Today's college graduates have a ....

[scourge165]

19 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Not saying you are right or wrong.  I won’t play that argument. 
 

is 97% of what your respond with from chatGPT?

LOL...no, not a word of that was from ChatGPT.

 

I've used ChatGTP and when I've done so, I've put it in quotes to provides sources, but I didn't need ChatGTP to point out that an Ethnocentric Nationalist is an example of the far right just as I don't need ChatGTP to know that Communism is an example of the far left...or that the traditional dichotomy between historical "Left," and "Right," really isn't at all applicable to American Politics, BUT, if you're eager to play that game, I can play. 

I also understand that... the people who were trying to KEEP segregation in place were, by definition, conservatives. 

Those trying to change it, again, by definition, progressives(similar to slavery). 

That's about as surface level as it gets. 

[Tripnsweep]

Evidence of Nazi persecution of socialists:

Outlawing socialist organizations: The Nazi Party outlawed socialist and communist parties, dissolved trade unions, and arrested or killed their leaders and members.

Targeting of socialist leaders and members: Prominent members of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Communist Party (KPD) were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. This included individuals like Ernst Thälmann, leader of the Communist Party, and Rudolf Hilferding, a leading theorist of the Social Democratic Party, both of whom were killed.

Concentration camps: Dachau, the first Nazi concentration camp, was specifically built to imprison political opponents, including communists, trade unionists, and social democrats.

Violence and intimidation: Nazi forces, like the SA (Sturmabteilung) and Gestapo, targeted and persecuted socialists, communists, and others who opposed the Nazi Party, leading to violence, arrests, and murders.

Suppression of opposition: The Nazis' actions against socialists and other political opponents effectively eliminated organized opposition to their regime, solidifying their power and establishing a one-party dictatorship. 

Nazi rhetoric against socialism:

Hitler and the Nazis often used the term "socialism" in their party name, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), but their ideology differed significantly from traditional socialism. They rejected Marxist concepts of class conflict and internationalism, instead promoting a form of "national socialism" that aimed to create a racially pure society based on racial hierarchy and nationalism. Hitler aimed to discredit and dismantle actual socialist movements, portraying them as enemies of the state. 

[Tripnsweep]

In short, the Nazis were not socialists but in name only. 

[Tripnsweep]

No responses? 

[Tripnsweep]

@El Luchador @scourge165 anything? 

[El Luchador]

18 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

In short, the Nazis were not socialists but in name only. 

They believed 100% in a planned economy. Watch the video I posted.  It's actually very good.  They were authoritarian and did not believe in free markets.

[Scouts Honor]

a rose is a rose...

[scourge165]

20 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

In short, the Nazis were not socialists but in name only. 

OH...yes, absolutely. 

That is 100% right. 

I'm more than prepared to let you take this argument up, but he took a right winger's video that really contorts or just ignores facts and said "watch this."

That he's unable to make his own coherent argument without just appealing to someone else's authority, in this case, ironically appeal to someone who has a PHd in a thread in which we're talking about how useless College is was...particularly amusing. 

But yeah, it's just silly.

And resorting to the "he forced private industry to do..." whatever(he did). Well, the United States did the same thing in WWII. We mandated that private industry help the War Effort and manufacture the tanks, vehicles, munitions, all things needed for War. 

But Hitler does it and now it suddenly changes something? 

Then lets use the same argument. We were a socialist Nation during WWII(as well as WWI, the Civil War). 

[scourge165]

4 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

No responses? 

I'd go back to my larger point. 

 

It's lazy and ignorant to try and associate ME with Pol Pot, Mao or other Communists because they fit on a lazy, 19th-20th Euro-centric definition of "right/left," that isn't applicable to American Politics in any real way. 

 

But so long as he wants to keep lying and calling me a communist despite the fact that I've repeatedly and vehemently argued for a capitalist Government.

So just for starters, you need to have a basic understanding of what constitutes "right," and "left" in a historical context. An Ethnocentric Nationalist...is about as Right Wing as it gets. 

Above ALL else, that's what Hitler was. But then you look at all the private industry, how he took state run business and privatized it...and if you're argument is, "he was an authoritarian, he told private industry what to do," then... it gets even dumber. As I said, THE UNITED STATES did that, but what's more, you can't argue there's been historically evil leaders or regimes who were far right. 

