The Nazis were not a left wing liberal progressive party

Ah me goodness. Lets look at truth instead of evasive syntax. The conservatives of today share the same values as our founders. Labels are meaningless. Nazi's share the same principals as our liberal progressives of today---a controlling , intrusive government.

And you are saying capitalism is left wing? What are you saying? Can you see that you are doing some evading here.

 

No, you guys are rewriting history to better fit the narrative you wanted it to play. That's revisionism.

 

I suppose we could have people discuss the aspects of Nazi policy that they agree or disagree with.

I agree with taking over Italy and putting their designers to work. Black leather is a stylish look. The Nazis were the best-dressed @$$holes in history.

Other than that, I disagree with them on everything.

 

Do you smoke while torturing animals?

 

Revisionism. Revisionism is saying Nazi's were right wing. But that isn't truth. Nazi's were left wing. Left in principal. Left AND progressive because they believed in a powerful government designed to remake Germany into something good. Yep...Left-wing. Sorry it hurts.

 

That's a whole lotta "it doesn't matter" coming from you when confronted with reality. Don't be surprised the forum noticed,,,,,,Hillary.

 

Yet you're fine phrasing the nazis as "right wing" in your OP, it's disingenuous

Even under your isolated definition of conservative being the prevention of change, the nazis were far from that. While they used the private sector for their industrial benefits, their economic policies were a complete turnover of the previous system. It's what they liked to call their socialist revolution

Their social policies were all about maintaining order, but their economic policies were far from what you are referring to

 

But so is "same values as our founders." Who are we talking about? Jefferson? Hamilton? Payne?

What does 'controlling, intrustive governmeant mean? Environmental regulations? Financial regulations? Marriage laws? Government spying? Closed borders? Health care? Allowing unions? Mandating unions? Dogcatchers? The FDA? The MPAA? Allowing gay marriage? Not allowing gay marriage? What? Every single one of those things has been described as controlling, intrusive government. Which ones do you mean? I can't even tell what people are talking about any more.

 

I'm sorry you don't know when government is intrusive. Probably because you like the agenda government is pushing.

Let me give you an example:
Democratic Congressmen and a few women wrote intimidating letters to insurance companies, demanding insurmountable mountains of information and threatening business busting regulation. Amazingly....insurance companies started expressing support for Obama care. Nazi tactics.

 

Yeah, it's intrusive when they want to allow secularism and small government when they mandate morality. That's what I get from the die hard right wingers on here.

 

But there was really nothing new or good about anything they were doing.

Genocide is the opposite of multiculturalism. Genocide is not a liberal principle. Multiculturalism is.

In America, who is it that wants to use the government to reduce or eliminate multiculturalism? It's not us left-wingers. It's the right-wingers.

That's just one. Gimme another one. You pick.

 

You are ignorant about American politics. Gawd...I hope you are not American. But American system...the Constitutional system is set up with Federal government having distinct powers and responsabilities. The states handle "other matters". What this mean is...that under conservatives government power is diffused. For instance....a person with conservative principals will not advocate a federal government dictating to 50 states that gay marriage is illegal.

Its the liberal progressives that will use the power of the federal government to dictate over 50 states what the defination of marriage will be.

Liberal progressives in todays defintion syntax....are inherently tyrants...just like Hitler was.

- - - Updated - - -

Genicide is the opposite of multiculturalism?? What college do you go to? I'm going to make sure my kids go somewhere else.

 

Sure. If that's actually true. What you're saying is that democrats wanted information from insurance companies and threatened to regulate them in ways that the insurance companies didn't want? That doesn't sound at all implausible. But the insurance companies need some serious regulation. It's unavoidable. It's also unavoidable that they won't like it, and they'll complain, and so on.

