Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hitler was a member and then leader if the German Workers Party, which was just another flavor of several left wing parties in Germany. German Workers Party, with Hitler at its helm, became the National Socialist Workers Party, a.k.a. NAZI.
Hitler and Nazi were anti-capitalist and anti-communist, because he considered both Jewish-driven. Secondly, Hitler believed communists stabbed Germany in the back during WWI, and third communism (with its three Internationals) was against Hitler’s ideas for Nazi Nationalism.
About Locke, Russeau, and Voltaire — again, you are confused because you have no idea, but simply are throwing names around.
And BTW Russeau enlightened Karl Marx with his political philosophy. Russeau attacked private property rights, and representative Republic. Many think that Russeau influenced Marx greatly.
But you wouldn’t know that, would you?
Let me get this thru your thick skull - Marxism is alive and well, in you, and many others who, although clueless, buy the garbage of all too powerful central Govt.
Your biased ignorance is so profound that you consider liberals to be anti-capitalist and socialist. That's just "greeder" propaganda. Here's the proof.
The American Founding Fathers studied, and established their new republic, on the liberal democratic principles. Name one of them who was a socialist.
You want to advance the argument that intervening in the economy to wean our society from fossil fuels is a socialist policy, even if free markets are used to most efficiently achieve the goal.
Facts:
1) Man-made climate change deniers are above all else science deniers. This violates to the core the Rationalism underlying the Age of Enlightenment, which gave birth to the American Revolution and to the establishment of American democracy.
2) Man-made climate change deniers not only marginalize scientists with their propaganda, they attempt to delegitimatize any leaders attempting to transition to a sustainable, non-fossil fuel economy, as socialists or even communists. This propaganda largely is advanced by special interests seeking to profit from a fossil fuel-based economy as long as possible; I call the members of these special interests "greeders" because they prioritize their own wealth protection and creation over protecting the common good.
Hopefully, empirical evidence, even evidence easily observable by many Americans in their own lives (for Floridians -- red tide, accelerating sea level rise, coral extinction, marine life kill-off, more intense hurricanes resulting from warmer oceans, etc.), finally will blunt the ridiculous attacks on scientists. It's increasingly clear that man-made climate change is no "hoax." Unfortunately, we're rapidly losing any chance to blunt on the cheap many of the dire consequences of greenhouse gas emissions because we've entrusted our political leadership to anti-environments who have belittled and attempted to silence climate scientists.
Dealing with number 2) won't be as easy, because most Americans have become conditioned to the idea that there are "easy" fixes to all problems. Most Americans have no concept about how we've leveraged our economy and sold assets to finance tax cuts for the wealthy, engage in foreign wars, and provide social benefits to many Americans. Unfortunately, a financial day of reckoning is inevitable, and many financial experts believe that Trump tax cuts and mushrooming deficits will result in a vicious cycle that may eclipse the Great Recession in its severity. At the same time, we may desperately be trying to play catch-up in efforts to mitigate man-made climate change, whether ice melt, warming oceans, accelerating sea level rise, marine life extinctions, toxic algal blooms or ocean acidification.
Jeffrey Gundlach, known as the "Bond King" for the accuracy of his economic projections, believes we're on an economic "suicide mission."
Unfortunately, it will take financial resources to wean our nation off fossil fuels. If we are unable to do so, we may more seriously be committing environmental suicide.
BTW, anybody with even a simple knowledge of Nazism knows that it was a fascist movement, with an extreme contempt of liberal democracy and individual rights as practiced in the U.S.
Some people need to take a few meds or a few breaths. How a conversation can go from the known anti-environmental stance of Gov. Scott to exactly how much Hitler hated Communism is beyond me.
I have a Grad Degree in History with an emphasis on the 20th Century. None of my training on the subject is political in nature, rather it is formed by the reading of 100's of thousands of pages of actual memoirs and researched topics. On many such issues there are facts only - not debate.
One of them is that Hitler represents the Right Wing and that Lenin & Stalin were on the left side of things. Franco (Spain) and de Gaulle were also right wing. But that has little to do with the subject at hand. None of these political leaning were the cause or at the root of problems there. There have been successful Right Wing movements and successful Left Wing movements. Left Wing movements tend to believe less in Authoritarianism (strict hierarchy, control by a single individual, etc.), whist Right Wing movements are top down.
