People who call Obama a Nazi are history challenged

[gobucsgo]

My original thesis is that you cannot be a liberal and also a Nazi. For those who believe you can do you believe that Hitler fits the following definition of liberal.

liberal
Adjective
1. having social and political views that favour progress and reform
2. generous in temperament or behaviour
3. tolerant of other people
4. using or existing in large quantities; lavish
5. not rigid; free.
6. (of an education) designed to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability

PS:  I served in Nazi Germany and I do not think so.

[dbucfan]

Well - then he is not a liberal.

1.  Single payer health care is not progress, nor reform.  It has been established the Federal Government is ineffective at Administrating programs.  Then cap and trade - does nothing by drive up energy pricies.  No progress, no reform.  Omnibus spending - promised no ear marks - allowed them. 
2.  I don't see the generousity his temperment nor his behaviour.  He demands a HC overhaul, gives specifications, insures both Pharmas and Insures will participate, takes away the marketplace for pricing - well maybe to the insurers or the Pharmas... and Al Gore/Goldman Sachs - who are set to reap billions of that bs bill goes forward
3.  Tolerant - hardly.  See the handling of legimate bond holders at GM, see the noise about Corporate Salaries - and see how the lawfully entitled bond holders were swept aside in favor of the UAW, and corporate friends continue outlandish salaries/bonuses - noting specifically Citi preparations (AND APPROVAL BY A FLIPPING CZAR) in the amount of $100,000,000 for ONE employee.
4.  Using in large quantities - ok that one fits - watched the visit with his wife to NYC to see a play..., she and the kids in Paris... Okay
5.  Free - hardly - held to his "word" by Gays, Environmentalists, Unions... he is beholding
6.  Education - he is a Harvard guy.

So he isn't a liberal - call him what you wish.

[spartan]

First, looking at your definition of a liberal and comparing it to liberal politicians for example:

1. having social and political views that favour progress and reform  : Depends on your definition of progress and reform.
2. generous in temperament or behaviour : Nope
3. tolerant of other people  : Nope, unless you happen to agree with a liberal
4. using or existing in large quantities; lavish : Other peoples time and money - Yep
5. not rigid; free. : Nope
6. (of an education) designed to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability : Hell NO!  

Hitler was a male, Obama is a male. Pretty petty I realize but it emphasizes there are legitimate areas for comparison.  For example Hitler had a meteoric rise to national prominence after years of mainly political agitation in the south and in particular Bavarian area. Obama had a sudden and meteoric rise to power after years of local politics in Chicago. Hitler came to power primarily on the force of his personality rather than his polices (other than to hate the Jews) and to promise better times and change. Obama came to power primarily on the force of his personality rather than his polices other than a promise of change. Once in power Hitler began the process of 'reform' and took control of vast swathes of the economy. Obama took power and has begun a program of "reform' by the Govt taking control of vast swatches of the economy. One could add other 'similarities' but is enough for now I think.

There is nothing to suggest that Obama is some Hitler in sheep's clothing, my only point is that there are legitimate comparisons and reasons for a legitimate, if only intellectual debate. The way some people are portraying him as Hitler is overboard, those dismissing it out of hand are either ignorant of the facts or comtemptuous.

[Biggs3535]

^^^Eggzactly^^^

[The White Tiger]

My original thesis is that you cannot be a liberal and also a Nazi. For those who believe you can do you believe that Hitler fits the following definition of liberal.

liberal
Adjective
1. having social and political views that favour progress and reform
2. generous in temperament or behaviour
3. tolerant of other people
4. using or existing in large quantities; lavish
5. not rigid; free.
6. (of an education) designed to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability

PS:  I served in Nazi Germany and I do not think so.

Really....You cannot be this....blind...

can you?

Evil stole our reality and named it "Modern liberal-ism" - the reality is that they took the name, but stole economic rights from individuals...

...but don't take my word for it...

What is Classical Liberalsim?

[kevabuc]

My original thesis is that you cannot be a liberal and also a Nazi. For those who believe you can do you believe that Hitler fits the following definition of liberal.

liberal
Adjective
1. having social and political views that favour progress and reform
2. generous in temperament or behaviour
3. tolerant of other people
4. using or existing in large quantities; lavish
5. not rigid; free.
6. (of an education) designed to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability

PS: I served in Nazi Germany and I do not think so.

Really....You cannot be this....blind...

can you?

Evil stole our reality and named it "Modern liberal-ism" - the reality is that they took the name, but stole economic rights from individuals...

...but don't take my word for it...

What is Classical Liberalsim?

Quite true, WT.

