Originally posted by FeceMan
Oh, come on, surely you can't mean that. I mean, he was a Christian. Christian fascists are OBVIOUSLY all conservative.
I do mean that. Look at a lot of the left's issues. They want more government, government in control of social issues, government programs that provide aid to private citizens. That's liberal. That's socialism. Hitler wanted the state to dictate every aspect of social life in Germany. That's what a lot of liberals want, government that dictates social order.
Just because Hitler was hateful, doesn't make him a conservative.
And Hitler was a Catholic, yes...but, much like the current US admin. it was an act...
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I'd say it's more socialism that links the political sphere back to fascism.If you go too far left, you end up on the right.
Although I know the US conception of liberalism is slightly different.
As I said before, socialism and liberalism are almost one and the same.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Okay, I'm not too familiar with UK liberalism. So, when you hear me discuss liberals, it will never be in the context of YOUR version of "liberal".
Out of interest, is it any of these?
(I haven't looked through it yet, but I'm ignorant of the current usage in the US)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
I'm wondering if it's not just a misapplied tag.
"This article discusses liberalism as a major political ideology, not the usage of the term in specific countries. For entries about varieties of liberalism and liberal parties around the world, see the entry Liberalism worldwide."
A lot of the concepts discussed in that general definition apply to a lot of concepts that any major political party would ascribe to themselves.
But, when you follow the link to 'liberalism worldwide', then it doesn't really address the US.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
"This article discusses liberalism as a major political ideology, not the usage of the term in specific countries. For entries about varieties of liberalism and liberal parties around the world, see the entry Liberalism worldwide."A lot of the concepts discussed in that general definition apply to a lot of concepts that any major political party would ascribe to themselves.
But, when you follow the link to 'liberalism worldwide', then it doesn't really address the US.
I see.
I imagine liberalism is posited as a diametric opposite to conservatism there, what with the democrat/republican divide.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I see.I imagine liberalism is posited as a diametric opposite to conservatism there, what with the democrat/republican divide.
Pretty much. When there are only two parties, ideology gets split right down the middle. An issue comes up and one party states it's position, and the other party is forced to take an opposing stance on the subject..simply to maintain a difference in national theory. It's sad really, America could be much better place if it had more than two viable political parties.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Pretty much. When there are only two parties, ideology gets split right down the middle. An issue comes up and one party states it's position, and the other party is forced to take an opposing stance on the subject..simply to maintain a difference in national theory. It's sad really, America could be much better place if it had more than two viable political parties.
Definitely. In a sense, two party isn't that much better than one party, all told.
It's a weird bastardisation of the term liberal though.
I think Spelljammer might now be making just the slightest iota of sense.
Originally posted by Gandhi_of_KMC
Why?
🤨
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
That was a test, you failed.F+.
At least I failed with honour.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Read your history, my friend. Hitler was a liberal. Taken to extremes, liberal thought lends itself to fascism. That is one reason I'm not a liberal.You might think I'm joking, but I'm not.
I very much hope you are not talking aboot the liberal I am thinking aboot....
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I'd say it's more socialism that links the political sphere back to fascism.If you go too far left, you end up on the right.
Although I know the US conception of liberalism is slightly different.
That's what I hope he meant...US Liberal is ore socialist than liberal actually...
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Definitely. In a sense, two party isn't that much better than one party, all told.It's a weird bastardisation of the term liberal though.
I think Spelljammer might now be making just the slightest iota of sense.
For someone who himself claimed to be a socialist he very much hated the American "Liberals"
Originally posted by Bardock42I very much hope you are not talking aboot the liberal I am thinking aboot....
That's what I hope he meant...US Liberal is ore socialist than liberal actually...
For someone who himself claimed to be a socialist he very much hated the American "Liberals"
The only liberal I'm talking about, is Hitler.
When you look at the "core" principles of the two parties in this country, you see that liberals/socialists are into big government, social control, etc. and that conservatives are in it for small government and less social control. However, by now...both concepts have really become one. At this point, it's a war for control...and that's it. There is no more concern for the people...only the power.
So, that sounds pretty much like Hitler to me.
As for Spelljammer, he's retarded. Whatever name he's using to troll around here, he's still just an idiot. He has no control over how sick he allows himself to become. I would imagine he mastubates a lot. He says he's a socialist, but doesn't even know what that means. He heard somewhere that socialists are evil...so, that's why he associates himself with them...he has also heard that the conservatives are the same as republicans...so, he applies himself to their cause, but only on these forums...as it's clear that he has no life outside of his darkend bedroom, softly lit by the light of his computer monitor.
To be honest I am very, very, very uncomfortable with you calling Hitler a Liberal. His political ideology is best described as fascist...that's why it's called Fascist. He had some ideas of what the Aericans call liberals as well as what they call Conservatives. His views were Authoritarian/Progressive/Facist (Fascist as partly Socialist and partly Capitalistic, centralized but still free). So Libertarians, Socialists and Fascists are basically different political views although soe might overlap.
