger.

What I do want to mention quickly is that whether he was Right, Left or just Batshit it has not been the Left pushing the message that it is acceptable to bring guns to political rallies or bring guns into politics at all except in the abstract discussion of reasonable (or unreasonable) regulation. Just because you legally can do something doesn't mean you should and doesn't mean it doesn't set a bad precedent.

What is interesting is that the Right now seem to be saying that just because they use gun related words and phrases in their slogans doesn't mean they actually mean any of it literally or expect that anyone would take it as such and act on it. With sex education, however, they jump up and down and scream that teaching kids about sex will lead to them having sex.

masonalannz wrote:I've got a lot to say on this but lack the time and energy to put it all into type.

First off, shame on me for immediately jumping too the conclusion that this guy was a Teabagger.

What I do want to mention quickly is that whether he was Right, Left or just Batshit it has not been the Left pushing the message that it is acceptable to bring guns to political rallies or bring guns into politics at all except in the abstract discussion of reasonable (or unreasonable) regulation. Just because you legally can do something doesn't mean you should and doesn't mean it doesn't set a bad precedent.

What is interesting is that the Right now seem to be saying that just because they use gun related words and phrases in their slogans doesn't mean they actually mean any of it literally or expect that anyone would take it as such and act on it. With sex education, however, they jump up and down and scream that teaching kids about sex will lead to them having sex.

Ha!

The right really doesn't think things through.

OBAMA WILL BE AN IRON FISTED DICTATOR WHO WILL BRING SOCIALISM TO OUR LAND AND OPPRESS THE PEOPLE.

OBAMA WILL BE A WEAK WILLED PANSY WHO WILL COWER BEFORE FOREIGN OPINION AND THE UNITED NATIONS.

They see nothing wrong with saying both of these things at the same time.

Father of 9 year old says there shouldn't be more restrictions based on what happened.

ZJohnson,

Very good points, and I can not say that I really disagree with anything that you say.

I just wish that politicians on any side of the isle would exercise some restrant and common sense. I think before I speak, so why can't they? If you were to ask me what two politicians are the worst about running there mouth I would have to say McCain and Grayson.


Liberal is a hard term to define, as it is constantly changing. Those that considered themselves Liberal 200 years ago are nothing like those that consider themselves liberal today. Liberals and the Democratic party are constantly in the process of rebranding themselves which also makes things difficult. Progressives for example. I could never consider myself a progressive because of the history of progressives in America (Eugenics). Using today's terms, am I a hardcore liberal? no. Am I hardcore conservative? no. I am moderate with some liberal beliefs and some conservative beliefs thrown in there (Pretty liberal on Abortion and Pretty Conservative on Firearms). I suspect I would have been thought of as a pretty liberal person 30 or 40 years ago. I could not consider myself one of the current crops of progressives, because I do not believe in change for what appears to be the sake of change. I do not believe in a county locked in the ideas of 200 years ago. I believe that change occurs naturally, but sometimes requires a well thought through nudge (even push) from time to time.


In Truth, Nazi's shared quiet a bit in common with those in the U.S. that considered themselves progressives in the U.S. durring the 1920's. The Nazi's took things to extremes (some powerful people in the early 20th century Progressive movement wanted to reach those levels as well). In many ways Nazis were to the left of progressives in the US. with the level of change implemented. The Nazi Party (with Hitler) was ambivalent, if not slightly supportive of Homosexuals until it became a political hotbed issue. Then, Hitler had the Storm Troopers killed off and started and added homosexuals to the list of those people who are unfit. Strict controls were in place on industry, but because of the nature of some humans that was corrupted. In Nazi Germany political insiders joined the Nazi party, scratched backs and got special deals and favors. Same thing happened in Communist Russia. The same thing happens in the U.S. in cycles (William Jefferson's freezer).

Slave labor was an issue in Germany, and part of that was to support the lifestyle of the working class. We have a similar situation in the U.S. today with the treatment of illegal immigrants and use of third world asian countries for cheap labor.

