kraychik

I did, and I'll do it again: Nazism is a leftist ideology. I never said he did, I said that Nazism belongs to the same family of leftist ideologies, who all borrow on Marxist themes of eternal struggles between various groups. Pure Marxism is of course obsessed with the imaginary class struggle (the narrative that you subscribe to as a socialist), while Nazism has elements of that attached to a racial struggle between Aryans and Jews, and other races perceived as inferior and dangerous to Aryan longevity. There's a lot of overlap between all of these leftist ideologies, and I've explained that they all share a common denominator of centralized control. It's an uncomfortable truth for you as a socialist, I understand that. So, there are differences between various leftist ideologies? Thank you for the revelation. I was talking about the commonalities, not the nuances separating "social democrats" (socialists) from "democratic socialists" (socialists). What is extreme about my position? I'm simply articulating the reasons why the narrative of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology is a complete lie, and it is perpetuated intentionally to smear the right and absolve the left of its association with Nazism. It's simple, really. The contemporary right is antithetical to Nazism at its core, given its placement of the sovereignty of the individual as the paramount value. The contemporary left sees things in the opposite light, in both the social and economic dimensions. Ok.

That's a superficial distinction. In a more comprehensive analysis, Nazism is a leftist ideology. When we examine the ideology of the left, which can be summarized as collectivism (the perceived "greater good") trumping individualism, and then examine the Nazi platform and its policies, Nazism is revealed to be a leftist ideology. The argument advanced from cybercoma that Nazism cannot possibly be a a leftist ideology because it attacked communists politically and through violence is nonsense. It's like saying Sunni Islamists can't possibly be Islamists because they fight with Shia Islamists. Or Baathism as practised by Saddam Hussein can't be a leftist ideology because it was at war with the leftist Islamists in Iran. Both Baathism and Islamism are leftist/socialist/statist ideologies. Just because they fight with one another doesn't mean they don't belong to same ideological family. Many similarly-minded states and movements have fought with one another. Was Trotsky not a communist because he had a conflict with Stalin? It's simple, an honest analysis of Nazism reveals it to be statist (leftist) at its core, with the primary difference between Nazism and communism is the former's national and racist focus and communism's internationalism. This is of course contrary to the common "wisdom" (which is leftist historical revisionism) that Nazism composes the "far-right".

None of this matters, the worldview of today's NDP is the same as the foundation of socialism and communism. It's all about collectivisation through erosion of individual sovereignty in the name of the (imagined) greater good. It wraps itself in anti-business class warfare rhetoric, racist politics (for example, support for so-called "affirmative actions" policies), and dishonest populism. It appeals the very worst components of human nature: racism, envy, and resentment.

While CNN is not 100% beside leftism and the Democratic party at every turn and on every story, its slant is decidedly leftist and Democratic. For every example you can provide legitimately showing favour involving dishonesty for the conservative or Republican view of an issue or story, I can provide five or ten. This is what you're disputing, and this is the lie of yours I'm exposing.

There is nothing untoward about former military persons selling their expertise to media outlets who solicit their commentary. Their is also nothing untoward about these military persons attending information (or propaganda, if you view it that way) sessions hosted from the government that wishes to get its message out to the public. There is also no contradiction in self-describing as an "independent analyst", since they can provide commentary based on the information they've received in their own way. Being paid to provide commentary based on one's credentials doesn't make them non-independent. Neither does having been present as an information session composed by the former Bush administration. I'd like to see these videos you're referencing, which I'm virtually positive you haven't seen, but have only read about. Let's see it.