Originally posted by Bardock42
To be honest I am very, very, very uncomfortable with you calling Hitler a Liberal. His political ideology is best described as fascist...that's why it's called Fascist. He had some ideas of what the Aericans call liberals as well as what they call Conservatives. His views were Authoritarian/Progressive/Facist (Fascist as partly Socialist and partly Capitalistic, centralized but still free). So Libertarians, Socialists and Fascists are basically different political views although soe might overlap.
I'm sorry I've made you feel uncomfortable. That was not my intent. However, if Hitler were alive today, in the US, and had to choose between the two political ideologies, he would be a liberal.
And, I'm aware that Hitler was a fascist. I'm very familiar with Hitler...and the Nazi party. I've been studying it for years at this point. I'm not trying to fool anyone, I'm just sharing what I know. Hitler would be a liberal. Everything about his point of view agrees with that statement.
I think the problem so many of my friends across the pond are having, is understanding that I'm really only familiar with the term 'liberal', as it applies to American politics.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'm sorry I've made you feel uncomfortable. That was not my intent. However, if Hitler were alive today, in the US, and had to choose between the two political ideologies, he would be a liberal.And, I'm aware that Hitler was a fascist. I'm very familiar with Hitler...and the Nazi party. I've been studying it for years at this point. I'm not trying to fool anyone, I'm just sharing what I know. Hitler would be a liberal. Everything about his point of view agrees with that statement.
I think the problem so many of my friends across the pond are having, is understanding that I'm really only familiar with the term 'liberal', as it applies to American politics.
The problem I am having is that I don't think so at all actually. The ones you call conservatives are more nationalistic and in great parts more authoritarian than the liberals....I just can't picture Hitler as a Liberal (meaning a US Democrat) at all. There's no real comparing his beliefs with those two parties but if he actually was forced to chose I believe he'd chose the current Republicans (now by Party Programme this might be different, but the way they practice nowadays I mean)
Originally posted by Bardock42
The problem I am having is that I don't think so at all actually. The ones you call conservatives are more nationalistic and in great parts more authoritarian than the liberals....I just can't picture Hitler as a Liberal (meaning a US Democrat) at all. There's no real comparing his beliefs with those two parties but if he actually was forced to chose I believe he'd chose the current Republicans (now by Party Programme this might be different, but the way they practice nowadays I mean)
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
When you look at the "core" principles of the two parties in this country, you see that liberals/socialists are into big government, social control, etc. and that conservatives are in it for small government and less social control. However, by now...both concepts have really become one. At this point, it's a war for control...and that's it. There is no more concern for the people...only the power.
As you can see, I have already stated that the two parties in the US are, for all intents and purpose, the exact same thing....at this point. Many points in teh liberal agenda agree with me. Basically, the liberal movement promotes the individual citizen's dependance on the federal governmnet. While, the conservative doctrine would promote less government interference with the individual citizen. Which sounds more like Hitler?
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I do mean that. Look at a lot of the left's issues. They want more government, government in control of social issues, government programs that provide aid to private citizens. That's liberal. That's socialism. Hitler wanted the state to dictate every aspect of social life in Germany. That's what a lot of liberals want, government that dictates social order.Just because Hitler was hateful, doesn't make him a conservative.
And Hitler was a Catholic, yes...but, much like the current US admin. it was an act...
Just add water...
And, yes, as VVD mentioned, the political sphere--or ring or what-have-you--is round because there is such a small degree of separation between the extremes of the Left and the Right. [Though it neglects anarchists, which don't really even belong on the political sphere.]
This is the problem, nowadays. So many people--myself included--don't see politics as the proper way to create the government. Republicans aren't those who favor a republic and Democrats aren't those who favor a democracy--all we see are the issues at hand. I admit that I prefer the republic as a form of government to the democracy, but that's not why I vote the way I do. It all comes down to core beliefs.
I've always considered Hitler very conservative simply because of the racist, hateful views that he espoused were so comparable to those like the Dixiecrats. And today, whenever we hear about intolerance, it's always the Christian far right-wingers who are stirring up trouble. Thus, we have all come to associate one side with one set of ideals and the other with a totally different set (hence the mini-tirade in my signature).
This should probably be remedied. But it won't be.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
The only liberal I'm talking about, is Hitler.When you look at the "core" principles of the two parties in this country, you see that liberals/socialists are into big government, social control, etc. and that conservatives are in it for small government and less social control. However, by now...both concepts have really become one. At this point, it's a war for control...and that's it. There is no more concern for the people...only the power.
So, that sounds pretty much like Hitler to me.
As for Spelljammer, he's retarded. Whatever name he's using to troll around here, he's still just an idiot. He has no control over how sick he allows himself to become. I would imagine he mastubates a lot. He says he's a socialist, but doesn't even know what that means. He heard somewhere that socialists are evil...so, that's why he associates himself with them...he has also heard that the conservatives are the same as republicans...so, he applies himself to their cause, but only on these forums...as it's clear that he has no life outside of his darkend bedroom, softly lit by the light of his computer monitor.
(Ugh. Now I pity Spelljammer.)
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
As you can see, I have already stated that the two parties in the US are, for all intents and purpose, the exact same thing....at this point. Many points in teh liberal agenda agree with me. Basically, the liberal movement promotes the individual citizen's dependance on the federal governmnet. While, the conservative doctrine would promote less government interference with the individual citizen. Which sounds more like Hitler?