ZJohnson wrote:But ff you're anxious about fascism, as we all should be, it is more instructive to get beyond labels, including Hitler's misleading "socialist" label, and look at the actual behavior of Nazis that we might find disturbing:

* racism, including fear of existing multiculturalism
* rabid nationalism and demonizing of political opponents
* suspension of the rule of law
* militarism, including a strong military industrial complex and colonialism of internal/external peoples

Here is the problem though. Looking for those things is as signs is like looking to the bible to know when the end of days will be upon us. Everyone thinks they are seeing the signs, but I doubt they are.

Racism - This occurs in every side of the political isle.
Nationalism - This occurs in every side of the political isle. Could be the Republicans through preemptive wars. Could be Liberals of the different unions wanting extreme tarrifs on any product not made in America.
Suspension of Rule of Law - Lincoln and FDR were both guilty of this (only two of several presidents IMHO).
Militarism - Lincoln and FDR again.

Lincoln was really the president that fit all of the above lables better than any other president.

ZJohnson wrote:More recently though, where in American politics do we see things like fear-mongering about Muslim, shouts of "treason" against people who question the president's decision to go to war or his subsequent management of that war, arbitrary suspension of oversight of police powers, e.g. FISA, calls for increased military spending for projects of dubious value, such as SDI? I'm sure you can dig up examples of these things amongst Democrats, but I think if you're honest you'll admit this behavior has been much more common in the leadership of the GOP.

The thing is, it continues and builds on itself from president to president no matter the party. Since President Bush left was have seen a continuation of the majority of his policies. Additionally we have seen the creation of FIMA camps, Memo's from Napolitano with watchlists for domestic terrorists. I am sure quiet a few here could fall under her list as people suseptable to becoming domestic terrorists, like those here that are against more firearms regulations, returning veterans, those going through economic hardship and do not believe the government is taking the right steps, etc. The actions of the current administration, building on the actions of the last administration, can go on and on.

Corporations & Capitalism - In my opinion Capitalism is a good thing. Many people in the U.S. have climbed the social lader in ways that is completely unheard of in Europe. Bill Gates is the most notable example, but it happens on a less scale every day in the U.S. Heck the UK still has class systems where a person tends to be bound to certain jobs based on where he grew up in the country. From my Travels in Europe the UK has impressed my as the one western civilization country least likely to allow upper momentum. Corporations can be good or bad. It all depends on the people that run them. It also seems like we have quiet a crop of bad corporations in the world today. We need a crop of polititians like Teddy Roosevelt to clean things up. The sad thing though is I am willing to bet that we probibly have half a dozen senators and a dozen representatives that are not in the pocket of several coporations. I also suspect that we have not had an good trust busting president in office since Teddy Roosevelt. FDR tried but failed because many of his attempts were to bring the U.S. in line with Western European Countries.

Things will not change in the country until the citizens vote for reform and not kick backs from politicians.


Charlie

mvelimir wrote:When doing your research, you should take in account political/economical/social pulse of that era. The world was tired of exploitative capitalism, World War I, economic crisis of the 20s and 30s. For many, idea of radical social changes was an attractive idea. Hitler exploited the sentiment to get himself to power and once there he did what he did. Something like our contemporary politicians (republicans AND democrats alike) do all the time.

The people were tired of greedy unchecked Corporations, the privlage of birth, the inability of upward movement in the class system, etc.

mark wrote:Oh, and welcome to the site, Leucoandro. A difficult topic to be your first.

Thanks for the welcome.

masonalannz wrote:What is interesting is that the Right now seem to be saying that just because they use gun related words and phrases in their slogans doesn't mean they actually mean any of it literally or expect that anyone would take it as such and act on it. With sex education, however, they jump up and down and scream that teaching kids about sex will lead to them having sex.

Does that count the Daily Kos putting a bullseye out on Representative Gifford in 2008?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25 ... 511/541568


My point is that it is not right no matter who does it.


Charlie

mvelimir wrote:Let me just add one more thing. Socialism in Europe today is quite different from the socialism of 40 or 50 years ago.

