I Am A Right-wing Extremist!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1848217' date='Apr 25 2009, 10:22 PM']lol, no.

You are correct that acadamic conservativism, the old classical conservativism has nothing to do with Nazism, and it really is an admirable ideology even if I think its wrong. The "conservativism" that most people are thinking of which does fit the Nazi would be akin to what we hear on the talk radio circle now. Stupid and cheep nationalistic populism and nativism.[/quote]
Whatever.

Most conservatives I've heard (of any stripe) are for smaller federal government and less taxation and spending, etc. That's a far cry from a National Socialist agenda.

"Nationalistic populism" (whatever that means) and "nativism" are not the same thing as Nazism. I'm for tightening the borders myself, but that doesn't make me a Nazi. I certainly don't advocate rounding anybody up and putting them concentration camps. (And while you're calling things stupid, you might want to learn how to spell "cheap." And what's with beginning all your replies to me with "lol" - is that some sort of nervous tic?)

Show me a mainstream conservative radio host advocating eradicating the Jews or such, and maybe I'll start taking you seriously, but until then, I don't think so. (The only media people I've heard such vile antisemitism from are your Islamic pals in the Middle East.)
(And while you've been an advocate of government censorship of the airways based on political content, that's something common to both Nazi and Communist totalitarianism, rather than a free society.)



[quote name='Hassan' post='1848223' date='Apr 25 2009, 10:25 PM']"The facts" and "The claim Socrates has just made" are not necessairly the same thing you know.[/quote]
It's a fact that [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Terrorism"]Islamic terrorism[/url] has killed [i]thousands[/i] of people over the past few decades - FAR more than "rightwing extremism" in the US.
And the total body-count from "anti-abortion extremism" is [i]seven[/i] over 20-some years - not justifying it, but hardly a major threat to national security in the big scheme of things.

I'll let you do your homework yourself.
Again, the facts are not PC.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1849970' date='Apr 27 2009, 10:47 AM']It wasn't a comprehensive report of all exremist groups. They were focusing on groups that might become more active and violent in response to Obama's presidency and his policies. It did not define all who oppose abortion as extremists. It said there are some anti-abortion activists who are extremists (and it's true, as shown by what's happened in the past).[/quote]
How do you define "extremism"? The "report" itself fails to really clearly define the term; the trouble is it's an extremely vague and ambiguous term which can basically mean whatever one wants it to mean.
[quote]Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), [b]and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting government authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.[/b][/quote]
I know that plenty of people would define your and my opposition to all abortion as "extremism."

If you want to define "extremists" only as those carrying out or plotting acts of violence, well then, that's already illegal, is it not? Who cares whether it's "rightwing," What's the point of a report about "extremist" beliefs that could [i]hypothetically[/i] lead to "domestic terrorist" violence? (the report admits it has no evidence that any "rightwing terrorism" is currently being plotted.)

As for "anti-abortion extremism" - that has resulted in a total of seven deaths (mostly in the 80s and 90s) - which would hardly rank it high on the threats to national security.
Heck, many more people are killed by disgruntled workers and crazy schoolboys than by "pro-lifers"!

Compare that to the thousands killed by Islamic terror. (Pretty ironic, that while the Obama admistration now refuses to use the word "terror" or "terrorists" to refer to the Islamic violence, it issues a report on "domestic rightwing terrorists"!)

[quote]There are some pro-gun activists who are extremists. And while all racism should be considered extremist, there are some who are considerably more militant (i.e. the KKK) than the majority of racists who keep their bigotry among friends. They aren't worried about the law-abiders and those who are peaceful (this includes most of the pro-life movement). Granted, reports like this sometimes are a first step towards targeting an innocent group, but if we cry wolf every time we smell the beginnings of another Nazi regime, we'll wear ourselves out with hypertension and worry. When civil rights are being denied, then we have valid reason (not to mention the greater public support) to take a stand.[/quote]
. . .And there are vegetarians who are "extremists," and tree-huggers who are "extremists," and "gays" who are "extremists," and civil-rights activists who are "extremists." So what?
If crazy's equal-oppotrunity, why single out beliefs for suspicion?

