Politotime!

[Bal-Sagoth]

Why does it bother you so much that there are those who enjoy what they are doing?

It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I just hate to make any base assumptions off of limited data.

Is every soldier a die hard killing machine? No.
Is every soldier that sees combat fucked in the head thereafter? No.

Does a Youtube video prove anything either way? No.

As I said before people handle it differently. However in theory every Marine should be a "die hard killing machine"

I do not mean that in a bad way in the slightest, just that the fact if all goes well every Marine no matter the MOS from cook to nuclear engineer should have the skills and mental training to take life.

Again to much emphasis on the youtube video, it was just throwing it out there along with this quote:

"I enjoy killing Iraqis," says Staff Sgt. William Deaton, 30, who had killed a hostile fighter the night before. Deaton has lost a good friend in Iraq. "I just feel rage, hate when I'm out there. I feel like I carry it all the time. We talk about it. We all feel the same way."

to prove not everyone is "all talk". You could also go google/youtube several dozen Airstrike/gun fire videos. After the bombs and shooting is over listen to all the cheering and Oorahs.


I think we both get each others points, so unless you bring up something else I am done with this convo.

 

[ceacar99]

liberals started the second world war. they were the leaders of germany.

Wait, what?

No. Plain and simple. No. Or do you want to call Hitler and his scouts "liberals" ?

hitler was a vegetarian, his second in command was an animal rights activist. they pushed ideas of universal employment, healthcare, state support of those in need and complete gun control and of course the afore mentioned animal rights.

the NATIONAL SOCIALIST party itself was liberal.... the word SOCIALIST should have been the cue.... and really they did push the bleeding heart agenda. they came when germany was in great need and said that they would create a new social order that would solve the problems. it wound up being state control in almost everything, sanitising everything and ensuring that all those that fit into their scope of unity were taken care of.

honestly, ignore the killing they performed under the blanket of war and they were liberals to the fucking core, addmited liberals corrupted by the racial agenda of the time but still liberals. really what you had in germany was one take on marxism being put in place and then in russia you had another far more corrupted version. again both were corrupted to a great degree because there was a good deal of murder involved, doesnt change their core values though.

i know it sucks when your hero al gore is compared to hitler but honestly the bleeding heart liberal has more in common with hitler(killing aside) then they do with the average businessman. he is agressive, controlling, believes that nobody else is right and plays on people's emotions pushing the popular agenda of social programs(which he believes are the best thing in the world) and in the end believing that the government should be involved in everything so it can fix all problems.

there is a good book that illistrates this in more pages then im willing to at this point.... check out liberal fascism, the author argues in that book that fascism has been an experience of the left. now i know enough about history that i agree with what the book says based off my OWN research but for the average person not interested in spending 15 years in the study of history its a good book to pick up to enlighten yourself.

its all like a poster i once drew up. it depicted a hand clenching a peace symbol with shackles on the wrist. the caption read, "forward with progressivism, forward with liberalism, forward with socialism and to a great future! just do exactly as i say!"

Shocktroops trained to kill, kill and kill will enjoy any occassion to do so.

life in iraq is different. sure a lot of people like the missions but there are also the diferent set of rules that they live by there. many dont like the rules in garrison here stateside so they dream of overseas.

Moreover, how do you come off trying to oppose capitalism and liberalism?

.... didnt i call myself a capitalist in my first post? i'm about far right in political intent as you can go. sure i believe in human rights but i believe those ends are best acomplished through business because it will result in greater productivity of everyone. the left thinks that the government should just step in and TRY to solve everything....

Some allied powers (like the US and even more so the soviets) wanted to prevent such a happening after the war, which lead to the war. The soviets had the idea to completely destroy Germany and thus preventing it from every geting any kind of power again. THe US even had the such similar ideas ...The Morgenthau Plan was a plan for the occupation of Germany after World War II that advocated measures intended to remove Germany's ability to wage war. The Britsh though which have knew about Versailles and the danger that can happen from such things also seen a new threat in the Soviets. Churchill at least. And they did not supported that much the idea of it.

yknow the american president durring the peace conference at the end of the first world war pushed for more moderate terms. however the us didnt quite have the weight it needed then as well as the fact that the president himself was struck by the spanish flu and was unable to fight further for better terms for germany.

in ww2 most of the powers supported utterly destroying germany AND japan but you know how our leaders felt about that.....






btw generation kill actually is a good book

 

[Patton89]

If you call facism left, you end in an situation, that simply ignores historical facts.

Fact is, facism relies on nationalism,militarism and racial hate, things that are not liberal, or left wing. Many supporters of facism were right wing, owning class, or military personelle. Why ? the red threat that the right wings kept throwing around, that communism would spread. The military was unsatisfied in many countries.

Of course there ARE similarities in way nazis and soviets
stayed in power,and maybe some few even in their ideologies. But nazis and facists are not marxist. Sure, the states were closed, but there was private ownership, a thing that Marx was against.

But can they be called LIBERALS because they have SOME similarities with COMMUNISTS ? No. If you call communists liberal, you need to look how they governed. Nothing liberal about that.
Nothing liberal about way nazis acted. They might have socialist on their partys name, but words they put on the partys name, do not define actions and agendas they push forth.

But you are die hard right winger, while i am mild right winger. You cant call al gore left really. America is just so right winged, that it lacks the real left wing entirely. You can choose between liberal right and conservative right. no centre parties, no communists, no social democrats.

