I never really understood why white supremacists and nazis were considered right wing. They advocate collectivism, corporatism, and less free trade as much as communists or socialists. They just go about it a different way. They would have gotten along very well with Karl Marx who hated Jews, Poles and other European minorities.
They're just racist fascists. The truth that no committed leftist will ever admit is that fascism is simply a form of collectivism and has far more in common with their own philosophy than it does with a capitalist philosophy . Fascism is the inevitable evolution of socialism once socialism fails.
There is no extreme right violence anymore than there is any white-on-black violent crime. Instead of talking about something that does not exist, Krugman should start talking about the black-on-white violent crime crisis White America is mire in. This goyim-hating creep Krugman must explain to us all why is it that negroes are targeting and raping 35,000 white women each year, and why is it that blacks have killed more than one million White people since the 1964 civil rights bill was passed.
The Ron Paul drawing you show at the end seems like an indication of my own feelings that libertarianism, or constitutionalism is not so much extreme right as it is centrist. It may be radically centrist, or radically anti-statist or anti-planned economy. But, as you are probably aware, the original right wing of the French parliament favored royalty, the nobility and the church against the market and self direction.
I'm a liberal and I appreciate your effort at a civil conversation. Yes, guilt by association never has been a solid aguement style. However, I have heard many conservative pundants using very inflammatory talk to call lefties a threat to our democracy. All these nut jobs need is a little push to take action.
I'm a conservative and I appreciate YOUR effort at a civil conversation. Guilt by association is NOT an argument style. I've hear liberal pundits using very inflammatory talk to call wingnuts a threat to our Democracy. All these hippies need is a little push to take action.
Too many blanket statements for me to like this commentary Jack. Sorry. Most liberals I know aren't socialists or unAmerican. BUT I am happy you're not claiming "right wing nuts" are really "left wing nuts" like Hannity and other conservatives pundits are doing. Good for you.
Eelzen, you took the words right out of my mouth. Absolutely correct.
Brun was an isolated incident, but O'reilly who kept up the "Tiller the Baby killer" rhetoric may as well could've inspired Roder to commit the murder. Not sayin conservatives should'nt keep defending their values. First Admendment protects that.
What does Conservative have to do with Nazi? That makes no sense. Conservatives are first of all PATRIOTS. That is the opposite of Nazi philosophy which hates America and freedom.
Do you know what Nationalism is? Or what patriotism is?
Pride in one's country or people or principals. Nazi's were very patriotic to their country. American Conservatives are very patriotic to theirs. Though more so towards the political ideology the define(d) their respective nations. Conservatives, in theory, should champion the principles of the founding fathers- though the word for that brand is paleo-conservative. Nazis championed the principles of Hitler's Nazism, of course.
Both left and, right (Democrats and, Republicians) are lost in a world of thinking that each other are so important that they are responsible for all the problems each group deems as problems.
Von Brunn wasn't "right wing." He was anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist and, pro-Nazi. Check out the websites of those groups and, you'll find an entire idealogical world that despises mainstream talk radio.
That they can't see that tells me a lot about their lack of understanding and, knowledge.
Jack, the left will and always will remain stupid. But you must understand that TV and radio pundits on the right need to keep social issues out of the political spectrum since it serves no purposes other then divide the country.
the only dangerous thing the left does is give the right the necessary cards to do all the things that the right scaremongers about..
when the left is in power they go "if they enact gun control or expand federal & executive power or limit economic freedom for corporations then they might turn us into a surveillance state!!!!" and then once the Republicans get elected, they just skip the gun control part and take away out freedoms without all the little bullshit steps inbetween
Wrong, the worst terrorist attack in history was done by the military - Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Or has everyone forgotten that we dropped nuclear bombs on innocent civilians?
The dropping of atomic bombs saved more lives than it took by far. If you learned the reasons behind the atomic bombings then you would understand that the invasion of Japan would have cost millions of American and Japanese lives.
I guess that would be true, if it wasn't totally false.
Japan was already defeated, and had been trying to surrender to Allied forces. The US decided to bomb anyway to produce a psychological effect from the mass-murder of Japanese civilians.
Japan was defeated but that does not mean they were ready to surrender. The Emperor recorded a message to the people that Japan was going to surrender to the US military but his top generals hid it. The people wanted the war over but the military did not. The nuclear bombings ended the war.
