Martial Law

[unionguy]

And as for Hitler, he hated democrats and democracies. But that's not the same as the party you are thinking of. Democrats in Germany during the '30s were advocating for a democratic fatherland.
He was a labor backed lefty all the way. Stand for the little guy, and hold him up to be superior.
That's how he got where he did.
Progressives?!? More like re-gressives.[/QUOTE]

Actually most of the trade union movement in Germany opposed Hitler...and they were rounded up, arrested, and often shot/sent to concentration camps by him.

Hitler's rise to power was through Brownshirts in the streets, won elections with incredible "branding" and "messaging, and a cozy deal with the Industrialists (i.e. the major corporations at the time) who he'd convinced that he'd be good for business...which he was (for about 12 years anyway).

 

[shibbershabber]

I love how both sides play party politics while pretending that they are not.

The two party, corporate sponsored system is the problem. No one has the cajones to try and change it... they'd probably be assassinated if they did.

 

[tinman]

If hitler hated democrats why did he get along so well with one of the kennedies. Seems like from what I have read they thought along the same lines.

 

[Trlsmn]

Please, stop comparing Hitler to Obama!!

... because at least Hitler got the Olympics to come to Berlin!

 

[Chee-to]

Please, stop comparing Hitler to Obama!!

... because at least Hitler got the Olympics to come to Berlin!

 

[Gunner3456]

As for who is/was "right wing" and who is/was "left wing" including Hitler, the answer is simple.

Please imagine that you drew a straight horizontal line on a piece of paper. At the far left of that line you'd write "left" and at the far right you'd write "right." All political beliefs would fall somewhere along that line, from extreme to extreme.

Those farthest to the left would believe in more government and more government control. There we would find progressives, most liberals, communists, socialists, Marxists and fascists.

Those to the extreme right would be anarchists, believing there should be little or no control of people by government at all. Our founders were much closer to the right than the left. They set up a republic of states with very and specifically limited powers of the federal government. They wanted to maximize individual liberty and freedom from government.

Hitler was a fascist. The difference between a socialist and a fascist is that with true socialism, the government owns everything including the means of production. This occurs with communism, an extreme of socialism.

With fascism, the private sector still "owns" the means of production but the government controls it. The taking over of control of our automakers and banks by the government smacks of fascism. California's notorious rent control laws smack of fascism.

Since the right wing wants little to no government control and maximum individual freedom, Hitler could have been only a far leftist - a fascist - with maximum government control of virtually everything.

 

[JUSTIficatioN]

I'm preparing by having a plan that will ensure my loved ones and my safety ( a place to go to that isn't the city), I dont think that there is a direct corelation betweem our new president and hitler, but a corealtion between the way both governments are run is very similar, fascism basically.

 

[dario541]

As for who is/was "right wing" and who is/was "left wing" including Hitler, the answer is simple.

Please imagine that you drew a straight horizontal line on a piece of paper. At the far left of that line you'd write "left" and at the far right you'd write "right." All political beliefs would fall somewhere along that line, from extreme to extreme.

Those farthest to the left would believe in more government and more government control. There we would find progressives, most liberals, communists, socialists, Marxists and fascists.

Those to the extreme right would be anarchists, believing there should be little or no control of people by government at all. Our founders were much closer to the right than the left. They set up a republic of states with very and specifically limited powers of the federal government. They wanted to maximize individual liberty and freedom from government.

Hitler was a fascist. The difference between a socialist and a fascist is that with true socialism, the government owns everything including the means of production. This occurs with communism, an extreme of socialism.

With fascism, the private sector still "owns" the means of production but the government controls it. The taking over of control of our automakers and banks by the government smacks of fascism. California's notorious rent control laws smack of fascism.

Since the right wing wants little to no government control and maximum individual freedom, Hitler could have been only a far leftist - a fascist - with maximum government control of virtually everything.

This is well written and I agree with you. We are both on the same page. While adoring Communism, the Left in America has denied that Hitler was on their side for years but FACTS ARE FACTS. Hitler and Stalin were birds of a feather - cold blooded killers who destroyed anyone who got in their way (Hitler with the Jews and Stalin with the Ukranians).

 

[capdek]

As for who is/was "right wing" and who is/was "left wing" including Hitler, the answer is simple.