 

[Sander]

hitler was a vegetarian, his second in command was an animal rights activist. they pushed ideas of universal employment, healthcare, state support of those in need and complete gun control and of course the afore mentioned animal rights.

the NATIONAL SOCIALIST party itself was liberal.... the word SOCIALIST should have been the cue.... and really they did push the bleeding heart agenda. they came when germany was in great need and said that they would create a new social order that would solve the problems. it wound up being state control in almost everything, sanitising everything and ensuring that all those that fit into their scope of unity were taken care of.

honestly, ignore the killing they performed under the blanket of war and they were liberals to the fucking core, addmited liberals corrupted by the racial agenda of the time but still liberals. really what you had in germany was one take on marxism being put in place and then in russia you had another far more corrupted version. again both were corrupted to a great degree because there was a good deal of murder involved, doesnt change their core values though.

i know it sucks when your hero al gore is compared to hitler but honestly the bleeding heart liberal has more in common with hitler(killing aside) then they do with the average businessman. he is agressive, controlling, believes that nobody else is right and plays on people's emotions pushing the popular agenda of social programs(which he believes are the best thing in the world) and in the end believing that the government should be involved in everything so it can fix all problems.

there is a good book that illistrates this in more pages then im willing to at this point.... check out liberal fascism, the author argues in that book that fascism has been an experience of the left. now i know enough about history that i agree with what the book says based off my OWN research but for the average person not interested in spending 15 years in the study of history its a good book to pick up to enlighten yourself.

its all like a poster i once drew up. it depicted a hand clenching a peace symbol with shackles on the wrist. the caption read, "forward with progressivism, forward with liberalism, forward with socialism and to a great future! just do exactly as i say!"

I like how you constantly throw in references to people's presumed political tastes and your own, completely irrelevant accomplishments.
When we cut out the fluff, we can see that you are lacking a lot of historical perspective.

First off, claiming that the NSDAP was actually socialist after their rise to power and the Night of the Long Knives is rather misguided. The socialist part was mostly present in the SA (who got butchered) and throughout the party's formative years, but it wasn't really noticeable in major policies.
You can also see this in the fact that the Nazi's greatest adversaries were the communists, and they thrived off being seen as the polar opposites of the communist party.

If you look at the fascist ideology, it is entirely different from any socialist ideology as well. Whereas a socialist ideology revolves around equal means and equal footing, fascist ideologies revolve around a worship of power (both individual and collective) and rewarding individual prowess. Yet you try to equate these core values, even though the core values of fascism, and Nazism in particular (as it was a much more violent and extreme version of fascism) are diametrically opposed to socialism.

And, obviously, the Nazi policies of racial segregation, slave labour and genocide don't exactly fit with a socialist state either.

Your examples of individual vegetarianism and animal activism are ludicrous, since this was neither national policy nor is it in any way a symptom of 'liberalism'.

Then there's your argument of appealing to the 'bleeding heart', where you could basically replace the words 'liberal' with 'conservative' or 'Republican' or, in fact, any random political party. The idea that any party is just playing to people's emotions is correct for practically any party, and isn't exactly a distinguishing feature of Nazism or, in fact, any other party.
Seriously, here's what you wrote:

he is agressive, controlling, believes that nobody else is right and plays on people's emotions pushing the popular agenda of social programs

Let's adapt that to, say, a random Republican

he is agressive, controlling, believes that nobody else is right and plays on people's emotions pushing the popular agenda of aggressive military action

Oh gee, what a significant difference!
All you need to do is change the agenda they are pushing, smartass.


You do have two points though: the economic restructuring of Germany was largely carried out through a process of nationalisation of large companies and state-provided jobs (in the form of the military-industrial complex and such things as Volkswagen and highways).

Second, both socialism and fascism are marked by increased government control.

But that certainly isn't a distinguishing feature of either system, nor does it mark them as 'the same', as almost any system is marked by severe government influence and there is really only one system which advocates a minimal government. Interestingly, that system is often called liberalism or libertarianism in countries not named the USA.

.... didnt i call myself a capitalist in my first post? i'm about far right in political intent as you can go. sure i believe in human rights but i believe those ends are best acomplished through business because it will result in greater productivity of everyone. the left thinks that the government should just step in and TRY to solve everything....

You are missing the point entirely.
How are liberalism and capitalism opposed, while practically every liberal society has been a capitalist society?
In fact, what weirdo definition of 'liberalism' are you even employing?

You say 'liberal' but seem to be talking about a totalitarian, socialist state instead of actual liberalism. Probably an American thing, but the way you are employing liberalism to basically be encompassing practically any political stream that is to the left of neo-conservatism is neither useful nor widely accepted.

yknow the american president durring the peace conference at the end of the first world war pushed for more moderate terms. however the us didnt quite have the weight it needed then as well as the fact that the president himself was struck by the spanish flu and was unable to fight further for better terms for germany.

in ww2 most of the powers supported utterly destroying germany AND japan but you know how our leaders felt about that.....

Actually, for a while the policy of reducing Germany to an agricultural society was actively pursued. It took a while for the Allies to realise that a healthy, reformed Germany was to their benefit, as it could be a powerful industrial nation that would boost Europe's economy.
Of course, the USSR did this differently and paid the price.

 

[ceacar99]

You are missing the point entirely.
How are liberalism and capitalism opposed, while practically every liberal society has been a capitalist society?
In fact, what weirdo definition of 'liberalism' are you even employing?

