A rather sad overlord [DevNull puts forth his political beliefs]

Great Debates
281

Well, actually, you wandered into an established Forum for debate, made a number of rather bizarre claims regarding twentieth century history, on which you were challenged, then fell back on posting the (socialist) order “Google it” when asked to defend your position. I do not care how you post, except to note that you spend an inordiante amount of time making assertions, then claiming you were only here to ask questions.

I have not attacked your integrity. You might be as honest as they come. I have merely challenged some of your beliefs. (For example, a claim that Rosa Luxemburg was not in the forefront of the Socialist movement can only be defended by applying a rather odd definition to all the principal words in that statement.)

After reading most of your posts, I thing the most appropriate response is
“There’s glory for you.”

282

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

That is the conservative viewpoint.
[/QUOTE]

You, sir, are oblivious. Perhaps you could read what I was responding to?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8794765&postcount=263

Do you see the pretty letters make words? Read them! I understand it is difficult for you to comprehend much past a single sound bite, but I promise you, you will discover that you are, what? Oh, yes. Wrong.
BrainGlutton, I’m sorry that I was offended, but in this thread, with so much rampant stupidity being thrown about, an ironic note was, in fact, needed.

283

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Do you see the pretty letters make words? Read them! I understand it is difficult for you to comprehend much past a single sound bite, but I promise you, you will discover that you are, what? Oh, yes. Wrong.
[/QUOTE]
The sarcasm works. The direct personal attack on another poster does not.

Refrain from repeating this error.

[ /Moderating ]

284

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The sarcasm works. The direct personal attack on another poster does not.

Refrain from repeating this error.

[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]

Erk. Why did I think this thread was in the pit? My apologies for the direct personal attack.

285

Once again, Der Trihs, I apologize personally to you for the direct attack. I thought this was the Pit for some reason, and reacted accordingly.

286

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I suppose if any of the things you said were true, you might have a case. But in fact, Hitler reduced many of the social programs that existed in Germany prior to him assuming power. And he banned all labor unions. And closed down all left-wing newspapers. And outlawed abortions. And increased military spending.
[/quote]

I see that social programs were fully integrated 100% into the state under Hitler. A socialist state. Life to death social benefits. Bismarck would have dropped his monocle to see what happened to his placating tidbits.

Hitler banned INDEPENDENT labor unions. You just cannot have individuality in the collective. I believe it was on May Day in 1933 that all labor unions became state labor unions. True socialist unions with no individuality to be had. All labor union concerns were now in the hands of the collective.

Hitler (Goring, actually) closed down Vorwarts, which accused the National Socialist party of being financed by American money. Hitler did not like the competition and did not want the socialist collective divided into Marxists and Trotskyites. All his competition had to go. The opposition had to go to.

There were no private newspapers left. They were all run by the collective after 1936. All populist newspapers, all right-wing, all left-wing, all centrist, all tabloids, all everything.

The fact that the population went along with it only serves to prove that the socialists of Germany were entirely satisfied with Hitler’s brand of socialism.

I said “feh” after I said that. Hitler took the socialism-lite that Germany practiced and turned it onto uber-collective, state-sponsored surrendering of the will, mind and body.

Hitler practically had the perfect collective up and running.

287

[QUOTE=DevNull]
If you qualified your initial assessment of how the rest of the world feels about us in the same manner then I would not have resorted to teh droll.

Considerable amounts of the Iraq, and the world are quite annoyed with us. Yes.

It is the specific people that are annoyed with us that matters and dang it if I could have cared less about those types… ever. We are sovereign and we are pretty cool in the scope of things as evidenced by the hordes of people who risk their lives to come here.

Ring me collect when they all start paddling back in haste.
[/QUOTE]

Aw, never mind. You wouldn’t believe me anyway…

288

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Well, actually, you wandered into an established Forum for debate
[/QUOTE]

I wandered into an established forum for structured debate, where I asked a rather simple question that had a high potential for debate. The structure seems to consist entirely of no personal attacks or flaming. I agree with the structure.

Discussion turned rather quickly into a jamboree of digging into and dissecting my personal beliefs on a few off-topic subjects rather than debate on my OP question and the subtleties of said question.

Since I am of the polite nature.. and in the house of another.. of which I paid to be in, I might add… I attempt to accommodate any people who have a curious nature and an inclination for mental sparring with polite responses.

