kraychik

Did you catch the part at the end where Obama had what seemed to be a Freudian slip when he said that everyone should GET "their fair share"? He giftwraps his socialism, class warfare, and racism in a fancy package like all demagogues. The problem for Obama this time, however, was that he wasn't alone on stage.

Here's another pathetic video from the DNC released post-debate, showcasing some ridiculous leftist pundits. Apparently, Romney is a big fat meanie poo! Anyone else notice how the vibe of these ads sort of resembles Apple's marketing, which primarily appeals to yuppies to feed their dogs organic biscuits and order complex coffees?

The only reason a person wouldn't think that Romney is "human-like" is if they buy the Democratic Party's propaganda and slander. He's quite human, as is Obama. But wait, you're a non-partisan man, right?

Since when were expectations, low? Obama went in with a huge handicap: he's been the President for the past four years and has a record of failure. Obama's demagoguery doesn't work so well when you're not alone on stage. How much would you like to bet that this DNC video gets pulled shortly?

Don't you love it how leftists like Smallc actually perceive themselves as somewhat conservative? From Michael Hardner being an objective pragmatist to a Smallc being "slightly conservative", it's hilarious to see the depth of self-deceit that these leftists practise in order to tell themselves, and others, that they're not socialists.

Romney destroyed Obama, AND that pathetic Jim Lehrer's attempts to assist his favourite Indonesian madrassah alumni. It wasn't even close. Now, the question is, does it matter? Will this mobilise the electorate?

Yeah, and you're conveniently forgetting that women don't just lay there waiting to be impregnated. Courting a woman is a little more complex than a male peacock showing its feathers, and a woman is quite a bit smarter than a female peacock and knows what's at stake. The family unit is a function of biology. And many mammals practise monogamy, including humanity (for the most part). Those practises don't cover a majority of human history. I can agree with the first part of this, but you're ignoring the female half of the equation. As the phrase goes: men are the gas, women are the brakes. There's a lot more to it than that, and I'm not even sure the argument you just advanced in defence of monogamy is even in the top ten of primary reasons why it is the superior model for the family. In some sense, yes, but it is primarily a function of biology, contrary to the narrative of the left which wants to redefine it. The left hates all almost things it defines as "social constructs" from the primitive times of history (before they were born and became the centre of the universe).

I completely reject the premise that the right-left political spectrum is loop rather than a line, with opposing ends being the same. I am NOT trying to describe the hippy as an NKVD or KGB agent. What I am saying is that if we're to examine Nazism and compare it to the contemporary left and contemporary right, it shares far more in common with the former than the latter. By that standard, it's incorrect to characterise Nazism as right-wing. Look, I learned the exact same bullshit as you did in school - that Nazism is "far right extremism". But if we ask ourselves what the contemporary right actually stands for: individual sovereignty and rights, protections for the most basic freedoms both economic and social, then we cannot place Nazism in this same category. Conversely, if we examine today's left it's all about eroding the sphere of control the individual has over his or her life in order to better serve what are defined by the state as the collective interest of greater good. Doesn't that ideology have a lot more of a relationship with Nazism than today's right? Submit to our designs, because we know better than the masses! A much smaller version of this is provided with NYC's banning of sugary drinks over 16 oz. I know that many people on this forum are leftist lemmings who don't grasp the consequences of their own worldview. I don't view them as a bunch of malicious wannabe NKVD or KGB agents (although a handful of them certainly would be), but rather as politically, economically, and historically ignorant and therefore vulnerable to manipulation by demagogues like Jack Layton or Barack Obama. I have leftists who are close to me, I don't hate them. I am not trying to slander contemporary leftists as Nazis, but hopefully some of them will wake up over time and see the end result of the path they want us to walk with them. I don't think bleeding heart is a malicious Nazi, either, it's just that he's either unable or unwilling to see the commonalities between his ideology and that of Nazis and communists. Again, I don't view leftists as bad people and I don't hate them (in fact there as some leftists that I really care about), but I recognise how dangerous they are politically.

It's debatable whether or not Khadr was serving the state of Afghanistan. Yeah? So which state extends these imaginary protections to Khadr? Afghanistan? Pakistan? This is cute, you're learning about this for the very first time, I can tell.