You say 'liberal' but seem to be talking about a totalitarian, socialist state instead of actual liberalism. Probably an American thing, but the way you are employing liberalism to basically be encompassing practically any political stream that is to the left of neo-conservatism is neither useful nor widely accepted.

i generally refer to liberals as socialists, because really thats what they usually propose. more government control, less free economics. generally the "liberals, progressives or democrats" support things like that. its the view that governmental programs and control will make things better and further enforce equality. a good example is the class warfare pitch proposed a lot by modern liberals.

Let's adapt that to, say, a random Republican

exactly why i didnt call myself a republican.... im getting pretty disgusted at those sell outs too.... the only good news recently is that the auto bailout didnt go through.

First off, claiming that the NSDAP was actually socialist after their rise to power and the Night of the Long Knives is rather misguided. The socialist part was mostly present in the SA (who got butchered) and throughout the party's formative years, but it wasn't really noticeable in major policies.
You can also see this in the fact that the Nazi's greatest adversaries were the communists, and they thrived off being seen as the polar opposites of the communist party.

actually the ironic thing is that even though russia was demonized by germany and essentially made into another form of the jews in their eyes both nations were suprisingly similar. the military tactics were different sure(russia as well as france and britian were still largely stuck in ww1 tactics) but the politcal methodology of retaining power, the nationalization of industries and all that were often very similar. the difference is that germany believed that people would be more productive if they had the illusion of choice and self interest, where russia denied its citizens even that.

further, one of germany's greatest problems since before it became a single nation was the class system that existed. the national socialist party proclaimed it would end that, and it was just a minor extension to the jews. the poor looked at the rich living well and the jewish businessmen actually making it through the storm of the depression without loosing everything and thought something was wrong. while killing an entire race of people is ENTIRELY different then our nation's liberals demonizing ceo's, one can see that in an extreme form of the blame game and class warfare that it could escalate into that.

And, obviously, the Nazi policies of racial segregation, slave labour and genocide don't exactly fit with a socialist state either.

wasnt russia the most extreme case of socialism we experienced to date? well they had slave labor camps.... those slaves didnt always come from the conquered but they were slaves, and the russian "pogroms" were genocide too, even before the second world war. as you start to near the extremities you see things sprout up that wouldnt be anywhere else. in fact the state run slave labor camps are distinctly socialist, they dont generate profit for private citizens but rather provide a service of generally raw material aimed directly at the state. further the slave labor in such cases is often used to perform public projects, build state run facilities or run those facilities. really the last capitalist or right wing version of slavery around died in the 1800s, well thats off the top of my head.

Your examples of individual vegetarianism and animal activism are ludicrous, since this was neither national policy nor is it in any way a symptom of 'liberalism'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Nazianimalrights.htm

ya it wasnt a national policy....

look, liberals are the populist party members as well as being actors of change. basically meaning they try to gain power through popular sentiment. such as the politcal leaders in this nation that are gaining power because people have the popular sentiment that universal healthcare is a good thing. almost always these sentiments are socialist in nature, because the mass obviously believes that it deserves all the money that the rich have, that the government should take care of all their problems and so on. obama gained such incredible political support partially because mcain failed to separate himself from bush but also because obama played on those socialist/liberal wishes and got the youth vote into play.

the thing with fascism is that its an event where these leaders are put in a position of unprecedented power. they gained their seat on the bleeding heart basis and then once consolidated believed that they were doing the people's will in every action and if not it would be better for everyone. the authoritarian stance is there because they now have the power to do all the beautiful things they dreamed of earlier in their lives. usually they grip onto this power because they understand the radical changes they wish to put in place(and change itself is considered a leftist thing) couldnt be performed under almost any other political situation.

the racism issue in nazi germany is something to ponder on. really that racism was prominant in the whole world at the time. in germany and eastern europe it didnt even need state actors encouraging it to take place. often anti semetic violence similar but not on the scale of the night of long knives ocured without state support. this was not even singular to jews. ethnic germans were being singled out in poland and just plain not having a good time. while we dont think of racism as "bleeding heart" today, back in the context of the day you can look at it as looking after your own. even then however.... the real violence didnt start happening until the leaders of each state were in almost absolute control. people hate, but genocide is a bit much for the average person to do unless pushed.

think of it, a fascist state always forms out of a leftist party. once it has the power it really desired all sorts of new things start poping up and the state starts finding all sorts of problems to fix. germany saw the jews as a problem. what would happen if we gave al gore absolute power?

 

[4too]

Orwellian Re-Right Of History

Orwellian Re-Right Of History

... think of it, a fascist state always forms out of a leftist party. once it has the power it really desired all sorts of new things start poping up and the state starts finding all sorts of problems to fix. germany saw the jews as a problem. what would happen if we gave al gore absolute power?

This reads as extremist rhetoric with a non specific conservative hate agenda.

This leaps out at the end no matter what was written before. Nazi's = leftists ? Sure fooled the Germans of the '20s + '30s didn't they,

then the propagandists' conclusion Nazi's = Al Gore , nice 'Orwellianism'.

DO, ... did I misunderstand ... need to go to work so no reread time left ...

... always ...

Always is an absolute, so please entertain us with 3 examples Oh My ... Big Brother.

Say, who's first to the wall when you brand of shoveling-s is in power?