Things turn annoying when the fact is totally clear that if I wanted to debate on the Ten Commandments or Hitler, then I would have joined in or started a debate.. here, in an established forum for debate.

For someone to tell me how to think or how to debate on a tangent that I never set upon is downright rude. I can handle it down many, many levels. Much more than any propagandist could ever wish to tangle in, but it gets tiring when my OP remains unanswered for the most part (to my tastes anyway) and that is all I came here to this GD sig for. If I came here for general debate, you would see a peppering of my thoughts and debates all over the place. Nope. I had one question (And maybe another at one time.. I forget). My being polite got my thread title amended to something other than my OP stated. That sucks.

It is only courtesy that if anyone wishes to go off tangent so wildly that personal comments be left out and advice on how to think properly be avoided.

My two cents.

289

[QUOTE=Jolly Roger]
Aw, never mind. You wouldn’t believe me anyway…
[/QUOTE]

As long as it doesn’t involve me personally, then I would love to hear it. :slight_smile:

I have read thousands upon thousands of posts here on GD and I enjoy them immensely whether I believe them or not. It is especially happy when a concept or fact comes in handy in the future regardless of my beliefs… or potential belief. Spit it out, my good poster. My threads allow for much diversity of thought, on my part anyway.

290

[QUOTE=DevNull]
Things turn annoying when the fact is totally clear that if I wanted to debate on the Ten Commandments or Hitler, then I would have joined in or started a debate.. here, in an established forum for debate.
[/QUOTE]
You started both the Hitler and Ten Commandments hijackings yourself:

Hitler was a socialist. Where did you get the idea he was right-wing?

Muslims get footbaths in colleges but the Ten Commandments are not allowed in court?

You don’t get to drop provocative statements into your posts and then complain when others respond to them. You started it.

291

[QUOTE=DevNull]
I wandered into an established forum for structured debate, where I asked a rather simple question that had a high potential for debate. The structure seems to consist entirely of no personal attacks or flaming. I agree with the structure.

Discussion turned rather quickly into a jamboree of digging into and dissecting my personal beliefs on a few off-topic subjects rather than debate on my OP question and the subtleties of said question.
[/QUOTE]

Dude, I think the OP is already covered. Now we’re just having fun. And stay on that dissecting table! Don’t make us break out the Big Red Straps!

292

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Dude, I think the OP is already covered. Now we’re just having fun. And stay on that dissecting table! Don’t make us break out the Big Red Straps!
[/QUOTE]

I am here for the duration as long as there is a post that has not been addressed.

To finish an unfinished tangent, and in defense of liberals.. real liberals: Classical liberalism - Wikipedia

That is why I do not use the word “liberal” when speaking of leftists. Why reinvent the wheel and put the Wiki article in my own words when it is so perfect. Classic liberals were, IHMO, the cats pajamas except for the global free trade thing.

(Now since I brought this up out of left field, I consider it within polite behaviour for anyone to wander in and to call me a dinosaur and squeeze my thoughts on the matter for many posts in the future. I made my bed and I will lie in it as is the honorable thing to do)

I do take “hyperbole” as the answer to my OP. What say you? I just didn’t think it was fair that I actually liked the only non-sarcastic answer submitted.

293

[QUOTE=DevNull]
That is why I do not use the word “liberal” when speaking of leftists.
[/QUOTE]
Just to remove any ambiguity, could you give us a representative list of contemporary figures you would call leftists?

294

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
You started both the Hitler and Ten Commandments hijackings yourself:

You don’t get to drop provocative statements into your posts and then complain when others respond to them. You started it.
[/QUOTE]

Where is my complaint about people simply responding to my provocative statements? I am complaining about people telling me how to think and debate AFTER I respond to their responses.

I love the factual responses. The system is all about factual responses. Opinions on the matter too. I, however, detest the attempts at getting me to think as others do by asking me to react in a specific way. My thoughts are my own and I will do with them what I wish as long as I stay within the rules of the house I am in. If people do not like my definitions from Websters Dictionary or my telling of anyone to “Google it”, or even my penchant for using Google as a popularity meter in certain cases then my thread is not the thread for you. Go elsewhere.

