On November 2nd, the America people refused to by into the lies and misrepresentations of a radical traitor to this great country. The re-election ofPresident George Walker Bush was an amazing triumph of CAPITALISM, COMMONSENSE, AND FREEDOM.

Now, the Democrats, bent on turning this nation into Soviet Russia have actually gotten it into their heads that Billiary Clinton actually has a ghost's chance in 2008.

This blame America first party is soon going to completly marginalize itself out of existence, but not before this last ditch effort to install radical left-wing beliefs that only the radical 19% of this country share.

Please, it's not too early to start campaigning to save our 2nd Ammendment rights, our agressive free-market, and our promise to bring the world freedom from all tyranny.

Don't allow Hilliary Clinton to fool Americans by running to the center and back to the left again.

SANTORUM/MARTINEZ '08!

"4th Reich"?
Well, yes boy, we all must do what we can to prevent the fascist Bush regime to end democracy in the US and dominate the world. Not being an US citizen is no excuse.
But the main responsibility rests on YOU, the young citizens who will decide the fate of liberty in your homeland and in the world!
Form a resistance now, to overturn the dictatorship under your Leader, before it is too late!

Condi Rice/Oliver North '08

We did in November!

We have today!

We will do so tomorrow!

We shall do so, willingly, every day until our last breath!

You speak of it's down fall daily!

This neg-speak forms our bond of resistance every time we hear it!

Viva the resistence and the difference!


That is all!

Run Hillary CLINTON Run!
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NEW...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

TQ, if that will get a 'Rise' out of you, then I am all for it. However, if you think that she will be elected, perhaps you are flushed with too much 'wishful thinking'.

And note: the frontrunners this far out prior to any presidential elections are almost never the actual candidates for the election.

But for you, I hope you can keep your ears and eyes 'pricked', pardon the pun, for the duration. The potential let down, via deflation, is a sight to behold.

TQ thought JFK the lessor had actually won! That was indeed entertaining!

In TQ's mind he thinks Hillary has already run, won, and been reelected(by a landslide!). Disassociation would be the apt word, with a capitol D.
I so glad TQ didn't get lost in the "peppermint gogo"! Many have gone in never to return!

You do realize that the Reich and fascism are on the opposite end of the spectrum from Russian communism and socialism, right?

I agree, beat the Dems. But your terms are a little messed up.

I once fell for that same LIEberal revisionism too man, then I saw the TRUTH.

Simply because "Hitler and Mussolini where Rightists" is the common believe so unfortunatly disseminated throughout history does not make it true. Must I really bring up that the common belief to be found in all of the most learned sources a few thousand years ago was that the world was flat?

Perhaps I should address the issue of why this has come to be the case in the first place. It originates in the seating arrangments of the parliments that existed when the Nazis and Fascists where still up-and-comming parties. They would for whatever reason be seated on the far right side of the table (usually in a horseshoe shape) where conservatives and classical liberals would sit. This came about in the case of Fascism because Mussolini simply declared that his new party was Rightist and sat with the other true Rightists. In the case of the National Socialists, they were seated on the right because they were nationalists and nationalism was seen as a Right wing sentiment (though even this is debatable, as I may address later).

Given the origins of the Fascists and National Socialists being identified as Rightists it is not hard to see why in hindsight that was silliness. As I have demonstrated the political positions of the Nazis and of the Fascists are much more congruent with the Communists and Socialists. (whether or not one group or the other professed it's hatred for the other is of no consiquence, as political alliances and wrangling for power are not neccesarily related to the actual positions of the parties)

However we should really look at the heart of the matter. Why are all sides so adament to associate the Nazis and the Fascists (even though official Fascism as practiced in Italy under Mussolini was tame compared to Nazi Germany or the average Soviet Communist regime.) with the opposing faction? Because Noone wants to be associated with the practitioners of such misdeeds (though in the case of the Leftists it may only be to equalized the playing field, in that while Leftism is rightly associated with then horrors of Soviet Communism, Rightism should be associated with the horrors of Nazism. (whether or not this is intellectually honest doesn't seem to matter to some Leftists.)