4too

 

[Sander]

i generally refer to liberals as socialists, because really thats what they usually propose. more government control, less free economics. generally the "liberals, progressives or democrats" support things like that. its the view that governmental programs and control will make things better and further enforce equality. a good example is the class warfare pitch proposed a lot by modern liberals.

Again: liberals propose *less* government control and an emphasis on personal freedoms.

I still don't see how liberal has turned into government-supporting socialist in the USA.

exactly why i didnt call myself a republican.... im getting pretty disgusted at those sell outs too.... the only good news recently is that the auto bailout didnt go through.

That's a neat way of completely ignoring the point that your claim that this was specifically an aspect socialists and fascists have in common was false, since this could be applied to nearly any political view.

actually the ironic thing is that even though russia was demonized by germany and essentially made into another form of the jews in their eyes both nations were suprisingly similar. the military tactics were different sure(russia as well as france and britian were still largely stuck in ww1 tactics) but the politcal methodology of retaining power, the nationalization of industries and all that were often very similar. the difference is that germany believed that people would be more productive if they had the illusion of choice and self interest, where russia denied its citizens even that.

No, the difference is one of core ideology (although Stalinism is closer to fascism than socialism).
Socialism revolves around
Fascism doesn't. Fascism revolves around the worship of individual power, the belief that your group of people is better than any other group (I can't believe you're continually ignoring this bit, even though it's one of the core tenets of fascism). Fascism has authoritarianism as its core goal: it doesn't have the long-term goal of freeing the people which socialism does have. More importantly, fascism finds its support from the middle-class as it insists on being the protector of small business-owners and the hard-working man.
Socialism, instead, depends on the lowest classes for its support.

Also, if you look at basically any multi-party system, you can always see that fascist parties and socialist parties are diametrically opposed.

Again: the only similarity between socialism and fascism is the insistence on a high level of government control, and socialism doesn't even have that as its end-goal.

further, one of germany's greatest problems since before it became a single nation was the class system that existed. the national socialist party proclaimed it would end that, and it was just a minor extension to the jews. the poor looked at the rich living well and the jewish businessmen actually making it through the storm of the depression without loosing everything and thought something was wrong. while killing an entire race of people is ENTIRELY different then our nation's liberals demonizing ceo's, one can see that in an extreme form of the blame game and class warfare that it could escalate into that.

Eliminating the Jews wasn't about class warfare, it was about channeling hatred and finding a scapegoat. The Jews were an easy scapegoat for many, many reasons, but the core of the problem wasn't class warfare.

wasnt russia the most extreme case of socialism we experienced to date? well they had slave labor camps.... those slaves didnt always come from the conquered but they were slaves, and the russian "pogroms" were genocide too, even before the second world war. as you start to near the extremities you see things sprout up that wouldnt be anywhere else. in fact the state run slave labor camps are distinctly socialist, they dont generate profit for private citizens but rather provide a service of generally raw material aimed directly at the state. further the slave labor in such cases is often used to perform public projects, build state run facilities or run those facilities. really the last capitalist or right wing version of slavery around died in the 1800s, well thats off the top of my head.

The USSR wasn't a socialist state, but a totalitarian Stalinist state, which is basically a corruption of communism (which is not the same as socialism).
To call Nazi Germany socialist because the USSR acted in a very totalitarian way is ludicrous, it would be more accurate to call the USSR a fascist state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Nazianimalrights.htm

ya it wasnt a national policy....

Vegetarianism wasn't, and from that site:
"Despite enacting various laws for animal protection, there was a lack of enforcement. The Nazis also felt that vivisection was important for research,[11] including research necessary for rearmament. As a consequence, the original intentions of the law were abandoned and regulations became weaker."

look, liberals are the populist party members as well as being actors of change. basically meaning they try to Why do you continue to pretend that this is something specifically 'liberal' or left-wing, while I have continually shown that this can be applied to nearly any
Appealing to emotions has nothing to do with political leaning, and is practiced by every side of every fence anywhere.

How you continue to pretend that this is solely the mark of leftist groups is completely beyond me, especially when you can simply look at the hype surrounding the invasion of Iraq, or to stick to the subject the demonisation of Jews in Nazi Germany (even if the Nazi's were left-wing, their treatment of Jews certainly wasn't).

such as the politcal leaders in this nation that are gaining power because people have the popular sentiment that universal healthcare is a good thing.

I'm not getting into whether or not universal healthcare is a good thing, but you complain about leftists pretending to know what's best for everyone, and then continually do the exact same thing yourself.

almost always these sentiments are socialist in nature, because the mass obviously believes that it deserves all the money that the rich have, that the government should take care of all their problems and so on.

Hahahahahahaha.
Wow this shows some complete lack of historical perspective.
What, you've never heard of the popular sentiments 'No more fucking taxes' or 'Don't take away my guns' or 'Get rid of the goddamn foreigners'? Distinctly right-wing sentiments, and just as much fueled by popular sentiment.
This doesn't make them wrong, per se, but it does make you wrong about the insistence that appealing to the populace is a purely left-wing tactic.

obama gained such incredible political support partially because mcain failed to separate himself from bush but also because obama played on those socialist/liberal wishes and got the youth vote into play.

the thing with fascism is that its an event where these leaders are put in a position of unprecedented power. they gained their seat on the bleeding heart basis and then once consolidated believed that they were doing the people's will in every action and if not it would be better for everyone. the authoritarian stance is there because they now have the power to do all the beautiful things they dreamed of earlier in their lives.