Please imagine that you drew a straight horizontal line on a piece of paper. At the far left of that line you'd write "left" and at the far right you'd write "right." All political beliefs would fall somewhere along that line, from extreme to extreme.

Those farthest to the left would believe in more government and more government control. There we would find progressives, most liberals, communists, socialists, Marxists and fascists.

Those to the extreme right would be anarchists, believing there should be little or no control of people by government at all. Our founders were much closer to the right than the left. They set up a republic of states with very and specifically limited powers of the federal government. They wanted to maximize individual liberty and freedom from government.

Hitler was a fascist. The difference between a socialist and a fascist is that with true socialism, the government owns everything including the means of production. This occurs with communism, an extreme of socialism.

With fascism, the private sector still "owns" the means of production but the government controls it. The taking over of control of our automakers and banks by the government smacks of fascism. California's notorious rent control laws smack of fascism.

Since the right wing wants little to no government control and maximum individual freedom, Hitler could have been only a far leftist - a fascist - with maximum government control of virtually everything.

This definition of "left" versus "right" puts the emphasis on the degree to which the government dominates the day-to-day lives of the people, and with this definition, I consider myself most certainly right-of-center. However, there are those that define "left" versus "right" with an emphasis on the degree to which the "workers" (that is, the majority of the "people", but not necessarily the "government"), as opposed to "corporations", control the economic means-of-production, and with this definition, I consider myself more centrist.

Under the first definition, Hitler and Nazi Germany would be defined as "far leftist", and under the second definition, they would be defined as "moderately rightist". Modern-day China, and to a somewhat lesser degree, modern-day Russia, would also be considered "leftist" according to the first definition and "moderately rightist" according to the second definition. However, China under Mao, and the Soviet Union under Stalin, were definitely "far leftist" according to both definitions.

And what about the United States? It seems the founding fathers, when they wrote the constitution, envisioned limited government that is subservient to the people. This would have to be seen as "rightist" according to the first definition. But I don't think the founders envisioned a nation that would eventually come to be economically dominated by multi-national corporations that kill jobs here in U.S. and shift them overseas in order to maximize profits. Yet that is exactly what we see happening in the U.S. today. The Democrats claim to be addressing this issue somewhat more than the Republicans, however, in trying to move the country a little bit to the left according to the second definition, they have not been able to resist the temptation to move the country a whole bunch to the left according to the first definition! And what about the Republicans? Until recently, they have felt it better to stay to the right according to the second definition in order to prevent a shift to the left according to the first definition. But like all governments are prone to do over time, they have succumbed to the temptation to grow government under the pretext of "national security", and are thus slowly shifting the country to the left according to the first definition, while keeping the country to the right according to the second definition. So we have the Democrats moving the country rapidly to the left according to the first definition and slowly to the left according to the second definition, and we have the Republicans moving the country slowly to the left according to the first definition while keeping the country to the right according to the second definition. The key problem is that both parties are moving the country to the left according to the first definition, and I'm pretty sure this is not what the founding fathers had in mind. Luckily, the founding founders had the wisdom to realize this tendency for government to move to the left according to the first definition, and this is precisely why they gave us the second amendment to the constitution!
Just my $0.02 on the topic for what it's worth.

 

[el gringo loco]

Comments in COMMUNIST RED

I don't think we can compare O. to Hitler just yet, but his rise to power is clearly similar.In that they were both elected? I don't recall Hitler being a Constitutional Lawyer turned Community Activist turned legislator turned Senator turned leader of a country.

I read several interesting remarks, the first wondering about Hitler's genocide, and where is O's, if we're comparing. Well, how about his approval and endorsement for the slaughter of the unborn? How many a day? Between 3700 and 4000. But we've always had that, you might say, even under Republican presidents. But O. wants them federally funded.Abortion=genocide? This is just rhetoric--using a word that invokes really bad emotions/images to describe something completely different. Regardless of you opinion on abortion, I think it is very disingenuous to compare a President allowing a legal medical procedure to take place (federally funded or not) and someone who rounded up people based on their religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and political affiliation and systematically killed them.