Given the core of the issue why don't we just take away all of the words and terms and semantics. Lets not label these horrific political parties and movements with either "Right wing" and "Left wing" and simply look at what these parties' (the Fascists, the Nazis) actually practices when they were in power.

We can then compare the practices of these movements to what we can say are indesputably "Right wing" and "Left wing". Right wing being Laissez faire or free market Capitalism, minimal government, classical liberalism, etc. and Left wing being statism, Provider statism (better but less accrutely known as Welfare statism), government intervention in the economy, and generally collectivistic tendacies, if not outright socialism or communism.

When we remove all of the historical bs, I am sure we will find, as I have shown, that both Fascism and National Socialism are much more in tune with what is indisputably Leftist and is diametrically opposed to what is indisuputably Rightist.

This is even clear when one looks at your beloved wikipedia.org!

Wikipedia wrote:
Nonetheless, fascism differs significantly from other politics that are usually classified as right wing


I am not arguing against the fact that throughout history and in most mainstream sources discussing history that Nazism and Fascism are indeed classified as Rightist. I argue that this is simply not intellectually sound, and that not only are they not congruent with what is indisputably "Right wing" but that they are diametrically opposed to those positions and neccesarily much more similiar to what is indisputably "Left wing".

I assume of course that you are a Leftist, or you would not so virulently try and associate the evils of Nazism with your political enemies. But whether or not this is how they are historically represented, these veiws are simply not intellectually consistent, and even wikipedia admits this.

And:
More evidence of Hitler's Leftism, Here is an exerpt from the National Socialist Manifesto he wrote when he was leader of the party:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

And a couple quotes:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"
- Hitler

"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."
- Time Magazine on the Nazis economic policies (Jaunuary 2, 1939)

Did Hitler outright nationalize the means of production? No. Was there, however, massive government intervention and control in the private sector? Yes. There were as well massive public works projects, and Hitler even had his own "5 year plans" like in Soviet Russia.

Hitler's racism (Must I note that anti-semitism was very popular and very common among Leftists of that day, Marx himself was an anti-semite); his use of eugenics and his "final solution" were to create the new German master race. To make everyone the same and remove the people who were inferior or different. This quite clearly has something in common with the ubiquitous aim of socialists and communists to create the "new man". Aswell the idea of egalitarianism has a lot to do with indentitarianism, trying to make everyone alike. This sort of view can be hostile toward minorities and outsiders. Once again I would note that individualism is indesputably Rightist and that this clashes with racism, egalitarianism, and identitarianism.

You seem to still not grasp the meaning of the term Right wing, and you have yet to reconcile the issue of how the term can remain coherent and meaningful both the practices of Hitler and laissez faire, minimal government, individualism, etc. are to fall under the same heading. They simply cannot be coherently grouped together and do not represent philosophies that are in the same line of thought and reasoning.

As I noted in a previous post, what is the point of this discussion? To associate the horrors and evil of Nazism and Fascism with ones political enemies, whether or not it is coherent or reasonable.

I am on the Right. I stand for such things as laissez faire Capitalism, individulism, descentralized government, minimal government with limited power, classical liberalism, etc. These terms are indesputably Rightist. They are simply not at all related to the policies of Hitler and the Nazis. For instance the Rightist, seeking limited government would not allow the government the power to build a massive military with which to conquer new territory as Hitler did. The purpose of such a government as I favor in military terms would be to keep the peace and prevent threats from outside. Must I really note that Hitler and the Nazi party were all powerful in Germany? This totalitarian, statist government which even controlled how people would spend their "free time" is diametrically opposed to the minimal government true Rightists support.

As I have said before just because it is common for mainstream historical sources to proclaim Hitler a Rightist (and as you can see even they [read: Wikipedia] acknowledge the great differences between Hitler and other, true Rightists) that does not mean that his ideas are truley Rightist in terms of intellectual consistancy. That is more the point of this discussion.

Dude, did you even actually read my post? First, where on earth did you get the idea that wikipedia is my "beloved?" I never even mentioned wikipedia.

Second, you should limit your assumptions as they are wrong. I'm in no way a leftist and I made no attempt to "virulently" associate Nazis with anyone. I simply pointed out that Nazis and Socialists are on opposite ends of a spectrum, I never even used your archaic right vs. left language.