No, I'm not retarded. I understand cause and effect. Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened if we would have minded our own business and never gotten involved in WWI or WWII. Maybe you should ask yourself if you have a mental deficiency problem. Also, killing innocent civilians isn't justifiable even if it is in retaliation. Sorry that my moral standards don't meet your criteria of what is just. What was that saying; "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", maybe you should think about that
We shouldn't have interfered in any nations business unless it conflicts with the liberty of our country. Your missing the point that if we wouldn't have gotten involved in the Great Wars we never would have been attacked by Japan. And calling innocent civilians military targets doesn't make it right. Military targets and terrorism are the same thing when they involve non-combatant personnel.
No Japan attacked us to keep us away from their destructive sweep across China where they raped murdered and pilaged. If their business is the invasion of another country then someone should step in.
That's just the interventionist foreign policy that caused Pearl Harbor and 9/11. The United States interfering in the affairs of other nations has lead to disastrous consequences for the American people. It creates more enemies than it stops. Diplomacy through communication, not through the barrel of a gun, is the proper way to oppose global injustices without yielding devastating retaliations upon American citizens.
So you have no problem with Japan marching across eastern Asia murdering people and destroying countries in the name of the emperor? We tried diplomacy and they still acted like they wanted peace literally to the hour that Pearl Harbor started. We tried communication but it failed.
So you have no problem with America marching across North America murdering people and destroying tribes in the name of the manifest dynasty?
We did not try diplomacy. We passed strict trade embargos on them after the rape of Nanking and Americans were joining the Chinese to fight the Japanese (of their own free will).
Not taking a side in this persay, but you need to be a bit more aware of what was going on, as well as the fact that the US in essence did the same thing. Repeatedly.
I never said I agree with what we did to the natives. I think they have been more than repaid for it but some might not agree.
I think diplomacy only works with those who truly want peace. Look at Nazi Germany and the allies. They tried diplomacy all the while Hitler broke treaties and limits on the size of his military equipment. You cannot talk to someone who is not listening.
I don't think Natives should be given special treatment, if that is what you are insinuating. My point was the US did basically the same thing the Japanese did. Right down to biological warfare.
You also need to look into Dewey's campaign in 1944. One of his major critiques of FDR was that the only 'peace' FDR (and Truman) would accept from the Axis was unconditional surrender. All of them preferred to fight to the bitter end over that and you know? I agree with that mentality. As for Hitler..
The treaties he broke were from World War One and the second reich, these treaties were a leading cause of his ascension to POWER. Essentially they were attempts by the French at petty revenge against the Germans- some of them were ridiculous (for instance, France gained the rights to all of Germany's coal mines- the massive debt of Germany also let to massive money printing to keep paying it and super inflation which impoverished the German people).
It is also of note that most diplomacy ended when Germany invaded Poland, the UK and France declared 'war' after that. The Phoney War. Where they essentially sat on their hands. =P
It has been said that the Polish weakened the German army a lot more than people realized and if France and the UK had pressed an offensive right then they would have won.
Yes I have a problem with it. It's wrong and unjustifiable. You nor I, however, have the right to take money from American tax payers without their consent and fight a war that doesn't defend them, but in fact makes them unsafe. It's a lack of imagination we have here. The only solution anyone as to problems like this is government interference. No one thinks for themselves. We also still have bases all over the world in the name of protecting people, so all in all it didn't turn out well.
Hey I am all for closing our foreign bases and bringing those troops home. The Cold War is over and the Soviets are not going to march across Eastern Europe, even if they did I say fuck them they can defend themselves, so we do not need those bases.
ok the way i see it is there are extremes on every side.the Crazies or fringers (as I like to call themare the ones whom do not care what there actions will do in the long run. People that hurt others to prove thier point are on both sides. there are also alot of people whom believe the same but won't hurt others to prove their point. The others whom won't need to point out the ones that do and get them help before they do something like burn down an animal testing lab or shoot a Dr. is bad.
Wiebo Ludwig - Convicted in 2001 for five bombing against oil & gas installations. There wasn't any fatalities, but considering the targets this was simple luck.
Marie Mason - burned a building containing records on GM potatoes developed for poor parts of Africa. Again death was avoided only by circumstances.
Not to mention the countless left-wing terrorist groups like RAF responsible for numerous cases of manslaughter. So go to hell with your stupid theory and try to live in the real world.