 

 

Then again, this is the same guy who tried to argue that it was the PROGRESSIVE party that tried to keep slavery/segregation and it was the CONSERVATIVE party that tried to do away with each institution. 

 

So he fundamentally doesn't understand what words mean and he'll apparently insecure about his own political beliefs and thinks that if he admits the...painfully obvious, ie, Hitler was the far right, then that is somehow a reflection on him because...he is to the "right" of the American political system. 

 

Its such a rudimentary understanding of these meanings, no evidence is going to convince him. It doesn't matter that IBM, Krupp, Volkswagen, Ford(a notorious supporter of NAZI Germany), Bayer, IG Farben... hell, if you take away private industry, the NAZI party is but a shell of itself.  

[Tripnsweep]

It's like how people call Bernie a communist or socialist when most of Europe would consider him a moderate. 

[El Luchador]

4 hours ago, scourge165 said:

I'd go back to my larger point. 

 

It's lazy and ignorant to try and associate ME with Pol Pot, Mao or other Communists because they fit on a lazy, 19th-20th Euro-centric definition of "right/left," that isn't applicable to American Politics in any real way. 

 

But so long as he wants to keep lying and calling me a communist despite the fact that I've repeatedly and vehemently argued for a capitalist Government.

So just for starters, you need to have a basic understanding of what constitutes "right," and "left" in a historical context. An Ethnocentric Nationalist...is about as Right Wing as it gets. 

Above ALL else, that's what Hitler was. But then you look at all the private industry, how he took state run business and privatized it...and if you're argument is, "he was an authoritarian, he told private industry what to do," then... it gets even dumber. As I said, THE UNITED STATES did that, but what's more, you can't argue there's been historically evil leaders or regimes who were far right. 

 

 

Then again, this is the same guy who tried to argue that it was the PROGRESSIVE party that tried to keep slavery/segregation and it was the CONSERVATIVE party that tried to do away with each institution. 

 

So he fundamentally doesn't understand what words mean and he'll apparently insecure about his own political beliefs and thinks that if he admits the...painfully obvious, ie, Hitler was the far right, then that is somehow a reflection on him because...he is to the "right" of the American political system. 

 

Its such a rudimentary understanding of these meanings, no evidence is going to convince him. It doesn't matter that IBM, Krupp, Volkswagen, Ford(a notorious supporter of NAZI Germany), Bayer, IG Farben... hell, if you take away private industry, the NAZI party is but a shell of itself.  

Private industries that are 100% controlled by the government aren't very private.  Markets controlled by the government certainly aren't capitalist.  Authoritarianism is left, libertarianism is right.  When the government picks the winners and losers that is a controlled market. When the government mandates or restricts that's authoritarian. 

So I'm sticking with Dr. Zitelman, his explication is a little more detailed, but I'm sure you don't have the time to watch an hour long video to actually go deep into an issue. 

[scourge165]

38 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Private industries that are 100% controlled by the government aren't very private.  Markets controlled by the government certainly aren't capitalist.  Authoritarianism is left, libertarianism is right.  When the government picks the winners and losers that is a controlled market. When the government mandates or restricts that's authoritarian. 

So I'm sticking with Dr. Zitelman, his explication is a little more detailed, but I'm sure you don't have the time to watch an hour long video to actually go deep into an issue. 

So Ford was controlled by the Nazi's?

 

40 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

When the government picks the winners and losers that is a controlled market. When the government mandates or restricts that's authoritarian. 

So you're arguing the United States was socialist during WWII? Have you ever heard of the "War Production Board," you child?

Got it. 

 

I get it, you dug your heals in on the name of the Party...though you won't address the People's REPUBLIC of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea... but since you realized the folly in that, you gave up.,

 

Instead, your argument now is effectively despite the Nazi's taking STATE RUN industries and PRIVATIZING them and leaning on industrialists... Hitler was an authoritarian, he dictated what industries must do in support of the War Effort, so he MUST be a socialist....

Now bury your head in the sand and ignore that the United States has done the same thing OVER and OVER again. 

 

You are now just saying if the Government forces private industry to do things, that's socialist...which may call for a 3rd run at College. 

That you just didn't KNOW the United States did this is...alarming. 

Ever hear about the inability of American's to get simple things like RUBBER or TIRES during this period?