Oh come on! That's not a compelling argument. Trotsky and Stalin hated each other, where they not both communists? What about the Shiahs and Sunnis, each declaring the other isn't a real Muslim? The main difference between Nazis and communists is the racist national nature of the former contrasting the universalist-international ambitions of the latter.

You're linking the optional protocol, not the actual core convention. It's alright, I know you don't recognise the difference. You're learning as you're going, I understand.

That efficiency was scary, and I remember reading about it from a different perspective in memoirs from Primo Levi and Miklos Nyiszli. You see what I'm getting at, though? Put aside the economic component for a moment and consider the laws that Nazi Germany passed in the early thirties, culminating in the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. The state had very few limits on what it could do if Hitler or one of his cronies gave the order. There was nothing protecting the rights of the individual against the will of the government, and that is why I join many others who characterise Nazism as a leftism ideology, considering it has far more in common with today's left than today's right.

Like I said, even using the UN's definition of child soldier, Khadr wouldn't qualify because he was over the age of fifteen.

The key word here, of course, is optional. Details like that sort of slip past you, it seems. Now try to connect that to Khadr situation.

Read the part in bold.

Look, I can't go on and on with you on this. You don't understand basic terms like right and left, let alone conservatism. Go badger someone else with your Wikipedia links, maybe you'll impress Michael Hardner. Maybe there's a link to "free market communism" or some other nonsensical term coined by those on your side of the aisle.

Call it what you want, that's fine. Oligarchy is an accurate term to describe the economic landscape of Nazi Germany, but remember that it was premised on the government's demands. The fact that there were private factories manufacturing the goods for war doesn't change my premise that it was driven by the demand from an ever-expanding government.

Not Canadian conservatism, and not American conservatism, which is what you're trying to imply. Whereas leftism is inherently statist, largely rooted in contempt for the individual masquerading as compassion.

I think you're missing my point, it's a free market competition for a demand that was created by the Nazi regime. It's all still predicated on the government. Without the militarisation occurring to actualise Hitler's plans for conquest, funded primarily by debt, none of these bids for the contracts would have existed. Remember that in the social sphere of society, individual freedoms were crushed. This is also what I want people to understand connects Nazism and leftism, because we know that the left is far more likely to prioritise its own vision of the collective interest whereas the right is far more likely to recognise that broader collective good is best achieved through strong protections of individual freedoms (both economic and social).

So your reading comprehension is non-existent. Good to know.

My mistake, he was two months away from his sixteenth birthday. Also, I need to edit my earlier statement: The UN's definition of "child soldier" applies to those under the age of fifteen. So by that standard, he doesn't qualify.

Remember, the economic activity of Nazi Germany was still driven by state demand. At the core of it all is the state. Beyond that, let's go into the social sphere of freedom - clearly tyrannical, and clearly leftist in the sense that it is all about the big government (the collective) at the expense of the individual. In the words of Dennis Prager, "the bigger the state, the smaller the individual". That's what took place in Nazis Germany.

If we use the UN's definition of child soldier, which a communist like you must be in favour of, then child soldiers are defined as those aged fifteen and under. Khadr was sixteen when he murdered American army medic Christopher Speer.

My view is certainly not fringe. Your ignorance of basic concepts and terminology associated with politics, however, is quite mainstream.

This is exactly what I was getting at when I was describing Nazism as a leftist ideology. The one thing we can all agree on (except bleeding heart, of course) is that the left-right paradigm is about full economic control on one end and complete economic anarchy/decentralisation on the other. Therefore the understanding of left and right from this starting point is universal. Conservatism is something else entirely, and is outside of this paradigm. Depending on context, one can be a conservative right-winger in one time and place and a conservative communist in another. I use the term leftism to mean more than just being on the left-wing of this economic paradigm, however. I use it almost synonymously with statism and collectivism. And this is where Nazism, communism, and Islamism all share a crucial and important common denominator - a massive state with a great degree of control over people. In other words, a great erosion of individual freedoms. This is why I categorise Islamists as leftists, because they operate in a very similar manner to contemporary socialists, they just march more slowly.