And nobody's getting hypertension - just pointing out what is at very best an insulting and unfriendly gesture by our current government.
And it seems you've spent just as much time and effort criticizing those of us writing about it here as we have. What's the point?
Unless you have something to say, I see no need to further indulge your cubicle-induced boredom.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1848520' date='Apr 26 2009, 12:19 AM']Because the problem with Nazi Germany was economic collectivism[/quote]
That was certainly one of their problems. Also a problem of Communism, of course.
Economic collectivism is contrary to a free society.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1850867' date='Apr 27 2009, 11:05 PM']How do you define "extremism"? The "report" itself fails to really clearly define the term; the trouble is it's an extremely vague and ambiguous term which can basically mean whatever one wants it to mean.[/quote]

No, it cannot mean whatever you want it to mean... sounds like you're grabbing at anything to criticize this report because of one thing it says. If this were a report on Islamic extremists, would you call them out for failing to define an extremist?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1850867' date='Apr 27 2009, 11:05 PM']I know that plenty of people would define your and my opposition to all abortion as "extremism."[/quote]

Plenty? Show me. I know plenty of people disagree with us, but I want to see the "plenty" who consider pro-lifers to be extremists.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1850867' date='Apr 27 2009, 11:05 PM']If you want to define "extremists" only as those carrying out or plotting acts of violence, well then, that's already illegal, is it not?[/quote]

Yes, that's why the White House is reporting on them. They are not reporting on 40 Days for Life or NRA activists, who are entirely legal and protest peacefully.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1850867' date='Apr 27 2009, 11:05 PM']As for "anti-abortion extremism" - that has resulted in a total of seven deaths (mostly in the 80s and 90s) - which would hardly rank it high on the threats to national security.
Heck, many more people are killed by disgruntled workers and crazy schoolboys than by "pro-lifers"![/quote]

Sounds like there isn't much to worry about then. Where does this statistic come from?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1850867' date='Apr 27 2009, 11:05 PM']. . .And there are vegetarians who are "extremists," and tree-huggers who are "extremists," and "gays" who are "extremists," and civil-rights activists who are "extremists." So what?
If crazy's equal-oppotrunity, why single out beliefs for suspicion?[/quote]

They aren't singling out beliefs for suspicion. You're reading into the report what you want to read because of the source. I think you just want something to get mad about.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1850867' date='Apr 27 2009, 11:05 PM']And it seems you've spent just as much time and effort criticizing those of us writing about it here as we have. What's the point?
Unless you have something to say, I see no need to further indulge your cubicle-induced boredom.[/quote]

I'm just curious if there's more to your opinion than following the right-wing lemmings to criticize everything Obama does for the next four years until you reach the Palin in 2012 rally.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1851165' date='Apr 28 2009, 09:29 AM']No, it cannot mean whatever you want it to mean... sounds like you're grabbing at anything to criticize this report because of one thing it says. If this were a report on Islamic extremists, would you call them out for failing to define an extremist?[/quote]
Sounds like you're grabbing at anything to criticize conservatives.

What then is the definition of an "extremist" according to the report? I didn't see any, but maybe I missed it.
If it were a report on Islamic "extremists," for it to be worth something I would expect that it list specific Islamic terrorists and terrorist organizations with concrete evidence linking them to real acts of terrorism or the plotting thereof. Such organizations (Al Qaeda. etc.) are very real and well-documented, as are their acts of violence. Anyone remember 9-11 and the twin towers anymore?

Such is not the case with this DHF "report" which is for the most part quite vague in defining "rightwing extremism" or in listing specific "rightwing terrorist" activities and organizations (with the exception of a couple White Supremacist groups). It mostly throws around a wide and nebulous variety of "rightwing" ideas at odds with the Obama administrations left-liberalism (anti-abortion, anti-immigration, pro-second amendment, etc.) and links them with "extremism."