I find this too funny. You claim to be an unsolicited arbiter, yet you attack either me or WRnative as needing meds. I didn't bring Hitler into this discussion, but I will not be silenced when posters, you included, attribute Hitler to the “right-wing.” I understand Hitler is toxic and nobody wants him on their side. But left-wingers have done a good job of throwing Hitler "over the transom", so to speak.
Hitler was not right wing. It’s actually the opposite. Not sure where you studied, but for us who studied in Europe — such claim is silly.
Hitler was a self-proclaimed Socialist. If you knew German you would know that Nazi means National Socialism.
Hitler, like most dictators cleansed his political rivals of the left. In fact, he changed his Workers Party name into Nazi in order to appeal to a wider audience, and suck the air out from the other left-wing Parties.
Hitler’s Nationalism is not special. Stalin was a Nationalist too.
If you really understood Europe, and not thru the lenses what they supposedly taught you in US, you would also understand that conservatism in US has nothing to do with European’s.
Conservatism in US is a mismatched term. US conservatism has to do with a limited Govt, splintered into several competing factions of power, in recognizing the individual as the sovereign, not the state, or what Russeau called “Law and Order”.
American “conservatism” is actually a cutting edge, innovative form of political structure.
This has very much to to with Florida’s environment. Not sure why you can’t see the connection.
I find this too funny. You claim to be an unsolicited arbiter, yet you attack either me or WRnative as needing meds. I didnt bring Hitler into this discussion
Actually, you did bring Hitler and political philosophy into this thread with your post 381. In post 380, my focus only was on the "Big Lie" propaganda techniques employed by Trump, other climate change deniers and you (e.g., your implications that persons attempting to introduce policies to combat man-made climate change are communists or socialists).
I stupidly fell for your deflection.
So let me get the argument back to where it needs to go: 1) Calling man-made climate change a "hoax" is a disgusting "Big Lie." Labeling reports about the empirical evidence of the present consequences of man-made climate change or future projections by scientists as "fake news" also is "Big Lie" propaganda.
Floridians and Americans don't need any understanding of Nazis or political philosophy to understand the truths stated in the previous paragraph. As these truths increasingly are accepted by Americans, we'll turn our attention to dealing with the crisis, hopefully before it's too late.
Your biased ignorance is so profound that you consider liberals to be anti-capitalist and socialist...
This is even funnier. When did I say that? Or just because you keep repeating it, and I don't correct your millions of words, you think I am agreeing to it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative
You want to advance the argument that intervening in the economy to wean our society from fossil fuels is a socialist policy....
Let's put proper syntax and morphology into your sentences. Who is to "intervene to wean our society from fossil fuels." Define the subject -- who? I am sure you mean the Govt. Which Govt? State, local or Federal?
You mean the Federal Govt. You mean -- grant more power than it already has to the Federal Govt "to wean society from fossil fuels"
Unlike you, I don't want to concentrate more power into a central Govt. I want the central Govt to have less power. Less power to promote one industry over another, less power to subsidize oil companies or ethanol, or whatever. Or hopefully no subsidies to any specific energy.
I also do realize that there is a cost to pollution. I want to breathe clean air. I also think it is fair if a specific industry or company which causes pollution which cost another industry, company or community to clean up, the offending party needs to pay for harms to others. We can have a discussion how we do this. But I will not accept an automatic -- let's give even more power to the central Govt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative
Facts:
1) Man-made climate change deniers are above all else science deniers. This violates to the core the Rationalism underlying the Age of Enlightenment, which gave birth to the American Revolution and to the establishment of American democracy.
2) Man-made climate change deniers not only marginalize scientists with their propaganda, they attempt to delegitimatize any leaders attempting to transition to a sustainable, non-fossil fuel economy, as socialists or even communists. This propaganda largely is advanced by special interests seeking to profit from a fossil fuel-based economy as long as possible; I call the members of these special interests "greeders" because they prioritize their own wealth protection and creation over protecting the common good.
Not facts, but BS. I gave you an analogy -- just because I hate rape it does not mean that I also hate sex. For you, the two are one and the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative
BTW, anybody with even a simple knowledge of Nazism knows that it was a fascist movement, with an extreme contempt of liberal democracy and individual rights as practiced in the U.S.
Liberal Democracy -- I cringe how you use this term just a paragraph after you boast about America's founding.
Founding fathers rejected outright the democracy model. They had many discussions. Pluto influenced them greatly too. Founding Fathers did not set up US as a democracy. They set it up as a representative Republic. Actually Rousseau that you mentioned wanted the democracy, while rejected Representative republic. That is why Jacobins, the first modern domestic terrorists, considered Rousseau their Godfather. But I digress.