The second really interesting one was that O. is a friend of Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth. O. is a Muslim. He thinks is a friend of the Muslims. He's making the same mistakes Carter made. The Muslim world will never respect him, even with his bullying of Israel. President Obama is a Christian. You may choose not to believe it, but he says he is. The problem with a lot of these arguments against Obama is that they are based on the assertion that he is lying or "what he really means is..." NOT any actual evidence/statements/etc. Perhaps Obama will be more stern with Israel than some would like, but a US President will NEVER EVER be able to broker peace if he is seen to be taking Israel's side on every single last issue.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but with O.'s falling ratings I think that he will declare martial law before the next election. Everything is being put into place.With most of the Armed Forces deployed and a surge likely in the making, where are these troops going to come from? Besides, we have an armed populace and a culture that glorifies people who defy authority. Not an easy populace to oppress (even with the hippies). As an aside, Republicans wanted to use troops in our own country to secure the borders. Cheney wanted to use them to arrest terror suspects. Both of those situations seem like much more plausible attempts at imposing martial law.

There are a lot of things you could have said to further relations with people on the other side of the debate,...
That was the opposing one.
Now we KNOW you are all for "the Obama way or the highway" stance. You have bought into his dictatorship agenda.

OK, I am not "all for the Obama way or the highway." I don't think he is nearly aggressive enough on labor issues, the war, healthcare, or economic policy. I flat out disagree with him on other issues. What I don't agree with, and what I'll call out a lefty out on in a heartbeat too, is when folks throw out an assertion and supply nothing to back up what they are saying. There are lots of valid reasons to criticize Obama from both sides of the political spectrum, but mindless rhetoric and name-calling cheapens the debate.

You say I "have bought into his dictatorship agenda." Well, a guy who continually strives to make compromises with the minority party, no matter how fruitless, simply to try to garner a handful of votes does not seem like a dictator. A guy who subcontracts the writing of the most high-profile piece of legislation of his presidency to congressional committees does not sound like a dictator.

The fact is that elections have consequences. The Democrats are in power and I see no problem with using that power to accomplish their goals. Republicans, when in power, have done the exact same thing. A President's effectiveness is not judged on how "bipartisan" he has been, but on how well he accomplishes his agenda. While I did not agree with most of GW Bush's agenda, I did not presume to call it dictatorial when he strong-armed congress into doing his bidding.

The two party, corporate sponsored system is the problem.

At least the largest contributing factor.

Please, stop comparing Hitler to Obama!!

... because at least Hitler got the Olympics to come to Berlin!

I need to add this to my HOT/COLD list

 

[Gunner3456]

This definition of "left" versus "right" puts the emphasis on the degree to which the government dominates the day-to-day lives of the people, and with this definition, I consider myself most certainly right-of-center. However, there are those that define "left" versus "right" with an emphasis on the degree to which the "workers" (that is, the majority of the "people", but not necessarily the "government"), as opposed to "corporations", control the economic means-of-production, and with this definition, I consider myself more centrist.

Under the first definition, Hitler and Nazi Germany would be defined as "far leftist", and under the second definition, they would be defined as "moderately rightist". Modern-day China, and to a somewhat lesser degree, modern-day Russia, would also be considered "leftist" according to the first definition and "moderately rightist" according to the second definition. However, China under Mao, and the Soviet Union under Stalin, were definitely "far leftist" according to both definitions.

And what about the United States? It seems the founding fathers, when they wrote the constitution, envisioned limited government that is subservient to the people. This would have to be seen as "rightist" according to the first definition. But I don't think the founders envisioned a nation that would eventually come to be economically dominated by multi-national corporations that kill jobs here in U.S. and shift them overseas in order to maximize profits. Yet that is exactly what we see happening in the U.S. today. The Democrats claim to be addressing this issue somewhat more than the Republicans, however, in trying to move the country a little bit to the left according to the second definition, they have not been able to resist the temptation to move the country a whole bunch to the left according to the first definition! And what about the Republicans? Until recently, they have felt it better to stay to the right according to the second definition in order to prevent a shift to the left according to the first definition. But like all governments are prone to do over time, they have succumbed to the temptation to grow government under the pretext of "national security", and are thus slowly shifting the country to the left according to the first definition, while keeping the country to the right according to the second definition. So we have the Democrats moving the country rapidly to the left according to the first definition and slowly to the left according to the second definition, and we have the Republicans moving the country slowly to the left according to the first definition while keeping the country to the right according to the second definition. The key problem is that both parties are moving the country to the left according to the first definition, and I'm pretty sure this is not what the founding fathers had in mind. Luckily, the founding founders had the wisdom to realize this tendency for government to move to the left according to the first definition, and this is precisely why they gave us the second amendment to the constitution!
Just my $0.02 on the topic for what it's worth.