How would you like it if I went into a Jesus thread and complained about everyone using the Lord’s name in vain and told them that they would “have to do better” than being sinners. That would be annoying especially if there were like 20 of us telling you all how to think and behave. 76% of the US population is somewhat under that directive but you don’t see flocks of people getting in anyone’s face here over it because it is damn rude to go imposing one’s beliefs on another in such a way.

Here is a tomndebb classic on the matter:

I did not come here to provide “actual evidence” of Hitler’s central planning. If I did, I would be in a Hitler thread doing so. I did not mention Hitler or central planning in my original post and I did not come close to it either. It was a tangent that took a life of it’s own and if it comes down to people telling me that I am “hand-waving” then they can pound sand because I was never here to debate that fact. Someone asked me something and I told them. Someone else picked up on it and I told them a little more. Before long I am writing essays and subjecting myself to a totally confusing amount of opinions on what one simple word means here on this board (like the word liberal).

I said it before, take your points you scored by what you perceive as a wrong thought of mine and continue on if you do not agree with my thoughts on a tangential conversation when I try to axe the tangent by telling you to Google it. You got my thought and you are not going to get much more in the way of a written essay complete with facts and cites and footnotes, especially when you tried to get me to do so by calling my polite “no” something rude like “hand-waving”.

If we are in a Hitler thread or a Ten Commandments thread then you all have the right to criticize my debate techniques and I will apologize for not being a scholar about it, but this is a president George W Bush overlord thread and I will have non of your criticisms for the efforts and entertainment that I have given in mostly good spirit so far.

295

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Just to remove any ambiguity, could you give us a representative list of contemporary figures you would call leftists?
[/QUOTE]

I would be glad to.

Hugo Chavez
Noam Chomsky
George Galloway
Al Franken
Barbara Boxer
Hillary Clinton

And to a lesser extent, but still attempt to pose a danger to individual freedoms via leftist ideals:

George Bush
Micheal Moore

And the intelligent leftists of my lifetime:

James Burnham
Whitaker Chambers
Sidney Hook
David Horowitz
Arthur Koestler
Irving Kristol
Dick Morris

With that question and my subsequent answer, this thread is about to take a very ugly turn in the realm of political reality and it was very fortunate that I was brutally honest for the entire thread.

I hope you all were also.

There will be absolutely no more bizarre historical allegations from my brain from this point on.

296

[QUOTE=DevNull]
Hugo Chavez
Noam Chomsky
George Galloway
Al Franken
Barbara Boxer
Hillary Clinton
[/quote]

Clinton, Boxer and Franken are not “leftists” in any meaningful sense but that of being to the left of the Republicans – Clinton is a member of the distinctly pro-corporate Democratic Leadership Council! – and any classification scheme that lumps them in with Chomsky, Galloway and Chavez needs work, to put it mildly.

[QUOTE=DevNull]
And to a lesser extent, but still attempt to pose a danger to individual freedoms via leftist ideals:

George Bush
Micheal Moore
[/quote]

  1. In what sense are Bush’s ideals “leftist”?

  2. In what way does Moore “pose a danger to individual freedoms”?

[QUOTE=DevNull]
And the intelligent leftists of my lifetime:

James Burnham
Whitaker Chambers
Sidney Hook
David Horowitz
Arthur Koestler
Irving Kristol
Dick Morris
[/QUOTE]

Everyone on that list is a leftist who turned against, or at least became disillusioned with the leftist movement(s) of his time (except for Dick Morris, who was never a leftist at all). Is that your working definition of an “intelligent leftist”?

297

Quick question? George W. Bush or George H. W. Bush?

298

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Clinton, Boxer and Franken are not “leftists” in any meaningful sense but that of being to the left of the Republicans
[/quote]

Republicans are quite left as it is nowadays.

The DLC is a leftist organization. Race-based hiring preferences, global equality through environmental restrictions, globalization, and global subservience in the marketplace, economic “equality” through trade reform, government paid health insurance for the unemployed, etc.

Pro-corporate is the first step to controlling the corporations. How about pro-Capitalism instead. Government cannot control an individual as easy as the goernment can control a corporation.

The DLC does not support, encourage, or allow for individuality or freedom of business.

Seeing as how I am not trying to change anyone’s mind, then I have no work to do at all. You may take it or leave it. You are free to do so. If you wish a specific concern addressed, then do not expect me to rewrite my statement or supplement my statement unless you ask for a specific angle or something specific to expound on.