I agree. I have spent 4 years in Europe (out of the last 8 years). With the exception of parts of france it is nothing like the socialism I have read about from that time period.


Charlie

KVoimakas wrote:One of those who helped subdue the shooter was armed.

Geraldo asks Joe what happened. The man replies, “I heard gunshots, I ran outside to help. You know, I was carrying a gun and I would have shot him…I, I almost did.”

“Why didn’t you,” Geraldo asked.

“They’d already had a-hold of him, and there was a lot of people around him, and I wasn’t going to cause any more collateral damage or scare anybody any further than they needed to be scared.” Joe replied. “I felt like I could hold him down and wait for police, and it wasn’t my responsibility to end his life.”

Let’s let that one sink in for a second. He had a gun. He was licensed to carry. He made a split-second evaluation of the situation. He made the right choice. No going all Sly-Rocky-Rambo on the guy. No shooting innocent bystanders. No making the situation worse. Just a responsible citizen, trying to help, and doing the right thing. And here’s the kicker. This guy is all of 24 years old. Just two years older than the whackjob that shot 20 or so people and killed 6.

I completely agree...this young man showed excellent judgement, proving responsible defensive carry works. He knew his firearm is first and foremost for HIS OWN protection. Yet, if the opportunity were right in that terrible moment, he would have taken action. Able to judge that initially he did not have a shot, then the shooter was subdued...he makes the right decision and keeps his gun holstered.

I have not witnessed the media call specific, positive attention to that, but hopefully many will realy think that one over and realize that it is not defensive carry that is the problem...it was the delusional, incoherent mental case of a person that was the problem. Rather focus on the gun, the system should again focus on the fact that another nut was able to give off so many red flags, yet no one made some record where it would count, or recommended him for professional help. Not to mention he had arrests and was always allowed to have his record cleared preventing any flag from coming up on a background check. I again look to the culprit, "political correctness" on that...this has done nothing more than serve to shut people up in many cases being fearful to have the discussions that need to be had. I'm not saying he did anything earlier that should have branded him a felon, but some mention where it might have allowed someone to deduce that perhaps they needed to take a closer look at this fellow before approving his background check.

Again, the system in place, the existing laws, FAILED because persons in the systems did not effectively perform their duties. The establishment finds it very difficult to find fault within itself, certainly to hold itself accountable...easier to re-direct and blame the gun.

We don't need more gun laws.


Regards,

CarolinaHiker

CarolinaHiker wrote:I'm not saying he did anything earlier that should have branded him a felon, but some mention where it might have allowed someone to deduce that perhaps they needed to take a closer look at this fellow before approving his background check.

Again, the system in place, the existing laws, FAILED because persons in the systems did not effectively perform their duties.

First, welcome to the forum.

Look, everyone wishes this hadn't happened. But in this case, it seems that "the system" did everything the law says it should. Loughner may be mentally ill, he may have scared people, but he was apparently not in a prohibited category for firearms possession. All NICS does is check names and numbers and look for specifc prohibitions. They have no other discretion to investigate or pass judgement on someone's suitability. Nor can a mental health professional declare someone unfit to bear arms.

I think I agree with you that more laws are not what we need, but I also accept that laws cannot shield us against all possible dangers and dangerous people.

dkos has not made a history of "reloading" etc.

A single image is not the problem, its the rhetoric, the actual violent rhetoric, that is.

Death panels. FEMA camps. Second Amendment Solutions.

Not to mention 8 years of being called traitors, un-American, etc, etc. The Right decides what is right and appropriate. Everything else was just a "surveyors symbol."

Which is patent horseshit. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves ot to the public.

CarolinaHiker wrote:

KVoimakas wrote: Let’s let that one sink in for a second. He had a gun. He was licensed to carry. He made a split-second evaluation of the situation. He made the right choice.

We don't need more gun laws.


Regards,

CarolinaHiker

I completely agree with both of you.

Also, welcome! That goes for all of the new posters in this thread and others over the last few days.