Your specific charge, if I'm following you correctly, is that you think the democrats threatened these things in order to get insurance companies' public support? That makes sense. I don't know if it's true, but it adds up. Still not really rising to the level of Nazi-like, though. It is, at worst, sort of Nazi-esque. You're not acting like a Nazi until you kill someone. Comparing anything less than murder to Nazis is being hyperbolic.

Anyway, that's not a liberal thing. Just because the democrats are slightly more liberal than the republicans, which leaves a lot of liberals feeling like they have to vote for the democrats as the lesser of two evils, doesn't mean that everything the democrats do is liberal.

I have no doubt that democrats do Nazi-like things. That obviously doesn't mean that the Nazis are liberal or left-wing.

That's the kind of intrusive controls you're talking about?

 

Yawn. Why are so many right wing Americans completely unable to view the world in anything but their tiny bubble?

 

Run, run....from the truth. Yawn.

 

It seems to me that calling people a "Nazi" in the US has become such a common thing that people actually believe that it represents what the real Nazis actually were.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing you have spouted is truth. It's all revisionism. It does not matter what the current state of US politics is like. The Nazis were neither Americans nor were they from today. Current US politics does not determine the past, it does not determine what is left and right wing in other countries.

Are you one of those Americans who will argue that the Vietnam War wasn't a war?

 

Disagreeing with your definitions is not ignorance. The definitions you're using are not always historical or meaningful.

Oh, just think about it for a minute. Genocide is wiping out other people. Multiculturalism is accepting other people. Liberals don't like genocide. Nazis do like genocide. They're open supporters of it. Liberals are open supporters of not wiping out other people. We take a lot of flack for it, we might as well get credit for it, too.

 

Nazism, in American political ideology, is considered to be Left Wing. Nazis' main focus was "change", and one of their first actions was to disarm the general public, much like most American Democrats are attempting to do. Their goal was to be the world's most dominant superpower anyone has ever seen, and those who opposed were dammed. They were one-sided people and leaned more towards a Socialist Dictatorship. In case you all missed it in your history books, Hitler not only targeted Jewish people, but blacks, homosexuals, handicaps, and those who simply just opposed the Nazi movement. Left-Wingers by nature are the biggest bigots on the planet; there's no doubting that.

 

Actually, the Nazis made it EASIER for the general public to obtain firearms.

Next nonsense argument please.

 

Genocide is killing people. And..
Hitler was a Leftist.

 

The only access citizens had to firearms was via the military (which they had to be a part of), or the black market. It was unlawful to possess a firearm for personal protection. Only criminals (AKA the Nazi army) had firearms.

 

Hitler was not a leftist. In no meaningful way was Hitler a leftist. Are you thinking he was a leftist because he was a vegetarian or liked animals or wanted to be an artist? Is that what you're talking about? 'Cause those are the only ways in which Hitler even remotely resembled a left-winger.

What are you talking about? Seriously.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_le...ial_relaxation_of_gun_control_in_Nazi_Germany

Stop believing NRA propaganda.

 

Didn't Hitler specifically relax pre-existing firearms restrictions? 1938 German Weapons Act. He disarmed the Jews, yes. But for the rest of Germany he was a friend to gun-owners.

It would be like -- imagine if you will, I know this is gonna stretch the imagination -- we had a political party in America that celebrated gun ownership for white people, but regarded gun owners of any other ethnic group as gangsters and criminals. For example, using photographs of non-white teenagers holding guns as evidence that these teenagers deserved to be shot on sight, while posing their own white kids with their brand new firearms in front of the Christmas tree for the annual picture. I know it sounds implausible. But it would be kind of like that. If such a party existed in America.

- - - Updated - - -

No. That is simply not true. These words have meanings, you can't just go changing them around to suit your political needs.

That's a thing the Nazis tried, by the way.

 

Yep. He made it harder for less than 1% of the population to obtain firearms and easier for the 99%+.

What's funny is that the "Hitler disarmed Germany" claim is used to try and claim Germany was left wing. I guess sine the opposite is actually true Germany was right wing by the logic of the NRA.