Now I know you're smoking something. Come on, man! Who is it in America that spends the money to build up the military? You're going to tell me that leftists in this country are responsible for our military power? You can't be serious.

It's we conservatives that spend so much money on building up our fighting might. The idea that conservatives would ever complain about President Bush building up a massive military force is laughable. We've sat by, and in some cases cheered, as he's run our debt up to new levels in order to fund our military operations around the world. I just think your opinions on this are at odds with reality.

Crack is whack!

Been "born again" recently, lad?

Yes, our miliatry is large, however this is to PROTECT us, NOT conquer other countries, and that's why it's acceptable. Or would you rather China be able to boss us, and the rest of the world around?

You must defend yourselves against the thread posed by Communism and Islam, the enemy gains strength every day!

Strike now, before they attack you!

Sieg Heil!

Sieg Heil! [QUOTE]
Someone's true colors are showing.

Yes, yours!

Evangelical rightwing nutcase sort of colours!

The rabid religious Right spewing gibberish and insults at full throttle...

But our military hasn't been used to "defend ourselves" at least in a classical sense, for decades. You could argue we are protecting our interests but that's it. Korea and Vietnam were not threats to our country and niether were Iraq and Kosovo.

I'm not even arguing that we shouldn't have gone there either, only that we have used our military for many reasons that have nothing to do with protecting ourselves from immenent attack. We have, even under conservative presidents, used our armed forces to attack other countries that pose no military threat to our homeland.

And of course I don't want China to be able to "boss us around." But they've got a wee bit of a number advantage over us, so they technically already could boss us around if they chose to.

Go on, 'liberate' China, invade it.

Good luck.

Wow, the quality of the trolls (you) here really sucks.

Thanks Gop 4 Life!, because without those Hitler quotes, I would have kept on thinking that Hitler was a conservative, right-ist, whatever. I realize that the only reason I had that misconception was because of democrats screaming that Bush was a Nazi.

It could be argued that the Patriot Act is a mild form of something that Hitler may have used, however. As it currently stands, I have no problem with it. There is judicial oversight, so the government must check its self. Also, the government has been using Patriot Act provisions against mafias and drug cartel for years. However, they are talking right now about ending some judicial oversight for certain aspects of the Patriot Act. I'm not familiar with which aspects, but I almost assuredly do not support it. That is the only comparison I can draw between Bush and Hitler. I support Bush as Prez, but I will check him when he steps out of line with my liberty.

A quick word about that dkward2.... First, there is a wide variety of often conflicting points of view that are perscribed to "right" and "left"

His attempt to create a master race is most certainly associated with conservativism. The nationalism is often associated with right wing politics, too, although there are highly nationalistic "left wing" governments" as well.

There is a difference between communism and fascism - one seks to sprea power evenly and the other seeks to concentrate it. Some ways they are very similar, (and neither works well) but not the same.

Anyway, to make a stunning argument why "Hitler was left wing" is like sweeping a dirt floor.

Thats exactly what I believe! How excellent to find someone else here who truly understands the world we live in today, and who quite frankly, doesn't like to demonize America and our every foreign action policy.

Yes, its mostly the revisionist LIEberals in our education system that spew such slanderous filth. They think they can even the playing field this way, since they already had communism on their side, truly sickening.

Reich: The unification of all German speaking people/areas into a single nation.

Hillary wants to unite all the German speaking people of the world???

I think both fascism and communism are closer than they appear from your definition. Communism, in theory, tries to spread power around. Fascism, in theory, tries to concentrate power. In reality though, both fascism and communism give the government complete control. All the power is in the hands of the government, not the people.

Hitler thought the government should rule people's lives. So do communists. Socialists, in my opinion, are basically watered-down communists. I think it's appropriate to equate them like that.

Also, please explain how a master race is a conservative idea. Please don't read an attack into that question, as I am only unfamiliar with the relation of the two ideas. Also, I'm a conservative, and I know a lot of them, and none of us support a master race.

I do agree, though, that nationalism is usually displayed more by the modern-day right than left. This is why the name "blame America first" was stuck to some of the democrats of today. It is in response to the simple fact that most democratic leaders don't think America should be the world's super power, and that instead, it should share it's power with everyone.