[quote]Plenty? Show me. I know plenty of people disagree with us, but I want to see the "plenty" who consider pro-lifers to be extremists.[/quote]
Just talk to any serious "pro-choicer" or PP representative. The typical pro-abortion agitprop I've seen is something along the lines of, "Anti-choice extremists in the Republican Party are trying to take away your Right to Choose! blah, blah, blah . . ."

Again, "extremism" is not clearly defined in the report, so it's open to a variety of interpretation.
I don't think it's too far-out to think that this report could perhaps be used an excuse to monitor legitimate pro-life and other conservative organizations and persons.

[quote]Yes, that's why the White House is reporting on them. They are not reporting on 40 Days for Life or NRA activists, who are entirely legal and protest peacefully.[/quote]
Oh, indeed?
If these "extremists" really are plotting acts of terrorist violence, then why in the hell isn't the government locking all these "rightwing terrorists" away, rather than sitting around writing reports on them like schoolgirls on a research assignment?

And since apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suite, I'll repeat again, the report says: "[b]The DHF/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence[/b]. . . ."
They say plainly they have no evidence of rightwing terrorist activity, yet you keep insisting that they do.

[quote]Sounds like there isn't much to worry about then. Where does this statistic come from?[/quote]
I ran a search on anti-abortion violence and terrorism on Wikipedia, actually. (And to be frank, I was surprised the numbers were that [i]high[/i].) But if you have better data, feel free to share it.
Again, listing pro-lifers as a national security threat is nothing short of absurd. (And the report, citing no evidence, also identifies pro-lifers as being subject to recruitment by White Supremacist groups.)

[quote]They aren't singling out beliefs for suspicion. You're reading into the report what you want to read because of the source. I think you just want something to get mad about.[/quote]I've given my reasoning more than enough times, and there's no sense in repeating it again, especially as you don't read it carefully the first three times around.
And I could care less what you think about my reasoning. If this report has no interest to you, don't post in here. It's as simple as that.

[quote]I'm just curious if there's more to your opinion than following the right-wing lemmings to criticize everything Obama does for the next four years until you reach the Palin in 2012 rally.[/quote]
No, there's not. I'm a mindless right-wing lemming who's incapable of thinking for myself, which is obviously the only reason why I'd ever question the Obama administration or dissent from liberal opinion. Perhaps if I was enlightened and learned to think for myself, I'd happily join in the chorus of independent-thinking people all singing praises to Dear Leader in perfect harmony. My dissident opinons are a sure sign that I've been brainwashed.
There, that should make you happy. I'm through here. Go annoy someone else.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Socrates

[Hassan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1850833' date='Apr 27 2009, 08:36 PM']Whatever.

Most conservatives I've heard (of any stripe) are for smaller federal government and less taxation and spending, etc. That's a far cry from a National Socialist agenda.[/quote]

Many also hate Unions and workers being able to strike, like the Nazis.

Believe it or not there was a lot more to the "Nationalist Socialist" agenda than "Socialism" (Not that it was an actual socialist country but let's move on). Xenophobia, Nationalism, hell anti semitism has historically been linked to nationalism venting frustration against ethnic/religious minorities towards an ethnic/religious minority. These are thing that the far right does share with Nazism and were, I would venture to guess, much more responsible for the horrors than Nazism than an ostensive allegience to socialism. But who knows. Perhapse anti-semitism came about in Germany because those darn Jews were to dedicated to libertarian economics and, as we all know, if there is one thing the German masses cherished it was Keynesian mathematical economics. This idea that Nazism was somehow a liberal movement is, I'm sorry, just balderdash. Let's try a field experiement for a moment. Go to a local neo-nazi group. Play them an hour of Michael Savage and an hour of Rachael Maddow and see who they like more.

