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.
None of this addresses any of the points or quotes that I've given from the book. Based on your logic, we could dismiss any argument on anything by claiming that the arguer is just motivated by partisanship. Thereby we neatly sidestep having to debate substance.
I told you. Initially he defined socialism correctly and then he contradicted himself later.
He is selling a book for people who want to hear things based on Godwin's Law, and he got your money. I am sure he is happy.
Yes, Rand was my man in 2016, just the best of a sorry bunch now.
His father was Mr Common Sense, but his party didn't want to hear it in 2008, or 2012, and they didn't want to hear Rand in 2016. Its too bad, because the conservative message is good only if you stand by its principles, which Ron Paul did, and Rand does much of the time. The rest of the party only talks about it when they are in the minority.
The nazis go in history as the most evil / racist / anti-semitic nationalist military dictatorship ever, so of course everyone interested in partisan politics will try to associate their opponents to Hitler.
There is even a name for it: The Goodwin's law, or just the "Hitler card"
If Rand Paul wants to target a book for his target audience, he will say what he must say to sell it, and apparently it is working. Its not new. Glenn Beck made same 'arguments' and there was an audience for it. Limbaugh has been doing it for years, or decades. There is a market for it.
Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches"; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
None of this addresses any of the points or quotes that I've given from the book. Based on your logic, we could dismiss any argument on anything by claiming that the arguer is just motivated by partisanship. Thereby we neatly sidestep having to debate substance.
Here's another couple quotes from the book. Can you address them?
Or this from George Orwell, who of course was a persuaded and self-described socialist:
Note that Orwell was by no means a supporter of Nazism, but he was honest enough to acknowledge its socialist aspect.
Finally:
Strasser was an early prominent figure in the party who recruited Heimlich Himmler. He later became at odds with Hitler and was killed in the 1934 purge known as 'night of the long knives.'
On the exchange above, couldn't rep Finn_Jarber further. But travis, he is correct in regards to the bold. Many politicians demonize their opponents by relating them to Hitler/Nazism. Anytime that happens, you should be suspicious of them and see it for what it is - a political ploy/argument with no substance. None of our politicians in America, including Trump, are Hitler-esque or Nazi-esque. MANY liberals think Trump is "like Hitler" when he is not. Many conservatives thought Obama is "like Hitler" and they think Bernie Sanders is "like Hitler" or just American liberalism in general is "like Hitler/Nazism" when they are not.
On the quotes from the book, the fact that Paul promotes an incorrect definition of socialism is telling about the real reasons for the inclusion of this information in the book - it is specific to a political agenda that he doesn't agree with and so he is pushing a propagandist perspective. All politicians do this to their opponent and IMO you are taking him way too seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
I told you. Initially he defined socialism correctly and then he contradicted himself later.
He is selling a book for people who want to hear things based on Godwin's Law, and he got your money. I am sure he is happy.
I told you. Initially he defined socialism correctly and then he contradicted himself later.
He is selling a book for people who want to hear things based on Godwin's Law, and he got your money. I am sure he is happy.
Yes you told me, and then I countered with a bunch of quotes, none of which apparently you have a response for.
I will repeat one of them for you:
Quote:
Most of the plan could be found in any Bolshevik platform except for the racial animums against Jews..
Hitler's platform called for "THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY BEFORE THE GOOD OF THE INDIVIDUAL."
One of the 25 points was "We demand the nationalization of all (previous associated industries (trusts)." Paul points out that this is "[t]he essence of socialism--state ownership of the means of production."
So yes, Nazism was a socialist variant. Not "pure socialism" (as Paul states in his book), but certainly socialism-based. Mussolini, who coined the word 'fascism,' started out as editor of a socialist newspaper.
Fascism and Nazism were both a kind of socialism-lite, where private ownership of the means of production was allowed, but with heavy regulation thereof. As Paul says, with sufficient levels of regulation, private ownership becomes 'in name only.'
People can stay in denial if they wish, but the history is undeniable for those who just want the truth.
It is a distortion of history and a lie to say that National Socialism was in any way a left-wing phenomenon. In the European context, it was an outgrowth of reactionary right-wing politics, and Nazis caucased with conservatives in the Weimar Republic.
OK, so socialism was not a left-wing phenomenon. OK.
On the exchange above, couldn't rep Finn_Jarber further. But travis, he is correct in regards to the bold. Many politicians demonize their opponents by relating them to Hitler/Nazism. Anytime that happens, you should be suspicious of them and see it for what it is - a political ploy/argument with no substance. None of our politicians in America, including Trump, are Hitler-esque or Nazi-esque. MANY liberals think Trump is "like Hitler" when he is not. Many conservatives thought Obama is "like Hitler" and they think Bernie Sanders is "like Hitler" or just American liberalism in general is "like Hitler/Nazism" when they are not.
On the quotes from the book, the fact that Paul promotes an incorrect definition of socialism is telling about the real reasons for the inclusion of this information in the book - it is specific to a political agenda that he doesn't agree with and so he is pushing a propagandist perspective. All politicians do this to their opponent and IMO you are taking him way too seriously.
The bold is absolutely true.
Yes reduction ad Hitlerum is common. That doesn't prove that Rand Paul is engaged in it here. He's citing history.
You claim to know his motive, but based on what evidence?
You are making the mistake of trying to divine motive. Instead of trying to divine motive, it is always better to focus on the issue at hand.
Paul gives the conventional definition of socialism: "Government ownership of the means of production" (which even Finn Jarber agrees is correct). On what basis do you say it is wrong?
Rand and republicans should try to root out socialism. They can start by trying to eliminate social security and Medicare.
I'd say Social Security is a socialist (gov't ownership of the means of production) entity. Basically a gov't owned and operated pension system. But remember that W. Bush tried to at least partially privatize the system back in his first term, and reaped the political whirlwind for even suggesting it.
The screams today would be even shriller with millions of baby boomers entering retirement. The youngest boomers are now 56.
Medicare is not really a socialist entity IMO. It's more like the Scandinavian 'social democracy' model of collecting taxes and then disbursing them back out for social services to be performed by private hospitals, doctors, etc.
As mentioned above, Rand Paul does not suffer from the normal libertarian 'tilting at windmills' syndrome.
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.