Here's another video from CNN, Anderson Cooper's 360 (hosted by Soledad O'Brien), implying that gun-walking never took place. Another clear example of CNN providing journalistic cover to protect its favoured candidate. Here she is interviewing the Democratic-operate posing as a "journalist" with "research" suggesting that the gun-walking never took place. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/28/CNN-Questions-Whether-Fast-Furious-Actually-Happened

You're challenging the simple truth that CNN is a leftist media outlet that is largely supportive of the Democratic party, even when it compels them to be dishonest. Whether it is "elite" or not is not really a socialist narrative I want to get into, as it's clear you subscribe to this narrative of competing power struggles between various classes (a Marxist worldview). Elites or otherwise, CNN leans to the left, which is what you're disputing.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few examples from CNN which were clear attempts at playing down the scandal. This is not even mentioning how little time was devoted to this developing story from CNN, whereas it was focused on much more by conservative media outlets. Part of examining bias in media is focusing as much on what they don't report, as much as on what they do or how they do it. Here is Soledad O'Brien implying that gun-walking never took place, contrary to strong evidence (Holder's very own testimony) suggesting otherwise by invoking the "research" of an uninvolved and irrelevant political "journalist". Admittedly, Soledad O'Brien is low-hanging fruit and blatantly a socialist and Obama-devotee, but it's not uncommon for CNN to sell this type of leftist narrative that is sympathetic to the Democratic party, at the expense of honesty.

I guess this guy really thinks he can spin a story that reveals CNN's leftist bias and support for the Democratic party into... the opposite? Like I said, he certainly lives in an alternate reality if he thinks CNN is part of some right-wing machine.

I read that article before, and it's from an openly-socialist "journalist" who shows up on CNN once in awhile. Hilariously, he won some "Journalist of the Year" award, despite the fact that barely anybody knows who he is, and he's never done any real journalism. I think it was some leftist LGBT award he won, because he's gay and supports same-sex marriage. Sort of like how Thomas Friedman wins a Pulitzer Prize for nonsense he rights, it's just leftist self-congratulatory behaviour. To get to the point, your assertion that he "defended" the Reagan administration by referring to documents that still aren't old enough to be declassified is silly, because it's not a defence. What he's doing is trying to illustrate a (false) hypocrisy from conservatives who are trying to draw warranted attention to the Fast and Furious scandal which has been largely played down by leftist media outlets including CNN. He's trying to draw a parallel where there is none, because the Iran-Contra affair cannot be compared to the Fast and Furious scandal. He's saying, "You guys did it, too! So shut your mouth about it, now!". That's not a compelling argument, but that's what we've come to expect from LGBT socialist journalists at CNN. The purpose of this article is clear, to provide cover for the Obama administration and Eric Holder regarding their involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal. This doesn't surprise anyone, either, I mean it is CNN we're talking about here. Ted Turner makes no secret of his leftist leanings and support for the Democratic party, and his view of how journalism should be done. I remember an interview he did not too long ago with Piers Morgan (another leftist, of course) where he stated dispassionately that his vision for CNN was to make it the M=New York Times of cable news. He's done a good job, in that respect.

So a story that reveals CNN's sympathies for leftism and the Democratic party is now spun into being evidence of the false narrative from Manufacturing Consent? That story (which made the rounds in American conservative media) exposes a pretty simple truth, that CNN is covering for the Obama administration in a way they wouldn't for a Republican administration. The purpose of the article is the play down the Fast and Furious scandal as a non-story, as an irrelevant deflection from conservatives and the Republican party. What the story really does, however, is provide yet another example of CNN's commitment to leftism and to the Obama administration. This thread, though, illustrates that you live in an alternate reality where descriptions of Obama as a socialist are "loony", as well as descriptions of CNN as being on the left, are both loony. Nobody is surprised that this is how you see the world, but still, it's worth pointing out.

You just got made to look like a fool. Again. Too funny

You exposed him beautifully His response was classic. In his mind, the NDP are centrist, perhaps a smidgen to the left.

Absolutely true. I will collect more and more of these things for my signature as time goes on. In only a few days I've already collected these gems below.

I'm not offended, at all. This is entertaining for me. I'm glad that leftists like yourself are candid in sharing their absurd viewpoints. Such aslikening the Taliban to the Tea Party, Christian conservatives to Al-Qaeda, and so forth. You make this easy. Thank you also for giving me another quote for my signature.

Although your 75% is suspect, let's leave that for now. My point is simple, and it is that the Tea Party and Christian Conservatism have a lot of overlap, but are not one in the same. They are distinct groups, You're asserting that they are the same thing and you're using the terms interchangeably. That's wrong.