Which part of this is distinctly left-wing? Which part of this whole spiel is not simply applicable to any political leaning?

usually they grip onto this power because they understand the radical changes they wish to put in place(and change itself is considered a leftist thing) couldnt be performed under almost any other political situation.

Change...is left-wing? It is, really? So anyone wanting to change anything is a leftist?
So what happens when things have change, people wanting to go back to the previous things are now left-wing?

the racism issue in nazi germany is something to ponder on. really that racism was prominant in the whole world at the time. in germany and eastern europe it didnt even need state actors encouraging it to take place. often anti semetic violence similar but not on the scale of the night of long knives ocured without state support.

The Night of the Long Knives had nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism, it was the elimination of the SA (part of the NSDAP) by the NSDAP itself.

this was not even singular to jews. ethnic germans were being singled out in poland and just plain not having a good time. while we dont think of racism as "bleeding heart" today, back in the context of the day you can look at it as looking after your own. even then however.... the real violence didnt start happening until the leaders of each state were in almost absolute control. people hate, but genocide is a bit much for the average person to do unless pushed.

Racism was bleeding heart?
Sorry, no, it wasn't. Going 'every man has rights' would've been considered bleeding heart.
Looking out for your own is also not what you would call a leftist sentiment.

think of it, a fascist state always forms out of a leftist party.

No, they don't.
Mussolini wasn't leftist, nor was the NSDAP (excluding the SA, which was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives). Franco wasn't leftist. WW2-era Japan wasn't leftist. Pinochet wasn't leftist.

 

[fedaykin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

And that same article states the real reasons for Nazi animal rights activism:

"The laws and accusation of vivisection were often used as a pretext to prosecute Jewish scientists.[10] In 1940, a discussion was started within the administration about prohibiting pets which are not much useful for the purpose of saving foodstuffs for human consumption. But personal interference by Hitler stopped this proposal. Ultimately a decree was published by the administration against pets, but it referred only to the pets in the possession of non-Aryan citizens.[23] On February 15, 1942, a decree was published prohibiting Jews from keeping pets,[20] which the Jews found humiliating.[23]"

"Boria Sax in his book Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust documented that the Nazis manipulated attitudes towards animal protection to conform to their own symbolic system. By equating the National Socialist German Workers Party with "nature", the Nazis reduced ethical issues to biological questions. As a result, predatory animals were honored along with their human counterparts i.e. leaders and functionaries of the Nazi party, and opponents were identified as sheep destined for being killed.[24]

With the claim of having a special bond with nature, the Nazis stigmatized their opponents as being unnatural. The Nazi regime showed intolerance for activism related to environmentalism and animal protection by their adversaries. The Friends of Nature was a socialist-oriented environmental organization which had a membership of over 100,000. The Nazis disbanded this organization and all of its properties were confiscated.[25]"

It wasn't about protecting animals, it was about gaining popular support and lashing out at enemies. Animal rights were simply a tool for the Nazis.

 

[WilderWein]

A few things... Im not against capitalism but come on...

liberals started the second world war. they were the leaders of germany. people tend to flock to the liberals because they feel disenfranchised but the truth is that they have a historical tendancy to be absolutely controlling and destroy those not like them. it has to do with the mentality, they believe that they are right and that nobody else is. i like to tout capitalists like myself that believe people should constantly have their ideas compete and see whats best but people like that are actually rare.

whoa whoa whoa.... implying that Hitler and his 3rd Reich stands as a standard for liberals is just rediculous. You seem to be saying that liberals are all out to feed on the meek and "disenfranchised" and that they are completely opposed to any freedom of competition... perhaps your thinking of Comunism?

2nd:

on a side note, i'd like to say at least 90% of the marines i talk to actually enjoy their deployments to afganistan and iraq....

Yeah, and about 50% of the ones I've known before and after their stay were mentaly fucked up from it. Its deffinately a life changing experience, but its not a good one for everyone. I agree its a good one for some however not everyone.

And to an earlier post about how 'oh they're soldiers...its their job' that is a bullshit way of simplifying it. I know it wasnt quite the point of your statement but I have to bring this up...

Recruiters often neglect to give a rats ass about who they recruit because they want their big bonus, and many of the "adults" who sign up dont know what they are really getting into or are doing it for all the wrong reasons.

I whole heartedly support our troops, but that doesnt mean I HAVE to support what they are fighting for, and the sad thing is, allot (NOT ALL) of them didn't even think about the point of this war when they signed up. They were thinking exactly what the commercials imply or what recruiters feed them - this will help me become a stronger person, I will see the world, I get to shoot guns and kick ass.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

I whole heartedly support our troops, but that doesnt mean I HAVE to support what they are fighting for, and the sad thing is, allot (NOT ALL) of them didn't even think about the point of this war when they signed up. They were thinking exactly what the commercials imply or what recruiters feed them - this will help me become a stronger person, I will see the world, I get to shoot guns and kick ass.

With all due respect, if a Soldier or Marine does not already know the sacrifice that might be required of him when he takes a combat MOS they were very foolish to sign up to begin with.

If you want money for college or just have time to "find" yourself the Navy,Coast Guard, and Air force are wonderful branches. Not to say there are not combat related jobs in those branches, just that most of them are what you would call "support" I suppose.

If they willingly chose 11B or 0311 (Infantryman/Rifleman for the Army and Marine Corps respectfully) they should know full well what that job requires you do.