This definition is what a took the liberty out of Liberalism and redefined it by replacing it with the actions and intentions of Progressivism. Liberals have forgotten that their foundation is not isolely in the change and reforms they once needed to free them from tyranny, monarchies and other totalitarian states, but that it was based in the  liberties that that change and reform sought to attain.  This change and reform was once very drastic in nature and it indeed brought about a progress in human societal evolution, but that was due to the environment that existed in those days.  LIberalism then could be said to lie in the intented result, not in the required actions, which this definition claims is its main purpose.

Once liberty from tyranny was attained from this drastic action of revolution it still needed refining and ever the slight change to keep it safe from the natural attacks upon it by outside forces. Liberty and freedom are quite vulnerable, even from forces that claim to want to protect it from harm.  This is why this country was founded on principles that sought to create " a more perfect union" and not a final perfect one. These slight changes and reforms are needed from time to time in order to keep the result of liberty alive, not another major revolution though. 

It seems quite contrary that Liberals seek to define themselves these days as primarily progressors and reformers and seekers of change instead of the protectors of the freedoms and liberties that they originally sought that in fact, defined them. They do not understand that Conservatism is merely maintaining and refining that which liberalism successfully attained. Modern Liberlism seeks to throw out all that has been achieved because it is not the perfect model that they envision, they seek to throw it out instead of refining because simple refinement is not great enough in the quantity of progress and reform they feel is needed to fulfill their new definition of themselves.

It is the tail that wags the dog, it is the reason some call the new Liberalism a mental disorder. Liberals attained a major victory with the American Revolution but have never been willing to fully accept that fact and keep chasing a new Holy Grail of sorts.   

 

Lately, Glenn Beck has been on a kick where he's been comparing the current state of our gov't w/ NAZI Germany.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Glenn-Beck-Compares-Obama-Supporters-With-Nazi-Poster

Isn't the media right now saying tea party goers are complaining just to complain?  I could have swore that I heard the media hyping up those who question what our gov't is currently doing as the "angry mob" when it really is just simple questions asking on where things are going with our country.  Is this any different then what people feel are concerns from the last administration?  People want to know what direction this country is heading whether it is a D or an R in the office and they all have a legitimate right to know about it as long as this country is still free.

The problem with the NAZI comparison is that people only see the side of what happened in NAZI Germany in the form of the concentration camps and the Holocaust, foregoing the fact of what the actual policies that were in place with the Socialist Workers in that state.  Glenn Beck has also been comparing what our federal reserve has been doing  to what the Weimar Republic tried to do with monetizing our debt.  Things that this gov't is trying is nothing new and has been tried before, and some of it has went down roads where freedoms have been lost.  Beck has also said that facism isn't coming in the form of marching boots but in the form of a smile, meaning that we may not see so much as martial law per se, but a slow but sure overtaking of our country to fascism, from BOTH parties mind you, and to that extent he is right, whether republican or democrat there have been a lot of socialist/fascist undertones.

A Socialist country is one where industry is Govt controlled and Govt owned, ala Venezuela, the USSR etc.

A Fascist country is one where industry is Govt controlled but privately owned, ala Nazi Germany.

The word "Nazi" conjures up images of the SS, Death camps and WWII. This is counter productive in my opinion and diverts away from the conversation in that having taken control of vast swathes of the Banking industry, vast swathes of the Auto industry and attempting to do the same with the Healthcare industry, it is a legitimate argument IMO to say the policies the President is currently pursuing have a Fascist streak to them.

Agreed, we right now are lock step with these right now and that is no thanks to both Bush and Obama and the bigger "and" of it all our CONGRESS.

[The White Tiger]

The only thing we can do is affect the debate - I am afraid that the democrats will pass this sham/power grab (disguised as a healthcare bill) when they return from the recess.

I really don't think this thing is recoverable - I'm beginning to think this is all just academic anyway, the only countries to have monetized to this level were Germany's Wiemar Republic (pre-WWII, helped usher in Hitler's Nazi party), and Zimbabwe and the results are pretty horrific - I think you will see a different mood in the country by Christmas - definitely by April 2010, regardless...

Monetization:

"...To summarize: a deficit can be the source of sustained inflation only if it is persistent rather than temporary and if the government finances it by creating money, {through monetizing the debt}, rather than leaving bonds in the hands of the public...."

I'm not being overly pessimistic - the spending of this president and his congressional co-conspoiritors are ripping up the charts at record levels - but it's going to be even larger: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects/reports that they'll spend an additional $10 trillion (they intend to spend $1.2 trillion MORE than they get from taxes - every year for 10 years).

I'll repeat that to drive home the effect - when this president took office the TOTAL debt if the USA was about $10 trillion - the CBO estimates that in 10 years we'll add another $10 trillioin (and the CBO is usually conservative on the their estimates)...

America will have a national debt of over $20 trillion...

or will it:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article10860.html

From May 2009:

"...think the bond market is looking a few years down the road and saying that $1-trillion deficits are simply not capable of being financed. And if the debt is monetized, then inflation is going to become a very serious issue.

