Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:True that, althoguh I'd posit most of the weridos attacking Obama call him a socialist, not a Nazi. Come on redy, get your nutjob slurs correct!

Uh Fraz,..............Could you please post the origin and definition of the term nazi?

It is amazing the lengths that socialist go to in order to obscure the fact that germany from 1933-1945 was a socialist state.

reds8n wrote:I've yet to see any protest in the last few years where someone hasn't accused/labelled the oposition as Nazis. It's like Godwin's Law has escaped the internet and now roams the world at will.

I find it both amazing and disheartening that an internet meme with no scientific basis in fact is used to casually dismiss the concerns of entire groups of people. I can understand questioning the credibility of those who are shouting the term mindlessly with nothing to back up their statements, but when Godwins law is used as an excuse to ignore those that are calmly using the term and providing source material for their position then there is a huge problem. Wouldn't you agree.

Actually, the Nazis were socialist about as much as China under Mao was a Republic.

That said: I find his references to a 'peaceful' tea party rather humorous. The local tea party had a meeting near here. Some of them forgot to take off their white sheets from their previous meeting that day, however.

Which gives the 'liberal media' a lot to work with. Giving a speech while wearing a swastika is not a way to convince people to join your cause.

Me, I'm all for smaller government. And closing the boarders for the next five years as an experiment in economics. And releasing the Native Americans from their bondage to the United States.

"President, Let My People Go."

focusedfire wrote:
It is amazing the lengths that socialist go to in order to obscure the fact that germany from 1933-1945 was a socialist state.

No it wasn't.

reds8n wrote:I've yet to see any protest in the last few years where someone hasn't accused/labelled the oposition as Nazis. It's like Godwin's Law has escaped the internet and now roams the world at will.

I find it both amazing and disheartening that an internet meme with no scientific basis in fact is used to casually dismiss the concerns of entire groups of people. I can understand questioning the credibility of those who are shouting the term mindlessly with nothing to back up their statements, but when Godwins law is used as an excuse to ignore those that are calmly using the term and providing source material for their position then there is a huge problem. Wouldn't you agree.

reds8n wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
It is amazing the lengths that socialist go to in order to obscure the fact that germany from 1933-1945 was a socialist state.

No it wasn't.

Actually, it was. Facism does not preclude socialism and to argue otherwise will serve to only damage your credibility.

Thats why the Fascists had all the Socialists they could find killed in Germany and Spain?

@ Fraz,

Yes, Fascist Socialists considered Communist Socialists as one of their greatest threats.

Sort of how a baptist will go after a catholic before he would a buddist. Things that are very similar but under someone elses control are always considered a greater threat to the particular authority in question.

Ironically, in this country, we've got one side advocating the economic theories of the Nazis, and the other advocating the social theories of the Nazis...

A nice quote from the movie The Big Lebowski.

Walter Sobchak: I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos

Well, at least Chaotic Evil will get to fight Lawful Evil again.

focusedfire wrote:
It is amazing the lengths that socialist go to in order to obscure the fact that germany from 1933-1945 was a socialist state.

Tangentially to your point, practically no extant state in the world has zero socialist tendencies (those that are tend to be anarchies) by a strict definition. There's little value in apply the label 'socialist', since by definition it encompasses both economic and ethical considerations of interaction. it's a term that is extremely misused, often pejoratively, and rarely contributes much to the discussion.

Practically speaking, some level of socialist tendencies is desirable for any civilisation as a pacification measure for the masses. Investments in social services or infrastructure tend to allow for a larger economic market than can be present without them. Few people are inclined to revolution if they have a place to sleep, food and entertainment, right?

Good and evil are, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder.

I think its a good law,i dont waht any fethign illeigals runnign around.They should fix there own god damned country,

Lines on maps are stupid mental constructs, as are laws, legallities of who gets to be where, just because of which lines they were born within. Unjust, unkind, unintelligent. Get rid of the lines on the maps and everyone can succeed anywhere depending on merit rather than citizenship birthright. Oh yeah wars between 'sovereign nations' would not exist either. Added bonus.

focusedfire wrote:
Actually, it was. Facism does not preclude socialism and to argue otherwise will serve to only damage your credibility.

First, you must grant hospitality to true Scotsmen.

Second, Nazi Germany was corporatist, not socialist. There is a massive difference.

Guitardian wrote:Lines on maps are stupid mental constructs, as are laws, legallities of who gets to be where, just because of which lines they were born within. Unjust, unkind, unintelligent. Get rid of the lines on the maps and everyone can succeed anywhere depending on merit rather than citizenship birthright. Oh yeah wars between 'sovereign nations' would not exist either. Added bonus. Terrorists would cease to worry about who is on whos land, palestinian relocation versus Israeli middle-eastern presence wouldn't cause religious factions to go all jihadist and so on. Added bonus again.

I would say the Nazi party was a socialist party. Hitler (and Nazi Germany) was pretty centrist though (economically), only a socialist in the sense that he used the title to describe himself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:Lines on maps are stupid mental constructs, as are laws, legallities of who gets to be where, just because of which lines they were born within. Unjust, unkind, unintelligent. Get rid of the lines on the maps and everyone can succeed anywhere depending on merit rather than citizenship birthright. Oh yeah wars between 'sovereign nations' would not exist either. Added bonus. Terrorists would cease to worry about who is on whos land, palestinian relocation versus Israeli middle-eastern presence wouldn't cause religious factions to go all jihadist and so on. Added bonus again.

I don't know about that idea. You'd have to have one world government making decisions for every place at once, or doing nothing instead.