We don't need more gun laws.

I think Arizona is a little more lax than other states. I don't think you even need a permit to CC there. I think there needs to be some sort of screening process, even if it's an FBI background check. I honestly don't see why any responsible gun owner would take offense to this. I'm not for gun bans, but a little mental health screening (with a proper appeals process) seems reasonable.

amrev360 wrote:

We don't need more gun laws.

I think Arizona is a little more lax than other states. I don't think you even need a permit to CC there. I think there needs to be some sort of screening process, even if it's an FBI background check. I honestly don't see why any responsible gun owner would take offense to this. I'm not for gun bans, but a little mental health screening (with a proper appeals process) seems reasonable.

For one thing, now, just as before the laws allowing anyone legally allowed to own a gun to carry said gun, those who aren't allowed will do so regardless. Gang members don't usually buy their guns through FFLs or get licenses from the state, they just carry guns. I somehow doubt that laws prohibiting this Criminally Insane Jackass from carrying that fun would have stopped this tragedy. Period.

NPR and others are now saying that he had an accomplice, an older guy, who presumably had a hand in 'guiding' this dipshit, and may or may not have been able to provide a weapon, even if the shooter wasn't allowed to own a gun. If someone really wants to literally kill, they will. Humans have been perfecting the process for many thousands of years before guns came along. If someone wants to carry a gun, they will. We should ensure that those responsible citizens who wish to carry for defense are not deliberately placed at a disadvantage to those criminals who simply will ignore the laws anyway, and in doing so criminalize our responsible citizenry. That is poor civil planning, and irrational behavior.

Leucoandro wrote:ZJohnson,

Very good points, and I can not say that I really disagree with anything that you say.

I just wish that politicians on any side of the isle would exercise some restrant and common sense. I think before I speak, so why can't they? If you were to ask me what two politicians are the worst about running there mouth I would have to say McCain and Grayson.


Liberal is a hard term to define, as it is constantly changing. Those that considered themselves Liberal 200 years ago are nothing like those that consider themselves liberal today. Liberals and the Democratic party are constantly in the process of rebranding themselves which also makes things difficult. Progressives for example. I could never consider myself a progressive because of the history of progressives in America (Eugenics). Using today's terms, am I a hardcore liberal? no. Am I hardcore conservative? no. I am moderate with some liberal beliefs and some conservative beliefs thrown in there (Pretty liberal on Abortion and Pretty Conservative on Firearms). I suspect I would have been thought of as a pretty liberal person 30 or 40 years ago. I could not consider myself one of the current crops of progressives, because I do not believe in change for what appears to be the sake of change. I do not believe in a county locked in the ideas of 200 years ago. I believe that change occurs naturally, but sometimes requires a well thought through nudge (even push) from time to time.


In Truth, Nazi's shared quiet a bit in common with those in the U.S. that considered themselves progressives in the U.S. durring the 1920's. The Nazi's took things to extremes (some powerful people in the early 20th century Progressive movement wanted to reach those levels as well). In many ways Nazis were to the left of progressives in the US. with the level of change implemented. The Nazi Party (with Hitler) was ambivalent, if not slightly supportive of Homosexuals until it became a political hotbed issue. Then, Hitler had the Storm Troopers killed off and started and added homosexuals to the list of those people who are unfit. Strict controls were in place on industry, but because of the nature of some humans that was corrupted. In Nazi Germany political insiders joined the Nazi party, scratched backs and got special deals and favors. Same thing happened in Communist Russia. The same thing happens in the U.S. in cycles (William Jefferson's freezer).

Slave labor was an issue in Germany, and part of that was to support the lifestyle of the working class. We have a similar situation in the U.S. today with the treatment of illegal immigrants and use of third world asian countries for cheap labor.