Ah, the good 'ol "Hitler fought the Soviets!" argumentation as "proof" that Nazism isn't a leftist ideology. Takes me back to elementary school, good times. I already differentiated between Nazism and communism, where the primary difference is that Nazism isn't internationalist and is grounded in racism, whereas communism is internationalist. The ties that bind them are much stronger, however, than what separates them. "You don't know anything about communism or Karl Marx" isn't really a compelling argument, you know. Your defensiveness over the truth being told about communism reveals that you are sympathetic to communism, which certainly doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.

I wasn't offended, at all. I was simply allowing you to expose your ignorance of the region. It worked out beautifully.

Thank you for exposing the ignorance of the left with your ludicrous parallel drawn between contemporary Christian conservatism in the United States with Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Thank you also for putting on display the left's sincere belief that American Christian conservatives are "extreme", as is Al-Qaeda. I suppose holding rallies and town hall meetings is along the same lines of flying hijacked airliners filled with passengers into high-rise buildings filled with thousands of people on a workday morning.

Well, "the facts" have been provided to you, no need to go around this circle again with a supposedly-conservative man who quotes a leftist like Mohandas Gandhi in his signature.

That's fine, but the mistrust you have is grounded in an ignorance of certain common themes in the Middle East. Like I said, either you thought I was intentionally lying or that I was not sharp enough to discern between a believable source for the translation, or that I don't speak the language. Suppose I posted a propaganda video from a suicide bomber made prior to his or her operation and described the anti-American, anti-Semitic, or other hate in his speech. Would you also have a hard time believing my description of that dialogue? The point is that the events as I described them wouldn't have been hard to believe (which prompted your suggestions that I was either lying or stupid) for any person with a modicum of familiarity with the Middle East.

Honestly, I didn't anticipate that anyone would disbelieve my description of the dialogue, which came from other sources. Of course, the left still does surprise me on occasion. I won't belabour the point, but as I've already stated, your request for proof is rooted in only a few possibilities. Either you think I'm lying, or you think I'm stupid. Beyond that, it's hard for you to believe that such a hostile exchange could transpire the way it was described, which tells us that you're pretty oblivious about the rampant anti-Semitism in the Middle East.

Although there is overlap between Christian conservatism and the Tea Party, they are not one in the same. I completely support movements to implement educational reform to put more emphasis on true patriotism and reject the absurdities of so-called "multiculturalism" in the context of public schools. Of course leftists hate this, because they view themselves as "post-nationalistic" and view patriotism with contempt. The other component is more concerning, however, which is clearly an attempt to corrupt science education with unscientific narratives such as "intelligent design". Still, the laundry list of poison that the left continues to inject into the public education system (in both Canada and the USA) is so big that we should have another thread for it. Whether it is the corruption of economics with Keynesian ideas, historical revisionism intended to demonise America and the West while lionising inferior societies and cultures, or plain indoctrination with absurd values such as "multiculturalism", the contemporary left has a lot of dirt on its hands in this dimension which we can examine later. Bitsy is bringing forward ideas that Christian conservatives have been advocating for decades and now misleadingly attaching the Tea Party brand to it. Again, there's overlap between the two groups, but they're not one on the same.

So saying a prayer and asking God for assistance in their political objectives is now evidence of "extreme religiosity" among the Tea Party? If that's "extreme", what adjectives do you use to describe Al-Qaeda? All you're doing with this post, and I thank you for this by the way, is exposing the contempt that the contemporary left feels towards Christianity.

Do you really think, honestly, that I am unaware of the limitations of the right-left spectrum? I know that certain people can hold a position on one issue that is typically on the right, and then hold a position on another issue that is typically on the left. I am aware of the internal contradictions that occur with this limited paradigm. That doesn't mean the term doesn't still have great utility in the sense that effectively categorizing a person in or the other section gives a great level of accurate predictability to that person's views on a broad range of issues. The right-left system of categorizing people certainly isn't perfect, but it's effective. Trust me, I do not need your guidance when it comes to understanding political philosophy. You're also mischaratcerizing "equal marriage" (which is clearly leftist spin towards movements to redefine marriage as including same-sex couples) and abortion as issues of social freedom, which is certainly debatable to say the least. Although that is a subject for another thread.