[quote]"Nationalistic populism" (whatever that means) and "nativism" are not the same thing as Nazism.[/quote]

They are not the same thing, but Hitler certianly incorporated both into his rhetori

[quote]I'm for tightening the borders myself, but that doesn't make me a Nazi. I certainly don't advocate rounding anybody up and putting them concentration camps. (And while you're calling things stupid, you might want to learn how to spell "cheap." And what's with beginning all your replies to me with "lol" - is that some sort of nervous tic?)[/quote]

I don't much but into psychoanalysis so I'd go with I just found something in your post ammusing.

[quote]Show me a mainstream conservative radio host advocating eradicating the Jews or such, and maybe I'll start taking you seriously, but until then, I don't think so. (The only media people I've heard such vile antisemitism from are your Islamic pals in the Middle East.)[/quote]

How about Boortz comparing Muslims fasting on Ramadan to cockroaches. Have you listened to Michael Savage lately? Two name two immediate examples

I don't know what "pals" of mine you could be talking about because I certianly would not be friends with such people.

[quote](And while you've been an advocate of government censorship of the airways based on political content, that's something common to both Nazi and Communist totalitarianism, rather than a free society.)[/quote]

I have? I thought after a discussion with Lounge Daddy I changed my mind.

Even if I were I would be careful about tredding down that road. Unless you favor the FCC abolishing any cencorship of sex on broadcast television. The Soviets were a bit prudish about sex in moies



[quote]It's a fact that [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Terrorism"]Islamic terrorism[/url] has killed [i]thousands[/i] of people over the past few decades - FAR more than "rightwing extremism" in the US.
And the total body-count from "anti-abortion extremism" is [i]seven[/i] over 20-some years - not justifying it, but hardly a major threat to national security in the big scheme of things.

I'll let you do your homework yourself.
Again, the facts are not PC.[/quote]


I'm two busy to do do work on a flawed thesis. Comparing the aggregate actions of thousands of national and internation movements and NGO's spread out across a global community is not analgous to one single issue driven movement within one country of the world. You want roll the dice then let's roll them. The article was about the possability of right wing terrorism in the US.

Let's compare the net global innocent deaths killed by militant Islamic movements and states compared to the net global innocent deaths killed by Christian nationalists/right wing Christian parties over the last, let's say, one hundred years.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Hassan

[dominicansoul]

[quote]Let's compare the net global innocent deaths killed by militant Islamic movements and states compared to the net global innocent deaths killed by Christian nationalists/right wing Christian parties over the last, let's say, one hundred years.[/quote]

"Christian parties?" Are you saying the Nazi's were a Christian party???

that would be like calling you a Christian.....

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1851700' date='Apr 28 2009, 10:48 PM']And since apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suite, I'll repeat again, the report says: "[b]The DHF/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence[/b]. . . ."
They say plainly they have no evidence of rightwing terrorist activity, yet you keep insisting that they do.[/quote]

So there ya go... the report itself says there is nothing to worry about. That was easy.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1851700' date='Apr 28 2009, 10:48 PM']I've given my reasoning more than enough times, and there's no sense in repeating it again, especially as you don't read it carefully the first three times around.
And I could care less what you think about my reasoning. If this report has no interest to you, don't post in here. It's as simple as that.[/quote]

The only point I see is that the report, when you read it and follow the rules of English grammar, does not say pro-lifers are an extremist movement. It says there are some anti-abortion advocates who might exercise violence, and I think it's accurate to call them "anti-abortion" activitists since they clearly are not promoters of life. I want to know how this report classifies the entire pro-life movement as a group of extremists. It's not there.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1851700' date='Apr 28 2009, 10:48 PM']No, there's not. I'm a mindless right-wing lemming who's incapable of thinking for myself, which is obviously the only reason why I'd ever question the Obama administration or dissent from liberal opinion. Perhaps if I was enlightened and learned to think for myself, I'd happily join in the chorus of independent-thinking people all singing praises to Dear Leader in perfect harmony. My dissident opinons are a sure sign that I've been brainwashed.
There, that should make you happy. I'm through here. Go annoy someone else.[/quote]

You're done? We were just having fun!

Go Palin!

