Gingrich sees Iran threat to U.S. like Nazi Germany
- Thread starter jjw1965
- Start date
Jay said:
Really? Conventional thinking? You mean, like Joseph Kennedy, the American ambassador, who thought Hitler was right? And Henry Ford, and all the others, and all the folks who insisted the US keep out of the war because it wasn't a problem for them?
You and Newt obviously read the same books. The only reason the US joined the goddam war was because Japan attacked the US. The US didn't give a shit about Hitler for years. Man, you're an ill informed git. You sure you're not a Bush?
I think not said:
Socialist??? Where on earth did you see anything socialist in Pastafarian's post? Were we even reading the same one?
Seriously, ITN, back up the assertion. What, precisely, were the socialist elements in Pasta's post?
I have to take issue with this statement.
In fact , many prominent Americans found Hitler to be an important customer for -- in the case of Shrub's grandpa, Prescott Bush,who had three companies seized from him for trading with the Nazis. In addition, he was a director of a New York banking house, Brown Brothers-Harriman, which funded and directed the military-industrial complex behind Hitler and the Nazi revolution.
Of course IBM supplied the punch-card based calculating equipment and expertise that help Eichmann and others like him manage the considerable logistical challenges in transporting and accounting for the millions of people that the Nazis murdered.
Ford motors produced many vehicles and other companies provided Hitler with munitions even after the US reluctantly declared war against the Nazis at the late date of 1941.
I'd say the US was quite concerned about Germany's fortunes.
ITN wrote:
I respect this post of yours Pastafarian, I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, it's from a socialists' point of view.
Answer - Perhaps people should consider the content of the posts rather than trying to judge the compass point of their political leaning. Labeling serves to dismiss the source rather than allowing for a healthy debate. I have work to do in that area, but you sound very rigid and close-minded in this posting. Say it ain't so.
Ten Penny wrote:
Really? Conventional thinking? You mean, like Joseph Kennedy, the American ambassador, who thought Hitler was right? And Henry Ford, and all the others, and all the folks who insisted the US keep out of the war because it wasn't a problem for them?
Answer - companies such as General Motors, General Electric, Colt, American banks etc. had major investments in the German war industries, to the point that the associated industries were spared being bombed.
I respect this post of yours Pastafarian, I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, it's from a socialists' point of view.
Answer - Perhaps people should consider the content of the posts rather than trying to judge the compass point of their political leaning. Labeling serves to dismiss the source rather than allowing for a healthy debate. I have work to do in that area, but you sound very rigid and close-minded in this posting. Say it ain't so.
Ten Penny wrote:
Really? Conventional thinking? You mean, like Joseph Kennedy, the American ambassador, who thought Hitler was right? And Henry Ford, and all the others, and all the folks who insisted the US keep out of the war because it wasn't a problem for them?
Answer - companies such as General Motors, General Electric, Colt, American banks etc. had major investments in the German war industries, to the point that the associated industries were spared being bombed.
Summer said:
pastafarian said:
That is an all to common socialist reference for the socialist ideology. As if only socialists are progressive, everybody else is backwards. A stereotype perhaps, but nonetheless propagated by the left and only used by the left.
peapod said:
I don't have a problem with any mindset, as long as it doesn't border the extreme, and that's the left or right.
PoisonPete2 said:
I believe my comments were (instead of taking out of context):
I respect this post of yours Pastafarian, I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, it's from a socialists' point of view. But you express yourself from the heart, and not the usual gibberish you read filled with vitriol. And I believe I finished off stating that he got my wheels turning, AKA, thinking!
But you're right on one thing PoisonPete, you have much work to do in that area. :wink:
I think not said:
Oh, please; that's rich. Lots of people use the term "progressive" and it doesn't mean "socialist". I'm a progressive, but in no way am I a socialist. There are self-identified progressive Republicans (few, but they do exist and I know some of them), progressive Democrats, and progressive independents of all stripes. Progressive simply means "forward-looking" as opposed to an ideology committed to preserving tradition at all costs in all things.
So basically you're attempting - poorly - to diagnose someone's political leanings based upon a misunderstanding of the language involved.
I think not said:
Wait a sec - so am I to understand that you think that anything other than sitting in the complete middle is "extreme"? That would be funny if it wasn't so scary. Jeez, do you live in a hair-thin narrow world, or is it at least as thick as paper?
If Pasta's post got you "thinking", then please continue, because you need to!