With no lines on maps those dern ferener Canadians would be allowed to just wander into Mn. Ugh, the humanity of it.

Borders wouldn't be a problem if people didn't cross them illegally. I mean, if government rescinded borders (imagine how that would feth over counties dependent on being a certain land mass for aid and what not) we might as well make fences around yards illegal. I mean fences are normally to keep people out but if any old person is allowed to freely roam where they want then that means fences shouldn't be allowed, leading people able to walk across my lawn at will.

Naw, I like the border idea. If dern fereners want to come to this country they can walk through the front door like the millions that are here legally that did just that. You sneak in from the back, ie cross illegally, you made yourself a target, in my book.

Fateweaver wrote:
Borders wouldn't be a problem if people didn't want to cross them.

Fixed that for you.

What? So an imaginary line in the sand is reason to want to enter a country?

There are probably as many entering legally as there are entering illegally so the borders are only a problem because the dern fereners who want to enter illegally are doing so.

My yard has an invisible border. You are saying that the reason someone would trespass on my lawn is because there is an invisible line of demarcation separating my property from the roadway? Sure, technically with no border it wouldn't be trespass and therefore not illegal to enter my property but if you want to cross that line into my property just to be "TFG" then prepare for an ass kicking or the very least a 911 call.

So again. I've no problems with people crossing our borders legally. I've no problem with people entering my yard under good intentions. It's when the borders of any type get stepped over illegally I have a problem. AZ is showing true initiative and is doing it right. Now if only the other 49 states would do the same (well, illegals probably aren't much of a problem in AK or HI).

Nobody can help where they are born, or control the complexities involved in coming through the 'front door' as you say. It isn't an easy task dealing with INS bureaucracy. No amount of lines on maps can get rid of desperation that leads people to risk crossing those lines. It just costs more trying to enforce it than it actually helps the legals who were lucky enough to be born here keep their jobs in a failed economy.

That is where you and I differ and we always will.

Open border won't solve any problems either. It will just encourage more illegal activity. Sure the illegals would no longer be here "illegally" but it would encourage more illegal activity.

That's like leaving your front door open and expecting everyone who just walks into your house willy nilly to be there for good intent and not harm. An attitude like that will get you shot/mugged/raped or all 3.

I guess if you want into this country bad enough and want to do it legally you deal with the red tape involved. It's a pain in the ass to sit at the DMV for 30-45 minutes to renew my tabs on my car or renew my drivers license but if I want to have the PRIVILEGE to drive legally I deal with it.

It might suck but them's the breaks.

yeah try waiting 8-12 months instead of 30-45 minutes after paying 2 months wages in fees and who knows how much in transit. It's kind of discouraging to be 'legal' when really the requirements are: "Do you have money enough for our ridiculous fee? Do you have a criminal background? Can you pay us a lot of money and get by while we take our time getting around to you on our 8-12 month waiting list? O.K. then! you can be legal... in 8-12 months. Just sayin from experience.

the answers to those questions are:
yes I have money for the ridiculous fee (how I managed to scrape it up is my business)
no I don't have a criminal background
and... most importantly...
No I can't get by with no job waiting 12 months for you to laminate me a simple card (or laser print or whatever it is nowadays) so I can get work legally... so yeah I guess I work illegally while I wait for the government to get around to legalizing me.

Well, then it's a problem with the current system but opening the borders up to anyone and everyone won't solve the problem either.

A crappy experience but if you want to do something legally you sometimes have to deal with crap. I don't agree with most laws in place but I obey them (most of the time) because breaking them is a lot more detrimental to my freedom (I prefer to not be sitting in a prison cell).

But what happens when you are stuck here illegally with no means to leave with because you cannot work? Just go to your local INS and ask them to arrest you and cost more tax money deporting you? Or work illegallly because you have to due to the lines on maps and economic inequality?

Fateweaver, you're assuming that everyone crossing the boarder is coming here to commit crimes. Personally, I'd either close the boarders entirely or open them entirely. Making weird security checkpoints just ups costs for taxpayers.

I'm wondering, wouldn't building up South American economies do more to stem immigration? It would also help tame China to boot.

The problem is that you'd have to change South American governments. And you know how well that works.

Some places down there it's government of the week.

We could aid the Mexican government a huge amount for free if we just got rid of this damn drug war... and we'd have a lot less Mexican criminals to deal with too.

Fateweaver wrote:What? So an imaginary line in the sand is reason to want to enter a country?

Um, no? I don't really know how you came to the conclusion that my post indicated what you describe.

Borders are problematic because, in all cases, they exist to separate one are from another. If you want to move into an area that has a border, then you must cross the border. The desire isn't created by the very existence of the border, though I suppose that might be true in some cases, its created by whatever happens to be on the other side of said border.

dogma wrote:

Borders are problematic because, in all cases, they exist to separate one from another. If you want to move into an area that has a border, then you must cross the border. The desire isn't created by the very existence of the border, though I suppose that might be true in some cases, its created by whatever happens to be on the other side of said border.

The desire to cross a border is because of internal and external pressures that force people to leave. Internal pressures are what force you to leave while external pressures are what could draw you into a particular region (though external pressures could also force people away and internal pressures could force people to choose a specific location as well). The point is is that people see a positive stimulus to their lives by coming to a place, so there must be something worthwhile in that place.

Hispanics have been coming to America for many years. The influx has not been acute, but a chronic trend that has happened for many decades. If you want to make America a less desireable place to go, then remove what makes people want to come here.