You sir, are an idiot. Do not let yourself near any sharp objects, pills or candy, or the internet. Do not fuck anyone, we do not need another generation of imbeciles from your ancestral line.
Ask, and you shall receive; knock and it shall be opened to you.
If I had the photoshop chops, I’d do Eva Longoria going down on Richard Jefferson’s wife.
… Oh please, oh please, oh please …
Yeah, between this and their stance on the Ground Zero mosque, the ADL has seemed quite eager about sucking up to the right wing lately.
Sitnam
November 19, 2010, 4:23pm
46
Fail.
[quote=]Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right. [10][11][12][13][14][15]
River_Hippie:
I listen to NPR all day, nearly everyday. The last year or more I find myself wondering when Fox bought NPR. IMHO, it seems that there are more conservatives spouting Teapublican babble, nearly unchallenged, on NPR than there ever were in the past. Also the call in shows like Diane Rehm and On Point take plenty of calls from conservative listeners. So NPR definitely has conservative listeners.
No accident. The right wing is taking over some of the top positions. Liberals are getting moved out and more conservatives are coming in.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200512150013 Conservative think tanks dominate the experts interviewed on NPR.
But Media Matters is a liberal organization! Their goal is to make conservatives look bad, and thus they can’t be trusted! :rolleyes:
(That’s the standard response I get from far-righters when I cite Media Matters.)
There was such thing, once, kindasorta . . . See Strasserism. But the Night of Long Knives put an end to all that once and for all.
:rolleyes: Yes, yes . . .
Early in his political career, Adolf Hitler regarded economic issues as relatively unimportant. In 1922, Hitler proclaimed that “world history teaches us that no people has become great through its economy but that a people can very well perish thereby”, and later concluded that “the economy is something of secondary importance”. [1] Hitler and the Nazis held a very strong idealist conception of history, which held that human events are guided by small numbers of exceptional individuals following a higher ideal. They believed that all economic concerns, being purely material, were unworthy of their consideration. Hitler went as far as to blame all previous German governments since Bismarck of having “subjugated the nation to materialism” by relying more on peaceful economic development instead of expansion through war.[2]
For these reasons, the Nazis never had a clearly defined economic programme. The original “Twenty-Five Point Programme” of the party, adopted in 1920, listed several economic demands (including “the abolition of all incomes unearned by work,” “the ruthless confiscation of all war profits,” “the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations,” “profit-sharing in large enterprises,” “extensive development of insurance for old-age,” and “land reform suitable to our national requirements”),[3] but the degree to which the Nazis supported this programme in later years has been questioned. Several attempts were made in the 1920s to change some of the program or replace it entirely. For instance, in 1924, Gottfried Feder proposed a new 39-point program that kept some of the old planks, replaced others and added many completely new ones.[4] Hitler refused to allow any discussion of the party programme after 1925, ostensibly on the grounds that no discussion was necessary because the programme was “inviolable” and did not need any changes. At the same time, however, Hitler never voiced public support for the programme and many historians argue that he was in fact privately opposed to it. Hitler did not mention any of the planks of the programme in his book, Mein Kampf, and only talked about it in passing as “the so-called programme of the movement”.[5]
Hitler’s views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that “we are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system”,[6] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism “has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism,” saying that “Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”[7] At a later time, Hitler said: “Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether… What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.”[8] In private, Hitler also said that “I absolutely insist on protecting private property… we must encourage private initiative”.[9] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[10] Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party’s strengths, saying: “The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all.”[11] While not espousing a specific economic philosophy, Hitler employed anti-semitic themes to attack economic systems in other countries, associating ethnic Jews with both communism (“Jewish Bolsheviks”) and capitalism, both of which he opposed.[12][13] Hitler also believed that individuals within a nation battled with each other for survival, and that such ruthless competition was good for the health of the nation, because it promoted “superior individuals” to higher positions in society.[14]
Frank:
Yes. One of the reasons for the Rohm purge was that the SA expected the revolution to continue along the lines of the early platform. The big-capital funders of the Nazi Party’s electoral victories were scared shitless of that.
Hitler, knowing which side buttered his bread, made a choice and the rest, of course, is history.
Another reason was that Rohm expected he would be the real leader of Germany, once his SA absorbed or supplanted the German Army, which (thanks to the limitations of the Versailles Treaty) had only a fraction of the SA’s numbers. And Hitler didn’t like that one little bit.
Saltire
December 17, 2010, 6:51pm
54
Nitpick: Big Bird is on PBS, which is not the same thing as NPR.
This bugs me because I work for a PBS affiliate, and we’ve gotten a lot of Juan Williams backlash we don’t deserve (though NPR doesn’t deserve it, either).
Ve haff vays of makink you learn!
Today’s epizode ist brought to you by ze number 88!
Weapons grade unobtainium.
So… Wouldn’t that actually be moving them back to the center..?
Well, the extreme center.
Damn those extreme centrists!