I really hope to high heaven that I find out I've misinterpreted what you've said, but I'm honestly worried that I'm right on target.
Summer said:
It's rich because as PoisonPete did, you took things out of context. Progressive is by far and large a term used for the left (specifically socialists). Now you may consider yourself to be progressive and I don't doubt it, but I do believe I said its a stereotype, but one most definately used by socialists. I have never heard, anyone, anywhere describe themselves as progressive if they weren't from the left. So you have -poorly I might add - tried to turn this into a diagnosis, for reasons I don't understand.
Summer said:
No, unless you have been reading someone elses post here. Where did I ever make a claim like that?
Summer said:
Is that a typical response of yours to something you disagree with?
Summer said:
You're over-reacting. And what exactly is your "worry"? :lol:
mrmom2 said:Chasing the girls around again hey ITN:lol: 8)
I try. What the hell. Nice to you see again. Been busy I gather?
Yep the Mills had many issues of late :? Slowing down a bit now but the cold weather is coming and it always causes problems 8) On the bright side I'm going to pick up my 2002 800 RMK on Friday .Whoo hoo can't wait to point it uphill and pull the trigger 8)
I fully expect to start some avalanches with this baby 8) The thrill is back my 700 just didn't do it for me anymore :wink:
ITN, when you said, "I don't have a problem with any mindset, as long as it doesn't border the extreme, and that's the left or right" I took that to mean that you considered anything that was overtly left or right to be bordering on the extreme. The way you worded it makes it look like that was your meaning; if that was not what you meant, then I apologize. Though I'm curious to know what you did mean in that case.
Now, when you said, "I respect this post of yours Pastafarian, I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, it's from a socialists' point of view", that was a case of diagnosing someone in the absence of evidence. Nothing in Pasta's post indicated a socialist POV, and that was why I questioned it. You responded that you based your diagnosis on the use of the term "progressive". You then went on to explain this by stating, "That [the word progressive] is an all to common socialist reference for the socialist ideology. As if only socialists are progressive, everybody else is backwards. A stereotype perhaps, but nonetheless propagated by the left and only used by the left." So there you have demonstrated an even further logical leap: that because a word CAN be used to mean something, ALL instances of its use must therefore mean that particular something. That assumption is a logical fallacy. You compounded the folly by admitting on the one hand that the idea is a stereotype but then going on to not only fall for it yourself but also to assume that Pasta was attempting to propagate said stereotype when there was no clear evidence to support that assumption. On top of that, you made another stereotype by your assertion that only the left views itself as progressive or views some others as backward. There is plenty that is viewed as backward by people on the right as well. (I wish like hell a couple friends of mine - Republicans both and one staunchly Conservative - were on this board to explain their views; you'd likely be surprised at what they have to say.)
Further on, in response to me, you stated: "I have never heard, anyone, anywhere describe themselves as progressive if they weren't from the left." All this proves is that you consider all leftward-leaning individuals to be socialists - which is itself a false assumption - and that you have very limited experience of self-identified progressives, because there are a great many of them who are essentially close to the center.
Finally, you said to me: "So you have -poorly I might add - tried to turn this into a diagnosis, for reasons I don't understand." First off, I'm not diagnosing anything; I'm merely observing what you said and pointing out where your logic is faulty. Secondly, I don't know what's so hard for you to understand, but I'll try to make it simple: I abhor sloppy logic, blanket statements, inaccurate identifications, and slanted language.
The reason for all this? Well, that's simple, too. It just gets under my skin when people of ANY stripe make the mistake of viewing the political spectrum as an essentially binary entity, using the whole "there's us and then there's the socialists" or "there's us and then there's the capitalist pigs" mentality. As for why I find it scary, the answer is this question: How can human beings hope to navigate a three-dimensional reality if we restrict our perception to two dimensions?
Now, when you said, "I respect this post of yours Pastafarian, I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, it's from a socialists' point of view", that was a case of diagnosing someone in the absence of evidence. Nothing in Pasta's post indicated a socialist POV, and that was why I questioned it. You responded that you based your diagnosis on the use of the term "progressive". You then went on to explain this by stating, "That [the word progressive] is an all to common socialist reference for the socialist ideology. As if only socialists are progressive, everybody else is backwards. A stereotype perhaps, but nonetheless propagated by the left and only used by the left." So there you have demonstrated an even further logical leap: that because a word CAN be used to mean something, ALL instances of its use must therefore mean that particular something. That assumption is a logical fallacy. You compounded the folly by admitting on the one hand that the idea is a stereotype but then going on to not only fall for it yourself but also to assume that Pasta was attempting to propagate said stereotype when there was no clear evidence to support that assumption. On top of that, you made another stereotype by your assertion that only the left views itself as progressive or views some others as backward. There is plenty that is viewed as backward by people on the right as well. (I wish like hell a couple friends of mine - Republicans both and one staunchly Conservative - were on this board to explain their views; you'd likely be surprised at what they have to say.)