Subverting the will of the US to the will of the UN.
Allotting free monies to foreign countries in the spirit of equality.
Attempting to give equality to illegal aliens on par with the citizens of the US
Taking my monies at the point of a gun to pay for drugs for the elderly
Appeasement instead of annihilation in the middle east.
Paving the road to free health care

By glorifying leftist ideals and selectively demonizing individual freedoms in a childish way that appeals to the uneducated.

The Clintons are leftists. Dick Morris was a servant of the leftists, not a spy or a dupe or a bipartisan. Dick Morris was a leftist.

He was dumped by the Clintons in 1996.

He is the most contemporary, but not most intelligent, leftist on my list.

No. It just happens that way a lot.

299

[QUOTE=DevNull]
Republicans are quite left as it is nowadays.
[/quote]

There aren’t enough :rolleyes: .

[QUOTE=DevNull]
The DLC is a leftist organization. Race-based hiring preferences, global equality through environmental restrictions, globalization, and global subservience in the marketplace, economic “equality” through trade reform, government paid health insurance for the unemployed, etc.

Pro-corporate is the first step to controlling the corporations. How about pro-Capitalism instead. Government cannot control an individual as easy as the goernment can control a corporation.

The DLC does not support, encourage, or allow for individuality or freedom of business.
[/quote]

Dude, you’ve got it just backwards. The DLC is one of the many institutions through which the corporation control the government.

[QUOTE=DevNull]
Subverting the will of the US to the will of the UN.
[/quote]

:confused: Not so’s you’d notice it!

[QUOTE=DevNull]
Allotting free monies to foreign countries in the spirit of equality.
[/quote]

What? We’ve been giving out foreign aid regularly since the end of WWII.

[QUOTE=DevNull]
Attempting to give equality to illegal aliens on par with the citizens of the US
[/quote]

That is not because Bush has a leftist agenda, it is because he has a corporate agenda. The business interests want abundant, cheap immigrant labor.

[QUOTE=DevNull]
Taking my monies at the point of a gun to pay for drugs for the elderly
[/quote]

If you’re going to object to that, in those terms, you’ll have to object to the concept of taxation as such, and lose all credibility in the process.

[QUOTE=DevNull]
Appeasement instead of annihilation in the middle east.
[/quote]

Two wars =! appeasement, and please don’t try to tell me “annihilation” is a conservative goal!

[QUOTE=DevNull]
Paving the road to free health care
[/quote]

Only if by “paving” you mean “being dragged along kicking and screaming every inch of the way.”

[QUOTE=DevNull]
By glorifying leftist ideals and selectively demonizing individual freedoms in a childish way that appeals to the uneducated.
[/quote]

The only “individual freedom” Moore has ever demonized is firearms ownership. (The freedom of CEO Roger Smith to lay off his auto workers in Flint, Michigan, is not an “individual freedom.”)

300

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
What? We’ve been giving out foreign aid regularly since the end of WWII.
[/quote]

And we have had leftist social programs since the 1930s.

That does not make them any less un-American.

A leftist ideal is a leftist ideal no matter what you think about it. If you want to explain president GW Bush’s leftist actions and leftist ideals by pretending you are inside his brain then be my guest.

You asked me for his leftist ideals and you are getting them. I never said he had a leftist agenda.

The US Constitution provided for taxation and I support the US Constitution on taxation. The US Constitution did not provide for social programs for the elderly, yet, here we are… with socialized health programs.

If you want to drag conservative into this then go start another thread. We are talking about leftists. I never mentioned conservatives nor did I mention what a conservative goal is. Such dishonesty seems to pour from your posts.

Appeasement is a leftist ideal and the administration of president GW Bush is doing quite well on appeasing his opponents in every theatre.

President Bush appeased the socialists with free medication for the elderly.

This paves the way for more appeasement since there is little Constitutional complaint of the leftist components of the social program.

I am a proponent of individual health care. I am an individual and as an American who supports the Constitution of the USA, I do not want my health care collectivized in any way. The poisoning of weaker minds by the leftist ideals espoused in Moore’s latest movies is of an overwhelmingly anti-Constitutional bend… you know as in the Constitution has failed the People in the arena of health care and the USA is beaten by socialist health care systems.

I don’t like the idea of a childish cherry-picking to push leftist health agendas. That is very un-American.