11/13/10
Comments:
Dr. Altemeyer.
Addendum to a previous post on your rules for this forum.
I think that it should be noted that the central topic of "The Authoritarians" is to effect American politics, using Canadian tax-payer's resources. That is your call to action.
Please let everyone know if that is not the case, or please ensure that the focus should not be on politics?
11/13/10
Comments:
Dr. Altemeyer.
Your reply to Sean is incorrect in it's basis. The fact remains that Nixon was pardoned from future prosecution. This is very dis-similar to your intrepertation of pardoning someone from a convicted crime.
Your inability to recognize and communicate facts is woefully inadequate. I wonder if this has always been the case, or is it the result of some recent mental malady? How much of your work needs to be discounted from your lack of analytical ability?
11/13/10
Comments:
Dr. Altemeyer.
As previously shown the list of left-wing violence is pronounced in recent events.
Are you going to provide proof of your statement that: "I should also point out that sometimes left-wingers attack right-wingers. But the list of such attacks is comparatively short."
Or do I get to chalk this up as another lie in a long string of lies by yourself?
Do you think that your Canadian funded little war on the US will bring you and honorary postnomials? You defected from the US to Canada and no nobility?
Dr. Robert Altemeyer, U.E. <--- in your wet dreams?
Sorry, this is a private entry which is only viewable by the owner.
[View Entry]
11/13/10
Comments:
Miguel.
A full description of the Nazi enacted economic policy is Statism or Corporatism. Similar to too-big-to-fail banks are bailed out and citizens are legally forced to purchase financial products from approved companies (Obamacare).
http://mises.org/daily/3274
11/13/10
Comments:
Dr. Altemeyer.
I understand that simple math is generally beyond the comprehension of a liberal, but I will try...
If Miguel and I post the likely conclusion a rational person makes is that, yes, we vote to continue the discussion.
The current tally would be 2 votes for, and none against. I read GW's comment that he just wants th ban me outright, since he is somehow afraid of the truth and expanding his knowledge.
I understand your desire to ban me. As you have shown an inability to debate facts.
Could you please post all your rules for this forum and the punishment you impose for breaking your rules, so all can understand? After these are posted, I wish for you to review the entire thread an ban all according to your rules.
11/12/10
Comments:
Dr. Altemeyer...Fair enough, I'll check in next month.
I was wondering if you had any comment on this. I find the correlation between religiousness and fear of "the bad thing" interesting...especially that the author has postulated it and you have found evidence of it empirically. Is Believing In God Evolutionarily Advantageous?
11/12/10
Comments:
Doug...Surely you understand the difference between what the politicians say and what they implement. Post Weimar Germany, if anything, was a centralized command economy, not socialism. The difference is that socialism is for the benefit of the workers, not in furtherance of military conquest. Hitler himself said that socialism was a Jewish conspiracy.
Interestingly the US did similar things in WWII economically. Nationalizing elements of industry, compelling recycling, rationing food, controlling wages...it had the same effect the mobilization did in Germany, it pulled them (and us) out of a catastrophic economic situation.
The point is that a centralized somewhat socialized economy is not necessarily a totalitarian state.
11/12/10
Comments:
Doug...Surely you understand the difference between what the politicians say and what they implement. Post Weimar Germany, if anything, was a centralized command economy, not socialism. The difference is that socialism is for the benefit of the workers, not in furtherance of military conquest. Hitler himself said that socialism was a Jewish conspiracy.
Interestingly the US did similar things in WWII economically. Nationalizing elements of industry, compelling recycling, rationing food, controlling wages...it had the same effect the mobilization did in Germany, it pulled them (and us) out of a catastrophic economic situation.
The point is that a centralized
11/12/10
Comments:
I'm repeating here the gist of a message I posted on Nov. 10, viz.
If this debate between Doug and Miguel has an audience, let me know here. That is, if there are people who want this back-and-forth to continue here, say so. If there are not a lot of supporters, I'm going to ask Doug and Miguel to "take it outside."
So far no one has said s(he) wants this back-and-forth to continue here, which is definitely not a lot of supporters. As I explained earlier, it seems their debate is having a chilling effect on others' posting. So unless I get a lot of comments here saying this is worthwhile and meaningful, I'm going to ask Doug and Miguel to have their debate somewhere else. In that event, I shall block postings from one or both if they keep it up.
11/12/10
Comments:
I guess I should pull McVeigh from the list.High RWA folks only commit violence when they have been granted permission by a higher authority...be that god, governmental ideology, or some other Authority. They are cowards otherwise, afraid to do individual things and accept personal responsibility. This is why the religion thing is so persuasive, it frees them of personal moral responsibility.
As for what is in the "general welfare" I go with everything that we can't or won't do better on our own. There are three branches. 1) Things we do to ourselves that are demonstrably opposed to the "general welfare" of the nation, drugs, lack of immunization. 2) Things we do poorly for ourselves or are too capital intensive, health care, retirement, water, roads...that can be shown to increase the general welfare of the nation. 3) Things we need protected from, pollution, predatory corps, criminals, foreign aggression.
Each has a decreasing threshold as to where it is acceptable to abridge personal freedoms.
11/12/10
Comments:
Miguel.
I thought that your middle-class plan was novel. I now find out that Hitler proposed it before you....
My challenge to you is to find a single item on which the Nazis agree with free-market capitalists. Just one. 1. Uno.
The Nazis tell us exactly what their economic philosophy is. It is socialism.
The National-Socialist German Worker's party was socialist.
The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Nazi) party of Germany had the following platform. (25 point plan)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program?wasRedirected=true
------------
We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:
Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
11/12/10
Comments:
Doug...Are you all still calling the NAZI's socialists? That's a laugh. Regardless it DOES point out why us sane, curious, thinking people should be scared of high RWA folks like NAZI's, and Stalinists...they are manifestly dangerous because, like you, they don't think they've ever made a mistake or are capable of error. And they have what ever passes for divine inspiration to fall back on.
In the US the majority of high RWA are religious conservatives and economic conservatives ...why should I NOT be scared?
You are they.
11/12/10
Comments:
Doug...are you familiar with the term plutocracy...and plutonomy pages 4 and 11 are instructive a little op-ed with some graphs so you can get an idea what's going on.
The conclusion I would draw is that the taxation of the upper 5% is too low and that given the disparity in the growth of income and net worth they are getting a free ride on the US economy.
11/12/10
Comments:
To Sean NY: You are right about Nixon not having to accept his pardon to have it come into effect, and I should have stated things differently.
However, I understand from my vast knowledge of American law (precisely 15 minutes old and entirely limited to the Wikipedia entry for Gerald Ford) that a 1915 Supreme Court ruling ("Burdick vs. US") states that a pardon indicates a presumption of guilt and acceptance of a pardon is tantamount to a confession of that guilt.
Now the precedent does not stick to the Ford-Nixon situation enough to save my rhetorical virtue. It said that when someone appears in court and produces evidence of the pardon to avoid prosecution, he has accepted it. Nixon was never brought to trial. So you remain right and I remain wrong.
What I meant was that Nixon's silence indicated guilt. He did not protest his innocence and say a pardon was an insult. He did not even say he was innocent but was glad to be spared the indignity and expense of numerous trials. He just quietly watched the pardon happen, and that was a public acceptance of it. To his supporters that could have been an admission of guilt, but so many of them still said by the fall of 1974 that Nixon had committed no crimes.
|