Further on, in response to me, you stated: "I have never heard, anyone, anywhere describe themselves as progressive if they weren't from the left." All this proves is that you consider all leftward-leaning individuals to be socialists - which is itself a false assumption - and that you have very limited experience of self-identified progressives, because there are a great many of them who are essentially close to the center.
Finally, you said to me: "So you have -poorly I might add - tried to turn this into a diagnosis, for reasons I don't understand." First off, I'm not diagnosing anything; I'm merely observing what you said and pointing out where your logic is faulty. Secondly, I don't know what's so hard for you to understand, but I'll try to make it simple: I abhor sloppy logic, blanket statements, inaccurate identifications, and slanted language.
The reason for all this? Well, that's simple, too. It just gets under my skin when people of ANY stripe make the mistake of viewing the political spectrum as an essentially binary entity, using the whole "there's us and then there's the socialists" or "there's us and then there's the capitalist pigs" mentality. As for why I find it scary, the answer is this question: How can human beings hope to navigate a three-dimensional reality if we restrict our perception to two dimensions?
Summer said:
Well I suppose you are correct, my wording was wrong. To be clear, I don’t have a problem with any mindset as long as it isn’t the extreme left or extreme right. The way I worded it, could be interpreted in the way you did. Sorry and thanks for correcting me.
Summer said:
OK, let’s take a breather here because I honestly think you are taking this a bit too far. It seems to me as you somehow took this as a personal insult, I may be wrong, but that’s how I am reading you at the moment. This isn’t something I decided to pull out of hat, Summer. The word “progressive” IS used by the left, extensively, repeatedly and unequivocally, whether you see it that way or you don’t. You catch me on the word ALL and that’s your entire argument. So I’ll rephrase that also: Progressive political philosophies are generally those of reform and the protection of civil liberties, not necessarily held by the right, left or center, HOWEVER, it is a term most commonly used by the left to distinguish themselves from the right. Next, since Pasta didn’t dispute what I said, CHANCES ARE, I wasn’t wrong in my assumptions and I did not use this post only as a reference as I may have been influenced by previous posts of his. Now, if I have somehow offended you, my apologies, but I can assure you, that I get equally offended when the term progressive is almost exclusively used by the left, since I consider myself, very much center.
Summer said:
My views and experiences are my own and so are yours, what you may deem to be center, I may deem to be on the left or vice-versa. Where is the line drawn? And is there such a line?
Summer said:
There is plenty of sloppy logic, blank statements, inaccurate identifications and slanted language going around here, I’m just curious how you fell upon my comment with such vigor when the poster I “accused” of being a socialist hasn’t even complained about it? Where exactly is your logic with this?
Summer said:
Again, I think you took it a bit personally and it has escalated to this. I don’t have this dual mentality, black or white, with us or against us. I have no idea where you got this part from.
Can you define what you consider a socialist, ITN? I'm really curious because you and others here have shown little understanding of socialism and its many facets in the past and often seem to confuse communism, Marxism, Stalinism and anything else you deem to be to "the left" with democratic socialism or even vague collectivism within a community.
Reverend Blair said:
No Rev, I'm not in the mood to get into a pissing contest with you at 2:30 in the morning. If I and others (and by others we all know who you mean) have shown little understanding of your afformentioned political philosophies and practices in your view, then you already have your answer. SO why bother going through all of this at 2:30?
I have a better idea, when you can make the distinction that everyone to the right of you ISN'T a neo-con, then perhaps I'll get in the mood to entertain you.
RE: Gingrich sees Iran th
So you admit that you no idea what the words you use mean? That's what I thought.
So you admit that you no idea what the words you use mean? That's what I thought.
I'd like to let the 'progressive' conservative wing of the Canadian fascist party ( I mean what ever party Harper is in), that they are a bunch of left wing socialist types because they have used a word meaning 'forward in action'.