I agree with you, and imho there isn't much difference between the democrats and the republicans in many matters which greatly affect the country.

I don't use "republican" synonymously with "the right." I see most of them as well left of center - most approving of more and more government control.

As far as evil corporations, they need to be left alone to create wealth and jobs. Those who cheat and steal should go to jail and the rest should be appreciated (along with small businesses) for keeping the engine of the economy running.

 

[Randini]

Is this topic still about Martial Law or did I walk in the wrong door

 

[Trlsmn]

Is this topic still about Martial Law or did I walk in the wrong door

Ah heck I thought this was about marital law, thus the Hitler comparisons!

 

[Gunner3456]

Ah heck I thought this was about marital law, thus the Hitler comparisons!

Exactly where I was going with all of this. How many ways can you define martial law, as opposed to how many scenarios, belief systems, and types of leaders would declare martial law?

I can just define martial law in one short paragraph.

 

[Randini]

I'am looking at global finance right now and the attacks on the Dollar, <broken link removed>

Right now with our unemployment and unstable "new Economy" (I get that from the nightly news) I could see civil unrest and that opening the door for MARTIAL LAW down the road, just look at the hardest hit cities like Detroit "Chaos erupts at Cobo as thousands jockey for aid"
<broken link removed>
now think of this times ten in every large city, it could happen!
BTW Hitler did get the volkswagen online for the working class and to honor his mom what a guy.

 

[Gunner3456]

The attack on the dollar is from within the US. The insane spending and printing and creation of more dollars is causing the value to drop like a rock.

This will result in other countries turning away from the dollar as the global trading currency, and force us to join an international currency much as has happened with the Euro on a smaller scale.

Our one-world government lovers (progressives) need to bring us into an international currency. This is deliberate.

BTW, did you note that Obama signed an international treaty at the G-20 last month agreeing to let the International Monetary Fund (IMF) audit our banking system and money supply actions?

There are lots of people in high places who believe that they can bring world peace and prosperity with a one-world government. This is one of the reasons they like to see our jobs and economy flow to third world countries. It's "fairness" and "equality." Follow the money first.

 

[dario541]

In the coming "NEW WORLD ODOR" the United States will be a bit player to the rest of the world - sort of like Rhode Island is to today's United States. And, ALL of the freedoms and Rights that we used to take for granted will be LONG GONE! RIP - the Late Great United States.

 

[Trlsmn]

LONG GONE! RIP - the Late Great United States, death by suicide.

Fixed!

 

[RobertJ.]

Hey Crazy White Man!

Obama is a Christian? Please! He is anything but!

A Christian is someone who recognizes Jesus Christ as the true Son of God, who bled and died for us. That's what puts the "Christ" in "Christian.

Did you listen to his pastor of 20 years, and the hate that spewed from him? As a "Christian", how could he have sat and listened to that garbage for that long?

O. has recently stated that we are not a Christian nation. If he had actually read what our founding fathers wrote, he would have known that they all were.

O. also stated in his book, that he will stand with the Muslims should the political winds turn ugly. Wow.

More later.

 

[el gringo loco]

Hey Crazy White Man!

Obama is a Christian? Please! He is anything but!

A Christian is someone who recognizes Jesus Christ as the true Son of God, who bled and died for us. That's what puts the "Christ" in "Christian.

Did you listen to his pastor of 20 years, and the hate that spewed from him? As a "Christian", how could he have sat and listened to that garbage for that long?

O. has recently stated that we are not a Christian nation. If he had actually read what our founding fathers wrote, he would have known that they all were.

O. also stated in his book, that he will stand with the Muslims should the political winds turn ugly. Wow.

More later.

Okay, let's say Obama is a Muslim. How does that change anything? I elected a Commander in Chief not a Pastor in chief. I could care less what his religion is.

Not to point out the flaws in your logic but, how is it that a Muslim had a Christian pastor (albeit an angry one) for 20 years?

"Christian Nation"--I interpret this phrase to mean a majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. We have separation of church and state in this country and I fail to see how the religion of my founding fathers, my president, or any one else in government matters unless they have some religious belief that would prevent them from carrying out their sworn duties.