I find this too funny. You claim to be an unsolicited arbiter, yet you attack either me or WRnative as needing meds. I didn't bring Hitler into this discussion, but I will not be silenced when posters, you included, attribute Hitler to the “right-wing.” I understand Hitler is toxic and nobody wants him on their side. But left-wingers have done a good job of throwing Hitler "over the transom", so to speak.
Hitler was not right wing. It’s actually the opposite. Not sure where you studied, but for us who studied in Europe — such claim is silly.
Hitler was a self-proclaimed Socialist. If you knew German you would know that Nazi means National Socialism.
.
Which is irrelevant to the term socialism as it is used today
Founding fathers rejected outright the democracy model. They had many discussions. Pluto influenced them greatly too. Founding Fathers did not set up US as a democracy. They set it up as a representative Republic. Actually Rousseau that you mentioned wanted the democracy, while rejected Representative republic. That is why Jacobins, the first modern domestic terrorists, considered Rousseau their Godfather. But I digress.
The world and Americans of the founding generation certainly knew that they had established a democracy, even if ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, it was partially an indirect, representative democratic model in some aspects, but not entirely. Importantly, elections to the federal House of Representatives were direct elections. The electoral college still exists to elect the President, which did allow Trump to win the Presidency while losing the national popular vote. Direct elections of U.S. senators began with the ratification of the 17th amendment in 2013. And an indirect, representative form of government still is a democracy.
Local and state elections always were direct elections.
Have you ever heard of de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America?" It was one of the seminal political works of the early 19th century and still one of the most read books about the establishment of democracy in the U.S. The world was fascinated by the American form of democratic government, extremely novel at the time.
It's mind-boggling and disgusting that anybody who claims to have a grasp of democratic theory would claim that the U.S. was not established as a democracy. A whopper of a Big Lie. I guess it's not surprising that man-made climate change deniers don't limit their falsehoods to just the environment.
I'm beginning to understand how Trump can play cozy with disgusting dictators and so many Americans seemingly don't care. Apparently many Americans don't believe that we even have a democracy.
Where does this overt ignorance come from? Is there a source beyond your imagination???
Excuse me...it's been happening for over a century!
Have you read this thread and other threads on the red tide in the Florida forum?
While the red tide is natural phenomenon, it's severity and persistence is exacerbated by warming oceans and man-made nutrients. Warmer water accelerates toxic algal growth. Winter kill-offs decline as the ocean waters don't cool sufficiently.
Warming oceans are a direct consequence of fossil fuel warming. Over 90 percent of planetary warming as the result of man-made climate change has been absorbed by the oceans.
This is even funnier. When did I say that? Or just because you keep repeating it, and I don't correct your millions of words, you think I am agreeing to it?
Let's put proper syntax and morphology into your sentences. Who is to "intervene to wean our society from fossil fuels." Define the subject -- who? I am sure you mean the Govt. Which Govt? State, local or Federal?
You mean the Federal Govt. You mean -- grant more power than it already has to the Federal Govt "to wean society from fossil fuels"
Unlike you, I don't want to concentrate more power into a central Govt. I want the central Govt to have less power. Less power to promote one industry over another, less power to subsidize oil companies or ethanol, or whatever. Or hopefully no subsidies to any specific energy.
I also do realize that there is a cost to pollution. I want to breathe clean air. I also think it is fair if a specific industry or company which causes pollution which cost another industry, company or community to clean up, the offending party needs to pay for harms to others. We can have a discussion how we do this. But I will not accept an automatic -- let's give even more power to the central Govt.
Not facts, but BS. I gave you an analogy -- just because I hate rape it does not mean that I also hate sex. For you, the two are one and the same.
Anybody who has read your posts in this thread, including this one, knows that you are a man-made climate change denier who repeatedly obfuscates the dire reality of man-made climate change.
It's preposterous to believe that the U.S. can deal aggressively with transitioning away from fossil fuels without a concerted effort at the federal level.
Basically, you see no urgency in dealing with man-made climate change. Within a month, we'll learn if a majority of Florida's voters still feel this way. However, as documented in post 380's discussion of the Tampa Bay Times endorsements for the U.S. Senate and governor contests, man-made climate change still is not yet an important political issue in Florida.
Perhaps Hurricane Michael, reportedly an unprecedented Category 4 panhandle hurricane strike, fueled by an exceptionally warm GOM, may begin to force Floridians to face an environmental future transformed by man-made climate change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