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1852200' date='Apr 29 2009, 11:37 AM']So there ya go... the report itself says there is nothing to worry about. That was easy.[/quote]

If you can't see the big problem with the United States Government issuing a nation wide warning of 'Right wing extremist' based on no specific information, then somethings really wrong.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1852200' date='Apr 29 2009, 11:37 AM']The only point I see is that the report, when you read it and follow the rules of English grammar, does not say pro-lifers are an extremist movement. It says there are some anti-abortion advocates who might exercise violence, and I think it's accurate to call them "anti-abortion" activitists since they clearly are not promoters of life. I want to know how this report classifies the entire pro-life movement as a group of extremists. It's not there.[/quote]

Following the rules of English grammar, while reading "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." It would clearly seem that this baseless report is saying that prolifers who are dedicated to there opposition to genocide/abortion should be seen as potential extremist. Your defense of this baseless, and clearly politically motivated report is indeed mind boggling.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1852411' date='Apr 29 2009, 05:56 PM']Following the rules of English grammar, while reading "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." It would clearly seem that this baseless report is saying that prolifers who are dedicated to there opposition to genocide/abortion should be seen as potential extremist. Your defense of this baseless, and clearly politically motivated report is indeed mind boggling.[/quote]

For that matter, the pro-life cause is not singularly dedicated to fighting abortion.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1852414' date='Apr 29 2009, 04:02 PM']For that matter, the pro-life cause is not singularly dedicated to fighting abortion.[/quote]

All pro-life groups and individuals combined, yes. But there are many groups and individuals who are singularly dedicated to fighting abortion. They should not be or worry as being seen as potential extremist by The United States government, based on a baseless politically motivated report.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1851764' date='Apr 28 2009, 09:54 PM']Many also hate Unions and workers being able to strike, like the Nazis.[/quote]
Because the Nazis wanted government control of both labor and capital - similar to the left-wing soviets. That's totalitarian socialism - the government claiming to act on behalf of "the workers" of course.

[quote]Believe it or not there was a lot more to the "Nationalist Socialist" agenda than "Socialism" (Not that it was an actual socialist country but let's move on). Xenophobia, Nationalism, hell anti semitism has historically been linked to nationalism venting frustration against ethnic/religious minorities towards an ethnic/religious minority. These are thing that the far right does share with Nazism and were, I would venture to guess, much more responsible for the horrors than Nazism than an ostensive allegience to socialism. But who knows. Perhapse anti-semitism came about in Germany because those darn Jews were to dedicated to libertarian economics and, as we all know, if there is one thing the German masses cherished it was Keynesian mathematical economics. This idea that Nazism was somehow a liberal movement is, I'm sorry, just balderdash. Let's try a field experiement for a moment. Go to a local neo-nazi group. Play them an hour of Michael Savage and an hour of Rachael Maddow and see who they like more.[/quote]
Blah, blah.
The Nazis came to power because 1930s Germany was in dire straits, economically and geo-politically, and the Nazis offered a "solution."
Of course, Nazi anti-capitalism was linked with antisemitism, as Jews were identified as the capitalist oppressors of the German worker.

I never claimed Nazism was "a liberal movement." But neither does Nazism have anything to do with current American conservatism, popular lefty belief to the contrary.

The historical fact remains that the Nazis greatly increased central government control over the economy, rather than weakened it. I'll let you figure out which side of the American political spectrum their collectivist big-government totalitarianism more closely resembles.

I'm for greatly restricting immigration myself, but that doesn't make me a Nazi. The equation of any "rightwing" political cause with Nazism/fascism is just vacuous name-calling.

[quote]They are not the same thing, but Hitler certianly incorporated both into his rhetori[/quote]
Hitler also incorporated anti-capitalist socialism and worker's rights into his rhetoric, yet you conveniently disregard that.

[quote]I don't much but into psychoanalysis so I'd go with I just found something in your post ammusing.[/quote]Well I fail to see what's so hilarious about it. Constantly laughing when nothing's funny only makes you look like a fool, and certainly does nothing to advance your argument.