So who was controlling the means of production?

 

You can't be this naive as to suggest that "Authoritarian=Leftist." 

Quote

Legal Basis: Smith–Connally (War Labor Disputes) Act – June 25, 1943

• Authorized the president to take control of any plant, mine, or facility essential to the war effort if strikes threatened production en.wikipedia.org+10en.wikipedia.org+10reddit.com+10.

• Enacted over FDR’s veto following major labor unrest (e.g., coal miners strike) en.wikipedia.org+2nationalww2museum.org+2reddit.com+2.

• It also made it a federal crime for unions to strike against seized facilities defense.gov+15nationalww2museum.org+15reddit.com+15.

---

Seizures in Action

1. Coal Mines (May 1943)

• Coal miners went on strike in April 1943; FDR invoked new wartime powers to seize coal mines in May 1943, maintaining production essential for industry en.wikipedia.org+7nationalww2museum.org+7reddit.com+7.

2. Montgomery Ward (April & December 1944)

• In April 1944, FDR ordered the seizure of Montgomery Ward’s Chicago plant, using the Smith–Connally Act after labor disputes threatened supply distribution en.wikipedia.org+10nationalww2museum.org+10lawfaremedia.org+10.

• Again in December 1944, he seized multiple Montgomery Ward facilities nationwide to enforce compliance with wartime labor and production standards reddit.com+8history.com+8nationalww2museum.org+8.

3. Other Industries Pre-­Smith–Connally

• Before June 1943, other vital plants—like North American Aviation (June 1941), Federal Shipbuilding, and Air Associates—were seized directly by executive order during early labor disputes reddit.com.

• Many were retaken by the government temporarily to maintain continuous war material flow reddit.com+3reddit.com+3reddit.com+3

 

•  

[scourge165]

I hesitate to even do this, but you haven't asked despite me asking about a dozen times.

 

Where would an ethnocentric nationalist fall on your little scale of "Left vs Right?"

 

Name a horrible regime of dictator who was far right? You haven't come up with one because I think your thought process is as simplistic as "Left=bad, Right=Good," so the bad guys can't be on the right!

 

What's amusing is you think "leftists" have been "savagely destroyed," here! And I think you half belief that as I don't think you lack the capacity to engage in any nuanced thought process(though...it's really not even nuanced, it's pretty clear). 

[El Luchador]

5 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

So Ford was controlled by the Nazi's?

 

So you're arguing the United States was socialist during WWII? Have you ever heard of the "War Production Board," you child?

Got it. 

 

I get it, you dug your heals in on the name of the Party...though you won't address the People's REPUBLIC of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea... but since you realized the folly in that, you gave up.,

 

Instead, your argument now is effectively despite the Nazi's taking STATE RUN industries and PRIVATIZING them and leaning on industrialists... Hitler was an authoritarian, he dictated what industries must do in support of the War Effort, so he MUST be a socialist....

Now bury your head in the sand and ignore that the United States has done the same thing OVER and OVER again. 

 

You are now just saying if the Government forces private industry to do things, that's socialist...which may call for a 3rd run at College. 

That you just didn't KNOW the United States did this is...alarming. 

Ever hear about the inability of American's to get simple things like RUBBER or TIRES during this period?

So who was controlling the means of production?

 

You can't be this naive as to suggest that "Authoritarian=Leftist." 

•  

Watch the video, you'll understand much better better. 

[El Luchador]

6 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

I hesitate to even do this, but you haven't asked despite me asking about a dozen times.

 

Where would an ethnocentric nationalist fall on your little scale of "Left vs Right?"

 

Name a horrible regime of dictator who was far right? You haven't come up with one because I think your thought process is as simplistic as "Left=bad, Right=Good," so the bad guys can't be on the right!

 

What's amusing is you think "leftists" have been "savagely destroyed," here! And I think you half belief that as I don't think you lack the capacity to engage in any nuanced thought process(though...it's really not even nuanced, it's pretty clear). 

Not everything is right or left. Although at the time you had leftist like Stanger pushing the racial supremacy issues. Definitely was a fundamental position of the left in the US and abroad. 

[Tripnsweep]

1 hour ago, El Luchador said:

Private industries that are 100% controlled by the government aren't very private.  Markets controlled by the government certainly aren't capitalist.  Authoritarianism is left, libertarianism is right.  When the government picks the winners and losers that is a controlled market. When the government mandates or restricts that's authoritarian. 