My recruiter in highschool did not paint images in our head at all. When I expressed my desire to one day be a Marine Rifleman he flat out told me exactly what that involved and about the chances of dying or being brutally maimed/crippled.

Have to respect him a bit for that, I suppose he was trying to weed out the ones who thought it was all fun and heroic like in the video games.

My JROTC instructor had a different approach than most recruiters as well. When the military discussion would come up at the beginning the of the year with new recruits he would start out with something like

"You can believe what you want but let me tell you, The Armies job is to kill people. Sure not everyone is holding the gun doing the firing but every job in the army is supporting the guy doing the killing."

I miss Sgt Major, he was a magical man.

 

[WilderWein]

Was your recruiter that honest? Mine just told me about how I'd get to see the world, and how i'd become a stronger person, collage funding etc.. showed me pictures of him and his friends traveling the world... I'd expected alittle more brutal honesty from a Marine recruiter, but he made it sound like a freakin vacation.

I dont know too much about what you go through after that. All I know is after that you have physicals, and drug screenings to make sure you are mentaly/physicaly sound.

I've just seen friends change in ways it hurts me to see after thier service, but dont get me wrong, ive also ones who have really benefitted from it too

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Was your recruiter that honest? Mine just told me about how I'd get to see the world, and how i'd become a stronger person, collage funding etc.. showed me pictures of him and his friends traveling the world... I'd expected alittle more brutal honesty from a Marine recruiter, but he made it sound like a freakin vacation.

I dont know too much about what you go through after that. All I know is after that you have physicals, and drug screenings to make sure you are mentaly/physicaly sound.

I've just seen friends change in ways it hurts me to see after thier service, but dont get me wrong, ive also ones who have really benefitted from it too

Yes mine was, he also "believed" in the Marine Corps. I am not saying they are all like that or even most like that. You will find shady dishonest people in all types of jobs.
After you sign up you have to go to MEPS where they check you out psychically and take the ASVAB which determines which jobs are open to you. Thats beside the point tho, no need to get into all that.

The service is what you make of it. It can be a great way to jump start life and get the money to pay for college or develop other skills. There are plenty of non combat related jobs you can do in any of the branches.

My entire point is a person should be fully aware what they are signing up for when they PICK a combat MOS. There are plenty of other jobs, no one is making anyone sign up as an infantryman.

The Corps trains its Marines well for combat. Before they hit the ground they know what to expect. It is a cop out to blame recruiters and tv ads for "lying" to young men.


*note

I am not attacking you in particular, I know people who have came back with mental health issues as well. They also knew full well the sacrifices and risk they would have to make before they took the oath.

 

[ceacar99]

Again: liberals propose *less* government control and an emphasis on personal freedoms.

I still don't see how liberal has turned into government-supporting socialist in the USA.

um.... right..... ya like the taxes on oil they want in order to force the economy to go green(like in many highly socialist eurpean nations) even when the oil companies are not charging an arm an a leg. like the smoking bans they put in place with the ideal that second hand smoke is incredibly deadly. the list goes on and on.... all of them are in place in the name of "enforcing equality" or protecting people.

Fascism doesn't. Fascism revolves around the worship of individual power, the belief that your group of people is better than any other group

i fail to understand how this differs from almost all the liberals ive met or known about... like the liberals that protested the violence of the vietnam war and then burned down buildings in the process. usually the liberal movement is stuffed full of elitist people who feel that they are more enlightened then everyone else and that in the very manner of politcal opinion others are "lesser".

a good example of this is the hybrid movement, where modern liberals try to guilt trip you into buying one. they do this with the social mentality that you are a lesser being unless you belong to their social group. really it works VERY well, and its a populist system of politics that guides people around like cattle.

fascism finds its support from the middle-class as it insists on being the protector of small business-owners and the hard-working man.
Socialism, instead, depends on the lowest classes for its support.

both rely on those who feel disinfranchised by the current system. in HIGH income disparity societies like the united states the difference between the rich and the middle class can be so great that they are tied in with the lower class in social movements like that. further that statement that fascism relies on the middle class is debunked by the fact that it usually found real root in societies either ripe in lower class or high income disparity. see germany, italy, and even the south american fascist states. look at russia, or china. they all had that income disparity or the lower class abundance in common.

Again: the only similarity between socialism and fascism is the insistence on a high level of government control, and socialism doesn't even have that as its end-goal.

what im argueing is that fascism is the ultimate development that comes out of socialism. when socialism gains so much ground and the governmental control reaches "critical mass" that fascism occurs. however often this degree of socialism is impossible to achieve with a democracy, usually violence has to be there to spur that much change. thus the russian revolution, thus the reichstag fire and so on.

Eliminating the Jews wasn't about class warfare, it was about channeling hatred and finding a scapegoat. The Jews were an easy scapegoat for many, many reasons, but the core of the problem wasn't class warfare.

class warfare IS about finding a scapegoat. "im so poor because the ceos of the corporations suck up all the money". it carried over to the socialist movements during the 30's as well. "the rich screwed the poor man over and because of it they arent suffering in this crisis". germany it was partially that but it was the classic racial hatred at work again too. durring the market crash the jewish people whom had been in business and finance for generations were pulling through without loosing everything. the old cooks who had been preaching that the jews were evil started to gain ground. in a way the jewish people were formed into a class of people and as things worsened in germany class warfare gained more and more ground. eventually it was "the market is in such trouble because the jews are manipulating it for their own good." or "we lost the war because of the jewish units in the army".