[quote]How about Boortz comparing Muslims fasting on Ramadan to cockroaches. Have you listened to Michael Savage lately? Two name two immediate examples[/quote]
I've never heard of that Boortz dude before, so really how influential can he be? I don't listen to Savage, but being that he's Jewish, I'd find accusations of Nazism or antisemitism a little hard to believe without some serious evidence. I mean, Greaseman and Imus got yanked off the air for a lot less. And an awful lot of your attacks on conservatism seem to hinge on Michael Savage, as if he were the final authority of conservatism or something.

I could dig up a plethora of crazy, outrageous, and just plain moronic things liberals have said if I wanted to and had time, but that would prove no more than your claims.

[quote]I don't know what "pals" of mine you could be talking about because I certianly would not be friends with such people.



I have? I thought after a discussion with Lounge Daddy I changed my mind.

Even if I were I would be careful about tredding down that road. Unless you favor the FCC abolishing any cencorship of sex on broadcast television. The Soviets were a bit prudish about sex in moies[/quote]
I thought you later said you reconsidered your position yet again.

And the first amendment protects political speech, not obscenity - though lately liberals have gotten that backwards.
And if the left-wing Commies were prudish about sex, does that make sexual prudishness a leftist thing? What's your point?


[quote]I'm two busy to do do work on a flawed thesis. Comparing the aggregate actions of thousands of national and internation movements and NGO's spread out across a global community is not analgous to one single issue driven movement within one country of the world. You want roll the dice then let's roll them. The article was about the possability of right wing terrorism in the US.[/quote]
For someone "two [sic] busy" you spend an awful amount of time on the net picking fights with conservatives.

Islamists have been responsible for more terrorism against Americans than "rightwingers."

[quote]Let's compare the net global innocent deaths killed by militant Islamic movements and states compared to the net global innocent deaths killed by Christian nationalists/right wing Christian parties over the last, let's say, one hundred years.[/quote]
That only works if you define Nazis as "right wing Christian parties," which has been shown to be a false premise. The Nazis were pretty major persecutors of the Church. If they were so "Christian," they sure were pretty brutally opposed to their own kind.

And (at least to my knowledge) the DHF report was supposed to be about [i]current[/i] threats to national security, not about threats that were defeated almost 70 years ago.

And if you want to play that game, many more (around 100 million) have been killed world-wide over the past 100 years by atheist left-wing Communist regimes.
By your own logic, the government should [i]really[/i] be focusing its attention on left-leaning atheists like yourself.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Socrates

[Winchester]

What he said.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1852700' date='Apr 29 2009, 09:32 PM']Because the Nazis wanted government control of both labor and capital - similar to the left-wing soviets. That's totalitarian socialism - the government claiming to act on behalf of "the workers" of course.[/quote]

yep


[quote]Blah, blah.
The Nazis came to power because 1930s Germany was in dire straits, economically and geo-politically, and the Nazis offered a "solution."
Of course, Nazi anti-capitalism was linked with antisemitism, as Jews were identified as the capitalist oppressors of the German worker.[/quote]

Yes, it was a function of his populism and xenophobia.

The foreign Jews exercise a kabalistic control over the good white Christian German man. Anti-semitism existed in Germany, and all of Europe, before Capitalism was created. Simply because Hitler used such metaphores does not mean his movement was not right wing.

Is the modern conservative movement left wing? Always complaning about those Mexicans who come in and do the jobs America won't do at the wage the are offered. They want to stop the free market don't ya know! They know that Americans can't compete with Mexicans in a free market system so they ask government to step in to keep wages high and secure job positions, sounds socialist to me.

[quote]I never claimed Nazism was "a liberal movement." But neither does Nazism have anything to do with current American conservatism, popular lefty belief to the contrary.[/quote]

Sure, what does Nazism have to do with stigmatization and scapegoating of minorities, right wing nationalist populism and exceptionalism, and protecting the purity of the national culture from foreign degregation. The same impulses which gave rise to Nazism fuel the conservative movement today, the popular one anyway.