Europe, Japan, and the US cannot try to borrow $5 trillion in the next two years without a serious distortion of the bond market, not to mention the entire economic landscape.

I have long thought that "crunch time," the end game, would show up around 2013-14. But I never in my wildest imaginings thought we could run an almost $2 trillion deficit. That crazy guy on the corner telling us "The end is nigh"? He may be right.

Long before we get to 2015, let alone 2019, I think the bond markets will have called a halt to $1 trillion deficits. There will be a real crisis. The deficits will not be funded at anywhere close to an interest rate that will not break the budget. Taxes will get raised beyond what they were in the Clinton years. And Obama's budget makes some very optimistic judgments about how much will be saved in medical costs, as if no one has tried to rein in medical costs before. The crisis may come much sooner if his universal health-care bill is passed as proposed without offsetting cuts somewhere else...

The European banks are in worse shape than ours:

"...European banks have assets of about 330% of their GDP, compared to US banking assets, which are about 50%...."

"...Simply put, there is going to be a need for massive amounts of money to bail out European banks, or we'll watch their economies simply implode...

What do you guys think?

[dbucfan]

I think the United States will be fine if it can avoid spending itself into bankruptcy - which would be done voluntarily by the 535.  I think folks are seeing the impact they can have when something strikes them as wrong.  I don't agree with a lot of what either party has done or is doing - but it is great that America is getting involved.  Makes me smile every time I see the look on a representatives faces as his/her butt puckers when someone makes them admit they don't know, but were ready to vote.

[The White Tiger]

From the realities of this global recession there isn't anyone to fuel our spending - the congressional dolts may have actually run out of other peoples money to spend on their re-election programs.

This administration estimates that they will outspend the tax receipts over the next 10 years by $1.2 trillion per year. That means if they don't add any more spending and if they don't lose any tax revenue.

In order to spend more money than you took in you have to have credit - that is why we sell our debt, to fund spending.

we need to sell about $500 billion per year to fund some of this. Unfortunately the globe isn't as enamored with the US dollar. They have problems at home and most of them are attempting tofund deficit spending.

So, if tax receipts are falling, and the world isn't buying our debt - where do you think the democrat controlled congress and this president are going to look to get their funding for their new budget busting plans?

The American taxpayer, of course!

Since only 88% of us are still working - can you imagine what amount they'll be needing? Can they raise 1.2 trillion for the current budget, cap & trade, healthcare AND Afghanistan?

Interesting times will face our legislators and our executive beginning around Christmas and definitely by April 2010.

[dbucfan]

China and India are the consumers - and this administration needs to see their constituents aren't in favor of their spending habits.  And it appears to be happening, even though Obama is currently just letting go of Government HC, the other point is being made.  Now will the constituents keep it up - that is a harder call.  All one can say is keep the pressure on.  Like you said - to get credit - someone has to give it to you, and that group is shrinking - while millions are paying down their debt - which doesn't help the economic recovery immediately - but I can see where it will over time.

[The White Tiger]

"They" made promises and have a core that is expecting something, "they" have an opposition - rekindled.

China is making them beg - and is currently undergoing half the rate of growth of last year...but they are growing. They are also being warned not to duplicate the wests "bubble mentality".

India is experiencing a troubled economy and internal/cultural pressures.

"They" are in trouble.

[dbucfan]

Lost me on the last pronoun - whose in trouble.  The US Congress - yea - it's out - they haven't been doing their jobs.  The Executive Branch - maybe - they got their hand smacked.  India - hell - they have had that crap going on since before I was born - and let it suffice that was more then a couple of decades ago. 

Let China set the rules until the US is back on its' feet - not to cap and tax, yes to infrastructure spending.  That at least makes sense.

[The White Tiger]

Chinese infrastructure doesn't need anything from us - it only generates profits that used to go into buying US debt. Since the returns aren't that good China is making the US beg for cash and investing in a worldwide network of "freindship building".

We are on a short, red, leash.

This president and congress ("they") will have the expenditures for their programs scrutinized by Bejing - and I wonder what interesting (rocket telemetry) technology (defense access codes) will be required in order to fuel our demise?

[dbucfan]

American infrastructure should have been the basis of the economic recovery - enabling rather than giving - from bridges, to roads, to electrical lines, water lines - it is all there to be done - in a fashion where Americans could earn their money - buying of Chinese is down - bc of lack of money that could be EARNED by Americans - and used to pay down debt - while they watch.  Screw friendship - this is survival 101 - and if the 535 and the exec branch CONSIDER the last sentence of your post - the should be impeached - and maybe that would get 535 Americans in Congress - as opposed to men looking to get or stay rich.