The USSR wasn't a socialist state, but a totalitarian Stalinist state, which is basically a corruption of communism (which is not the same as socialism).
To call Nazi Germany socialist because the USSR acted in a very totalitarian way is ludicrous, it would be more accurate to call the USSR a fascist state.

see, thats where the arguement can be defined. some people consider the ussr the ultimate extreeme in socialism, others say it isnt. however all seem to agree that it was a perversion of the original marx ideals.

and then continually do the exact same thing yourself.

i much rather have the contestation of ideas and having the best one win, or a combination(as with our consitution) then trusting some bleeding heart moron to do the thinking for us. the liberal movement is all about trusting the moron.... look at the liberal reaction to "an inconvenient truth" nobody thought about what was in the movie, or questioned some of the "facts' in it but rather they followed it like sheep.

Which part of this is distinctly left-wing? Which part of this whole spiel is not simply applicable to any political leaning?

alone its not much, but combined with the ideal that the strongest heaviest governmental control comes under leftist systems and you get a perspective. true, even people who were once on the right spectrum once they gained power to change things they lost perspective and often went out of control.

Change...is left-wing? It is, really? So anyone wanting to change anything is a leftist?

usually the left wing is defined by proposing a change to the standard practices of the world. going back to the right in some senses is going back to the norm. though in a political paradox you could also consider a right opinionated person actually to be on the left in that nation if he is a signifigant departure to the norm. sometimes political paradoxes are confusing, lol.

The Night of the Long Knives had nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism, it was the elimination of the SA (part of the NSDAP) by the NSDAP itself.

sorry for a moment i had that confused with kristalnaught(or however you spell that thing...).

anyway that was a consolodation of power manouver, but i admit i blundered in that arguement.

 

[Sander]

um.... right..... ya like the taxes on oil they want in order to force the economy to go green(like in many highly socialist eurpean nations) even when the oil companies are not charging an arm an a leg. like the smoking bans they put in place with the ideal that second hand smoke is incredibly deadly. the list goes on and on.... all of them are in place in the name of "enforcing equality" or protecting people.

Why are you consistently ignoring what I am saying?
Your definition of the word 'liberal' is completely fucked up.
That is what I am saying.
Please stop using it as some all-encompassing word to try to describe anything that is not neo-conservative.

i fail to understand how this differs from almost all the liberals ive met or known about... like the liberals that protested the violence of the vietnam war and then burned down buildings in the process. usually the liberal movement is stuffed full of elitist people who feel that they are more enlightened then everyone else and that in the very manner of politcal opinion others are "lesser".

a good example of this is the hybrid movement, where modern liberals try to guilt trip you into buying one. they do this with the social mentality that you are a lesser being unless you belong to their social group. really it works VERY well, and its a populist system of politics that guides people around like cattle.

Good job ignoring the entire fucking point.
Let's try this again, shall we?

CORE BELIEF OF FASCISM:
- Might makes right, and the mightiest individual leads us all

CORE BELIEF OF SOCIALISM
- Might does not make right, instead everyone must rule everything

These two things are complete polar opposites. How do you not understand this?
If you do not understand that Fascism is about the worship of *individual* power and socialism isn't, then you do not understand either ideology.

both rely on those who feel disinfranchised by the current system.

As does every single political party that isn't in party.
Why are you still pretending like this is a unique thing for the groups you want it to be unique thing for? Of course they appeal to people who are not satisfied with the current state of affairs, if they weren't appealing to them they'd be running the government.

in HIGH income disparity societies like the united states the difference between the rich and the middle class can be so great that they are tied in with the lower class in social movements like that. further that statement that fascism relies on the middle class is debunked by the fact that it usually found real root in societies either ripe in lower class or high income disparity. see germany, italy, and even the south american fascist states. look at russia, or china. they all had that income disparity or the lower class abundance in common.

Again, missing the point.
Look at what fascism actually proposes to do. It isn't about protecting the lower classes or destroying the capitalist swines.
Fascism is about creating a world for your own group of people, led by strong individual leaders who distinguished themselves through power (not through blood relations, ie aristocracy).
That doesn't matter for the common worker struggling to get by, what they want to hear is that they'll get more money as they're working the hardest - which is definitely not one of fascism's tenets.

class warfare IS about finding a scapegoat

Then you do not understand the idea of class warfare.
Class warfare isn't about finding a scapegoat per se, although often that is part of what happens.
Class warfare isn't about finding someone to go kick against, supposedly class warfare is about struggling for control of resources.

Class warfare is not about going 'Hey those guys caused us to lose the war, let's go kill them!', which is what scapegoating is about.

see, thats where the arguement can be defined. some people consider the ussr the ultimate extreeme in socialism, others say it isnt. however all seem to agree that it was a perversion of the original marx ideals.

The USSR was never the ultimate extreme in socialism, and no one can honestly pretend it was. No state ruled by a single supreme ruler is every going to be the ultimate extreme in socialism.

Aside from that, the USSR was certainly in part a socialist state, mostly in its economic policies. It was also a very totalitarian and oppressive state - something that does not fit with the ideological socialism.
And why? Simply because Stalin, Lenin and basically the entire system consisted of power-hungry assholes, like the entire world does.

i much rather have the contestation of ideas and having the best one win, or a combination(as with our consitution) then trusting some bleeding heart moron to do the thinking for us. the liberal movement is all about trusting the moron.... look at the liberal reaction to "an inconvenient truth" nobody thought about what was in the movie, or questioned some of the "facts' in it but rather they followed it like sheep.