[quote]The historical fact remains that the Nazis greatly increased central government control over the economy, rather than weakened it. I'll let you figure out which side of the American political spectrum their collectivist big-government totalitarianism more closely resembles.[/quote]

Right, because Bush Jr, Bush Sr, Regan, Nixon, they all weakened the national government right?


[quote]I'm for greatly restricting immigration myself, but that doesn't make me a Nazi.[/quote]

No it does not

[quote]The equation of any "rightwing" political cause with Nazism/fascism is just vacuous name-calling.[/quote]

Not what I have done or would do.


[quote]Hitler also incorporated anti-capitalist socialism and worker's rights into his rhetoric, yet you conveniently disregard that.[/quote]

So does modern conservative populism.

[quote]Well I fail to see what's so hilarious about it. Constantly laughing when nothing's funny only makes you look like a fool, and certainly does nothing to advance your argument.[/quote]

Well you don't find them funny because your being serious.


[QUOTE]I've never heard of that Boortz dude before, so really how influential can he be?[QUOTE]


[url="http://talkers.com/online/?p=71"]http://talkers.com/online/?p=71[/url]

[Hassan]

[quote]I don't listen to Savage, but being that he's Jewish, I'd find accusations of Nazism or antisemitism a little hard to believe without some serious evidence. I mean, Greaseman and Imus got yanked off the air for a lot less. And an awful lot of your attacks on conservatism seem to hinge on Michael Savage, as if he were the final authority of conservatism or something.[/quote]

I didn;t say Michael Savage made anti semetic comments, as I recall you asked for rhetoric comparable to the nazi anti semetic rantings, which Mr Savage provides plenty of. I do focus on Michael Savage because he is tied for third place with conservative audiences yet is a man very comparable to the Nazi propagandists of the past.

I could point to Ann Coulter

[quote]I could dig up a plethora of crazy, outrageous, and just plain moronic things liberals have said if I wanted to and had time, but that would prove no more than your claims.[/quote]

It wasn't my argument, you asked for examples of comparable rhetoric which I have provided.


[quote]And the first amendment protects political speech, not obscenity - though lately liberals have gotten that backwards.[/quote]

Like those darn liberals at the ACLU?

They never stand up for free speech

[quote]And if the left-wing Commies were prudish about sex, does that make sexual prudishness a leftist thing? What's your point?[/quote]

Social conservatives existed within the Soviet Government, very much so in fact. You keep wanting to conflate economic socialism with progressivism, by making them one and the same. It's a nice rhetorical trick on your part, although perhapse you don't intend to and are just imitating Ann Coulter or whoever, but profoundly flawed



[quote]For someone "two [sic] busy" you spend an awful amount of time on the net picking fights with conservatives.[/quote]

I need some entertainment while I study.

[quote]Islamists have been responsible for more terrorism against Americans than "rightwingers."[/quote]

And we see the begining of another profoundly flawed argument.


[quote]That only works if you define Nazis as "right wing Christian parties," which has been shown to be a false premise. The Nazis were pretty major persecutors of the Church. If they were so "Christian," they sure were pretty brutally opposed to their own kind.[/quote]

The Church=/=Christians

The man who ran the camp where Kolbe died was a devout Protestant as I recall.

More important for the gaping hole in your silly comparison is that fact that Nazism is by far not the only movement in the 20th century to incorporate or wholly be right wing Christian.



[quote]And (at least to my knowledge) the DHF report was supposed to be about [i]current[/i] threats to national security, not about threats that were defeated almost 70 years ago.[/quote]

Let's count the ways that doesn't matter.

[quote]And if you want to play that game, many more (around 100 million) have been killed world-wide over the past 100 years by atheist left-wing Communist regimes.
By your own logic, the government should [i]really[/i] be focusing its attention on left-leaning atheists like yourself.[/quote]


If I joint a Marxist government which flirts with the violent overthrow of he American government then yes.