ZJohnson wrote:But ff you're anxious about fascism, as we all should be, it is more instructive to get beyond labels, including Hitler's misleading "socialist" label, and look at the actual behavior of Nazis that we might find disturbing:

* racism, including fear of existing multiculturalism
* rabid nationalism and demonizing of political opponents
* suspension of the rule of law
* militarism, including a strong military industrial complex and colonialism of internal/external peoples

Here is the problem though. Looking for those things is as signs is like looking to the bible to know when the end of days will be upon us. Everyone thinks they are seeing the signs, but I doubt they are.

Racism - This occurs in every side of the political isle.
Nationalism - This occurs in every side of the political isle. Could be the Republicans through preemptive wars. Could be Liberals of the different unions wanting extreme tarrifs on any product not made in America.
Suspension of Rule of Law - Lincoln and FDR were both guilty of this (only two of several presidents IMHO).
Militarism - Lincoln and FDR again.

Lincoln was really the president that fit all of the above lables better than any other president.

ZJohnson wrote:More recently though, where in American politics do we see things like fear-mongering about Muslim, shouts of "treason" against people who question the president's decision to go to war or his subsequent management of that war, arbitrary suspension of oversight of police powers, e.g. FISA, calls for increased military spending for projects of dubious value, such as SDI? I'm sure you can dig up examples of these things amongst Democrats, but I think if you're honest you'll admit this behavior has been much more common in the leadership of the GOP.

The thing is, it continues and builds on itself from president to president no matter the party. Since President Bush left was have seen a continuation of the majority of his policies. Additionally we have seen the creation of FIMA camps, Memo's from Napolitano with watchlists for domestic terrorists. I am sure quiet a few here could fall under her list as people suseptable to becoming domestic terrorists, like those here that are against more firearms regulations, returning veterans, those going through economic hardship and do not believe the government is taking the right steps, etc. The actions of the current administration, building on the actions of the last administration, can go on and on.

Corporations & Capitalism - In my opinion Capitalism is a good thing. Many people in the U.S. have climbed the social lader in ways that is completely unheard of in Europe. Bill Gates is the most notable example, but it happens on a less scale every day in the U.S. Heck the UK still has class systems where a person tends to be bound to certain jobs based on where he grew up in the country. From my Travels in Europe the UK has impressed my as the one western civilization country least likely to allow upper momentum. Corporations can be good or bad. It all depends on the people that run them. It also seems like we have quiet a crop of bad corporations in the world today. We need a crop of polititians like Teddy Roosevelt to clean things up. The sad thing though is I am willing to bet that we probibly have half a dozen senators and a dozen representatives that are not in the pocket of several coporations. I also suspect that we have not had an good trust busting president in office since Teddy Roosevelt. FDR tried but failed because many of his attempts were to bring the U.S. in line with Western European Countries.

Things will not change in the country until the citizens vote for reform and not kick backs from politicians.


Charlie

Time out for history.
National Socialism is not a liberal movement. It was not a movement of the left at all. It was militaristic revanchism directed against the internal and external factors Germans blamed their loss of the war on, when they didn't have the courage to blame themselves. The language they used to justify the physical elimination of their scapegoats and enemies was a cost savings to the German taxpayer for the price of supporting them. That was the eliminationist argument put forth at Wansee. Sound familiar? How many times have we heard from the American right, "we oughta just fry all those guys in jail, they're costing us tax dollars, and they're scum anyway"? It takes supreme national chauvinism to claim entire neighboring countries as recompense for a defeat in war, as the Nazis did. Liberalism has never done that in the USA. Abraham Lincoln, the supposed tyrannical boogyman of the American right wing revisionists, lost his seat in Congress for his opposition to the Mexican War, an unjustifiable land grab. The correct analogue today is Palin and Beck's emphasis of "American Exceptionalism", read: When we do it, it's not wrong.

FDR was not a militarist. The US Army was a 100,000 man force until the eve of the war. Roosevelt spent billions building a good part of the infrastructure this country has relied on for 70 years, saving millions from unemployment and hunger in the process, but he did not significantly increase the military until it was both impossible and unconscionable that America would remain neutral. When he moved, he created an army that comprised all of America, rich and poor, funded it properly, and when the war was done, the succeeding Democratic Truman administration demobbed the vast majority of it back home. We entered the Korean War a mere 5 years after the zenith of this supposed progressive militarist dictatorship, completely unprepared for the onslaught of so inferior an enemy as North Korea. No National Security state was formed on FDR's watch.