Yes, that following people just because they say something is certainly a unique trait of liberalism.

No one ever told a bunch neo-conservatives 'Saddam has WMD we must kill him!' and they just bunched up behind him without ever being even slightly critical of the situation.

No one ever told a bunch of people 'Hey, God created the earth in 7 days!' and those people just blindly followed every word of it, denying their children the option to even listen to alternatives.

There are millions of examples and they aren't, again, some hallmark of liberalism.

Yet again: stop trying to take general aspects of human beings, and then try to make it seem as if those are distinguishing features of liberalism.

usually the left wing is defined by proposing a change to the standard practices of the world. going back to the right in some senses is going back to the norm. though in a political paradox you could also consider a right opinionated person actually to be on the left in that nation if he is a signifigant departure to the norm. sometimes political paradoxes are confusing, lol.

Political paradoxes aren't confusing (or even paradoxes) if you don't use different definitions for the same word every other sentence. That only leads to fuzzy thinking.

Which is also why the term 'liberal' is meaningless as you are using it.

alone its not much, but combined with the ideal that the strongest heaviest governmental control comes under leftist systems and you get a perspective. true, even people who were once on the right spectrum once they gained power to change things they lost perspective and often went out of control.

How the fuck do you even get the word 'even' in there? Do you have some kind of blind spot for basically any totalitarian regime that isn't somewhat socialist (which is both the vast majority of totalitarian regimes now, as it certainly was in the past - most obviously before the 20th century).
Also, I like how you completely ignored all of the examples I named of fascism not coming from liberal sources. I'll repeat again:

Mussolini wasn't leftist, nor was the NSDAP (excluding the SA, which was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives). Franco wasn't leftist. WW2-era Japan wasn't leftist. Pinochet wasn't leftist.

 

[Snackpack]

Wow. Just saw this, amazing stuff

Hitler was a vegetarian. Some left wing people are vegetarians. Therefore: Liberals = Nazis

That looks like a really fun game, can I play? Okay, here goes: Some insects eat their young. Some insects have eyes. Conservatives have eyes. Conservatives eat babies.

I always knew it.

You should listen to the song "California Uber Alles" by the Dead Kennedys. It describes the kind of "liberal" you hate to a T. But guess what? It was written by Jello Biafra and he's as liberal as they come.

While my income has averaged less than 10K USD per year for the last 8 years, and I definitely qualify for at least some food programs, I've never drawn dollar one from the government. But hey, I'm a vegetarian, non-car owning, musician artfag so I must be some kind of liberal fascist. I think parts of your beloved capitalism, such as profiting from others labor and owning private property to charge rent is abusive and exploitative. But I'm definitely not into large government.

Your stereotyping of the people you consider to be "liberal" makes you sound like you can only understand politics when it's reduced to , "red vs. blue, go team go!" A bit on the retarded side don't you think?

 

[fedaykin]

ceacar99: I'm going to ask you an honest question: have you been reading Ann Coulter?

 

[WilderWein]

The Corps trains its Marines well for combat. Before they hit the ground they know what to expect. It is a cop out to blame recruiters and tv ads for "lying" to young men.


*note

I am not attacking you in particular, I know people who have came back with mental health issues as well. They also knew full well the sacrifices and risk they would have to make before they took the oath.

oh no, I know, I do apreciate what your saying. Im not trying to place all blame on recruiters or TV adds, I gues what im trying to say, is there are people who I truely dont think understand what they've gotten themselves into untill later - not that its the governments fault for trying to recruit people, just that not everyone who makes it in is as ready for their years of service as they originaly thought they were.

 

[WilderWein]

Nothing wrong with taking pleasure in your work.

Well, if one takes PLEASURE from KILLING other humans, there has to something deeply "wrong" with the persons psyche, or way of thinking. Killing other humans lacks even the most basic logic. Enjoying it is borderline insane.
What would stop them from taking too much pleasure, and starting to kill innocents and prisoners as well. Or their own comrades ?

Think about this. The society we are today is one that is a result of years of progressive sensitization to murder. In the millitary, they HAVE to try to desensitize you to that, and soldiers who see death to such degree, have to desensitize themselves to it its your brains survival mechanism. I believe we all still are born with that hunter instinct, and morbid curiosity thats repressed by civilised society. Once killing becomes daily life, im not surprised some soldiers get some carnal satisfaction from it.

That doesnt mean their entire sense of morality flies out the window and they becom some psychotic killing machine. Id say thats quite different than a serial killer, whos need to kill becomes an uncontrolled adiction and manifests a dilusional sense of rightiousnes to justify thier actions, or has a geneticaly unique brain that lacks certain centers enabling the capability for sympathy, a true psychopath.

 

[WilderWein]

That doesnt mean their entire sense of morality flies out the window and they becom some psychotic killing machine. Id say thats quite different than a serial killer, whos need to kill becomes an uncontrolled adiction and manifests a dilusional sense of rightiousnes to justify thier actions, or has a geneticaly unique brain that lacks certain centers enabling the capability for sympathy, a true psychopath.

 

[Sander]

Stop double and definitely stop triple posting, WilderWein. We have an edit button for a reason.