So I'm sticking with Dr. Zitelman, his explication is a little more detailed, but I'm sure you don't have the time to watch an hour long video to actually go deep into an issue. 

Do you realize how stupid you sound? 

Those notorious left wing governments of Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Ceucescu, etc were definitely something. And in modern times those far left governments like Pinochet, Putin, Mohammed Pahlavi, and the Saudi Royal family. That must have been why we deposed democratically elected governments in Iran, Chile, and other places. 

[El Luchador]

16 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Do you realize how stupid you sound? 

Those notorious left wing governments of Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Ceucescu, etc were definitely something. And in modern times those far left governments like Pinochet, Putin, Mohammed Pahlavi, and the Saudi Royal family. That must have been why we deposed democratically elected governments in Iran, Chile, and other places. 

So you're saying planned economies are right wing? 

[scourge165]

51 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Watch the video, you'll understand much better better. 

More appeal to authority because you're not able to articulate your point in your own words.

I've seen his video before, it's a bias source and I've provided AMPLE evidence that I don't need to rely on someone else to tell me what is true. It is clear you do. I went to school for Finance and History. I'm well aware of the facts, I've laid them out here. You don't like them, so you just keep saying, "watch my video, watch my video."

[scourge165]

52 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Not everything is right or left. Although at the time you had leftist like Stanger pushing the racial supremacy issues. Definitely was a fundamental position of the left in the US and abroad. 

The first sentence is HILARIOUS coming from you as this ENTIRE debate started by YOU citing POL POT as "the greatest threat to Domestic Terrorism," and trying to attribute my beliefs SOMEHOW with Pol Pot.

Second, you think Racial Supremacy...or a word that is apparently over your head, those in favor of an ethnocentric state is "a fundamental position of the LEFT in the US and abroad?"

 

 

That's... just pure ignorance. There is absolutely no other way to interpret this at this time. 

 

You've EVEN argued that the "right" was the one who was ANTI-segregation and the LEFT was pro-slavery and pro-segregation.

 

This tells me your knowledge extends no further than "Democrat" and "Republican," you don't understand what the Southern Strategy(which you no doubt reflexively deny) is about and MOST importantly, the fact that you STILL... STLIL after how many times that I've asked, you STILL WON'T ANSWER WHAT THE DEFINITEION OF CONSERVATIVE and PROGRESSIVE means. 

 

By definition, CONSERVATIVES would NEVER want to change a LONG established policy that would DRASTICALLY alter the way the Nation looks, operates and is economical systems. 

That's EXACTLY what happened.

 

But you're so wrapped up in your inability to eve attempt to engage in anything resembling CRITICAL THINKING, that you just refuse to even engage. 

 

So either answer the question nor shut up. You've become obnoxiously ignorant and if you're this stupid, I feel bad for you. 

 

 

Speaking of videos though, I found one that is on your level. It's SUCH a simplistic explanation of the Nazi Party, their motivations. It's the type of thing we would have seen in World History...and wouldn't have needed two runs at College to figure out, but it's dumbed down JUST enough to your level. 

Cognitive dissonance. 

 -It's effectively YOUR belief that out of something good(the right) there's no way something BAD could come out of it(which is why you've ALSO refused to give me ONE singular example of ANY bad right wing authoritarian regimes(which makes sense if you don't believe a ethnocentric nationalist is right wing by definition. 

 

[scourge165]

47 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

So you're saying planned economies are right wing? 

What in the...f#$ are you talking about?

 

You clearly just heard this expression but last the historical knowledge to apply it appropriately.

What type of Economy did we have early in the Great Depression, in WWI, WWII, the Civil War?

 

Lets give you ANOTHER example where you look up "Planned Economies," and they specifically cite the Nazi Party as a EXTREME RIGHT WING PARTY;

 

Quote

 

But Sometimes Right-Wing (Authoritarian/Nationalist) Regimes Also Plan

• Some fascist or nationalist regimes, like 1940s Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, had economies centrally steered by the state—but remained politically right-wing, emphasizing nationalism and hierarchy rather than equality reddit.com+1reddit.com+1.