I'm just saying.

+1. Good recap.

The Sometimes Tragic Price of Living in a Free Society :

http://joetrippi.com/

Since the tragic events in Arizona unfolded on Saturday the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the six victims who were killed and the 14 others who were wounded has quickly become politicized. My own view is that it’s a mistake to politicize this attack.

One of the problems of a free society is that one crazy person can do something like this.

If we took all the steps necessary to prevent this attack we would either not be able to meet with our elected officials or a lot of people we only think are crazy would be in jail — locked up.

All this talk of “watching our language” in public debate runs counter to freedom of speech and ignores the fact that in a country of 300 million people there was only 1 person who didn’t grasp that speech is speech — that you don’t use a gun in a debate.

We can not create a free society in which there is no chance of a tragedy like this.

I think Joe sums it up well here. Coincidentally, the tone of this brief article reflects a statement the 9 year old girl's father made when interviewed. He expressed he did not want to see more controls put on the People because of this tragic event.


Regards,

CarolinaHiker

FriqueNationale wrote:

Leucoandro wrote:ZJohnson,

Very good points, and I can not say that I really disagree with anything that you say.

I just wish that politicians on any side of the isle would exercise some restrant and common sense. I think before I speak, so why can't they? If you were to ask me what two politicians are the worst about running there mouth I would have to say McCain and Grayson.


Liberal is a hard term to define, as it is constantly changing. Those that considered themselves Liberal 200 years ago are nothing like those that consider themselves liberal today. Liberals and the Democratic party are constantly in the process of rebranding themselves which also makes things difficult. Progressives for example. I could never consider myself a progressive because of the history of progressives in America (Eugenics). Using today's terms, am I a hardcore liberal? no. Am I hardcore conservative? no. I am moderate with some liberal beliefs and some conservative beliefs thrown in there (Pretty liberal on Abortion and Pretty Conservative on Firearms). I suspect I would have been thought of as a pretty liberal person 30 or 40 years ago. I could not consider myself one of the current crops of progressives, because I do not believe in change for what appears to be the sake of change. I do not believe in a county locked in the ideas of 200 years ago. I believe that change occurs naturally, but sometimes requires a well thought through nudge (even push) from time to time.


In Truth, Nazi's shared quiet a bit in common with those in the U.S. that considered themselves progressives in the U.S. durring the 1920's. The Nazi's took things to extremes (some powerful people in the early 20th century Progressive movement wanted to reach those levels as well). In many ways Nazis were to the left of progressives in the US. with the level of change implemented. The Nazi Party (with Hitler) was ambivalent, if not slightly supportive of Homosexuals until it became a political hotbed issue. Then, Hitler had the Storm Troopers killed off and started and added homosexuals to the list of those people who are unfit. Strict controls were in place on industry, but because of the nature of some humans that was corrupted. In Nazi Germany political insiders joined the Nazi party, scratched backs and got special deals and favors. Same thing happened in Communist Russia. The same thing happens in the U.S. in cycles (William Jefferson's freezer).

Slave labor was an issue in Germany, and part of that was to support the lifestyle of the working class. We have a similar situation in the U.S. today with the treatment of illegal immigrants and use of third world asian countries for cheap labor.

ZJohnson wrote:But ff you're anxious about fascism, as we all should be, it is more instructive to get beyond labels, including Hitler's misleading "socialist" label, and look at the actual behavior of Nazis that we might find disturbing:

* racism, including fear of existing multiculturalism
* rabid nationalism and demonizing of political opponents
* suspension of the rule of law
* militarism, including a strong military industrial complex and colonialism of internal/external peoples

Here is the problem though. Looking for those things is as signs is like looking to the bible to know when the end of days will be upon us. Everyone thinks they are seeing the signs, but I doubt they are.

Racism - This occurs in every side of the political isle.
Nationalism - This occurs in every side of the political isle. Could be the Republicans through preemptive wars. Could be Liberals of the different unions wanting extreme tarrifs on any product not made in America.
Suspension of Rule of Law - Lincoln and FDR were both guilty of this (only two of several presidents IMHO).
Militarism - Lincoln and FDR again.

Lincoln was really the president that fit all of the above lables better than any other president.

ZJohnson wrote:More recently though, where in American politics do we see things like fear-mongering about Muslim, shouts of "treason" against people who question the president's decision to go to war or his subsequent management of that war, arbitrary suspension of oversight of police powers, e.g. FISA, calls for increased military spending for projects of dubious value, such as SDI? I'm sure you can dig up examples of these things amongst Democrats, but I think if you're honest you'll admit this behavior has been much more common in the leadership of the GOP.

The thing is, it continues and builds on itself from president to president no matter the party. Since President Bush left was have seen a continuation of the majority of his policies. Additionally we have seen the creation of FIMA camps, Memo's from Napolitano with watchlists for domestic terrorists. I am sure quiet a few here could fall under her list as people suseptable to becoming domestic terrorists, like those here that are against more firearms regulations, returning veterans, those going through economic hardship and do not believe the government is taking the right steps, etc. The actions of the current administration, building on the actions of the last administration, can go on and on.

Corporations & Capitalism - In my opinion Capitalism is a good thing. Many people in the U.S. have climbed the social lader in ways that is completely unheard of in Europe. Bill Gates is the most notable example, but it happens on a less scale every day in the U.S. Heck the UK still has class systems where a person tends to be bound to certain jobs based on where he grew up in the country. From my Travels in Europe the UK has impressed my as the one western civilization country least likely to allow upper momentum. Corporations can be good or bad. It all depends on the people that run them. It also seems like we have quiet a crop of bad corporations in the world today. We need a crop of polititians like Teddy Roosevelt to clean things up. The sad thing though is I am willing to bet that we probibly have half a dozen senators and a dozen representatives that are not in the pocket of several coporations. I also suspect that we have not had an good trust busting president in office since Teddy Roosevelt. FDR tried but failed because many of his attempts were to bring the U.S. in line with Western European Countries.

Things will not change in the country until the citizens vote for reform and not kick backs from politicians.


Charlie

Time out for history.
National Socialism is not a liberal movement. It was not a movement of the left at all. It was militaristic revanchism directed against the internal and external factors Germans blamed their loss of the war on, when they didn't have the courage to blame themselves. The language they used to justify the physical elimination of their scapegoats and enemies was a cost savings to the German taxpayer for the price of supporting them. That was the eliminationist argument put forth at Wansee. Sound familiar? How many times have we heard from the American right, "we oughta just fry all those guys in jail, they're costing us tax dollars, and they're scum anyway"? It takes supreme national chauvinism to claim entire neighboring countries as recompense for a defeat in war, as the Nazis did. Liberalism has never done that in the USA. Abraham Lincoln, the supposed tyrannical boogyman of the American right wing revisionists, lost his seat in Congress for his opposition to the Mexican War, an unjustifiable land grab. The correct analogue today is Palin and Beck's emphasis of "American Exceptionalism", read: When we do it, it's not wrong.

FDR was not a militarist. The US Army was a 100,000 man force until the eve of the war. Roosevelt spent billions building a good part of the infrastructure this country has relied on for 70 years, saving millions from unemployment and hunger in the process, but he did not significantly increase the military until it was both impossible and unconscionable that America would remain neutral. When he moved, he created an army that comprised all of America, rich and poor, funded it properly, and when the war was done, the succeeding Democratic Truman administration demobbed the vast majority of it back home. We entered the Korean War a mere 5 years after the zenith of this supposed progressive militarist dictatorship, completely unprepared for the onslaught of so inferior an enemy as North Korea. No National Security state was formed on FDR's watch.

I'm just saying.

Frique:

Thanks for taking the time to debunk all this bullshit. I no longer have the patience.