• Scholar Friedrich Hayek observed that both right-wing and left-wing ideologies can embrace collectivist planning, differing in their motivations—international solidarity (socialism) vs. national strength (fascism) linkedin.com+9reddit.com+9reddit.com+9.

 

• So when you're a NATIONALIST Regime that focuses on Racial purity OR a theological authoritarian Government, THE-ARE-RIGHT-WING. 

   

[El Luchador]

4 hours ago, scourge165 said:

More appeal to authority because you're not able to articulate your point in your own words.

I've seen his video before, it's a bias source and I've provided AMPLE evidence that I don't need to rely on someone else to tell me what is true. It is clear you do. I went to school for Finance and History. I'm well aware of the facts, I've laid them out here. You don't like them, so you just keep saying, "watch my video, watch my video."

Or I'm not willing to write a massive document to articulate what is more clearly demonstrated than I code on a message board.  The arrogance of the left is on display.  Ironic how how you refuse the challenge. 

[El Luchador]

4 hours ago, scourge165 said:

What in the...f#$ are you talking about?

 

You clearly just heard this expression but last the historical knowledge to apply it appropriately.

What type of Economy did we have early in the Great Depression, in WWI, WWII, the Civil War?

 

Lets give you ANOTHER example where you look up "Planned Economies," and they specifically cite the Nazi Party as a EXTREME RIGHT WING PARTY;

 

• So when you're a NATIONALIST Regime that focuses on Racial purity OR a theological authoritarian Government, THE-ARE-RIGHT-WING. 

   

The what are right wing?

[El Luchador]

4 hours ago, scourge165 said:

The first sentence is HILARIOUS coming from you as this ENTIRE debate started by YOU citing POL POT as "the greatest threat to Domestic Terrorism," and trying to attribute my beliefs SOMEHOW with Pol Pot.

Second, you think Racial Supremacy...or a word that is apparently over your head, those in favor of an ethnocentric state is "a fundamental position of the LEFT in the US and abroad?"

 

 

That's... just pure ignorance. There is absolutely no other way to interpret this at this time. 

 

You've EVEN argued that the "right" was the one who was ANTI-segregation and the LEFT was pro-slavery and pro-segregation.

 

This tells me your knowledge extends no further than "Democrat" and "Republican," you don't understand what the Southern Strategy(which you no doubt reflexively deny) is about and MOST importantly, the fact that you STILL... STLIL after how many times that I've asked, you STILL WON'T ANSWER WHAT THE DEFINITEION OF CONSERVATIVE and PROGRESSIVE means. 

 

By definition, CONSERVATIVES would NEVER want to change a LONG established policy that would DRASTICALLY alter the way the Nation looks, operates and is economical systems. 

That's EXACTLY what happened.

 

But you're so wrapped up in your inability to eve attempt to engage in anything resembling CRITICAL THINKING, that you just refuse to even engage. 

 

So either answer the question nor shut up. You've become obnoxiously ignorant and if you're this stupid, I feel bad for you. 

 

 

Speaking of videos though, I found one that is on your level. It's SUCH a simplistic explanation of the Nazi Party, their motivations. It's the type of thing we would have seen in World History...and wouldn't have needed two runs at College to figure out, but it's dumbed down JUST enough to your level. 

Cognitive dissonance. 

 -It's effectively YOUR belief that out of something good(the right) there's no way something BAD could come out of it(which is why you've ALSO refused to give me ONE singular example of ANY bad right wing authoritarian regimes(which makes sense if you don't believe a ethnocentric nationalist is right wing by definition. 

 

Stawmaning is your specialty 

[scourge165]

9 hours ago, El Luchador said:

Stawmaning is your specialty 

Yeah, I don't think you understand what the word "Strawman" means either as I CONTINUALLY addressed your point in depth.

Your specialty is trying to find someone who thinks what you do, but unlike you is smart enough to articulate it and then say, 'go listen to HIM, HE is smart!'

 

 

By the way, while you bring up "Strawmaning," you quite literally DID bring up Pol Pot when talking about the biggest threats to Domestic Terroris!

 

 

[scourge165]

9 hours ago, El Luchador said:

The what are right wing?

The Nazi's. Keep up Boy.

 

-People focused on Racial Purity. Ie, an ethnocentric nationalist. 

-An ideological authoritarian.

No wonder you keep saying 'watch the video, watch the video,' like a poorly trained parrot.