Nice piece, Jack. I was wondering when you were going to get another commentary out - it seems like it's been a while. This piece reminds me of the words of Charles Beard, who said, "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
Conservation of animals or trees is not an irrational idea. Calling Dr. Tiller a baby killer is irrational, and that kind of crap can stay on the air precisely because of the simplistic social conservatives that watch. Bill O'Reilly screams at his guests on the air. It's ridiculous. Find someone like that on the left and then make an analogy.
I can just as easily argue the opposite! There isn't a single eco-activist who is doing something useful for the nature, or have a brain for that matter. Usually those people are very poorly educated lunatics not much different then any regular punk or skin head.
And if you look from the pro-life nuts POV aborting is equal to killing.
If you want a comparison between the two most dumbest people in America compare - neocon dumb-fuck Bill O'Reilly with communist swine Bill Maher. Equally stupid!
Bill Maher is a communist? And saying there isn't a single eco activist doing something for nature is pretty dumb. You have to have pretty bad definitions of words for that to be true. I'm not going to look from the POV of a pro-life nut, because that would be irrational. I understand why they think that way (Christianity), but my point still stands that it's totally irrational. Calling abortion killing is pretty vague. Scratching your nose is killing your nose cells.
Well from what I saw of Maher he is communist. He supports socialized medicine, bailouts, government redistribution of wealth, social security and so on. The only anti-communist stance he takes are some social issues like legalization, war and gay marriage. His rhetoric is abusive, simplistic, uneducated and very poorly formulated. He appeals to basic self-defense instincts of people and uses numerous straw-men and ad hominem attacks against any opposite, to his own, view. Just like O'Reilly.
Bill Maher is a comedian. He has never incited crime as closely as Bill O'Reilly, and that is my point. Those things you listed are not part of the definition of communism, although they may be things a communist OR capitalist country can have. Bill O'Reilly is MUCH worse than just using straw-men and ad hominems. He employs pretty much every formal and informal logical fallacy in the book.
I still can't see how you can correlate speech with crime, but this always buzzelled me about people.
And no those things are not part of webster's definition of communism, but they are part of what any socialist or communist would do if he was in power. And again - NO they can never be part of capitalist society, only in socialist or fascist ones. Well you can incorporated them in the intermediate form where a capitalist society evolves in to it's socialist or fascist successor.
First of all, I did not correlate O'Reilly's little crusade with full on crime. And second of all, it would be pretty ironic to argue that there's legitimacy in comparing abortion to criminal killing when Dr. Tiller's actions were SPECIFICALLY non-criminal.
socialism isn't communism. talk radio and fox news would be great for society if they didn't constantly do the keep repeating the lie until it becomes true thing
As for those eco-activists name one and what did he do to help the environment. And signing a petition to ban dihydrogen-monoxide doesn't count :) .
And of course it is irrational, but the biggest problem is that pro-life nuts never try to put them selfs in place of the other side that leads them to killing.
Rationality is the only real way to judge anything clearly and without evaluating both sides you are just as irrational as the other guy.
I agree you have to evaluate both sides. They can't both be right, and sometimes they can both be wrong. But merely taking sides does not mean you didn't consider the other side. Bill O'Reilly never considers the other side. He refuses to ever acknowledge when someone presents the other side, and he literally says he doesn't care, and keeps pushing his points. As this video said, that's the definition of a fanatic.
I never said anything about censoring O'Reilly. I am merely arguing that he is a negative influence on society, because unfortunately people who aren't well educated don't realize that his arguments are not supported by logic, and that he literally lies on every show.
LMAO! Eco activists are often anti-human, and many of them don't actually do much for nature except whine. You do realize that it is actually possible to not be Christian and still find abortion unethical. The comparison to scratching your nose and killing epithelial cells is ridiculously off base. At some point, not too far into the pregnancy, a heart beat begins and a brain starts to develop. Not too long after that the fetus has the distinct ability to sense pain.
I don't know why you even try to argue with your generalizations. You can only say crazy stuff like that when you're preaching to the choir. Yes, other religious nutjobs will also find abortion unethical to have be legal. If you're talking about atheists, then you cannot say that with a straight face, unless you're arguing semantics and talking about 3rd trimester abortions or some such.
Again with your piss poor logic. You make laughably stereotypical generalizations followed by unsound analogical comparisons and then project onto others who disagree with you the notion that they're making generalizations. I'm sorry but I have to laugh. XD
In your nonsensical pea brain it's only religious nut jobs that could possibly object to abortion. I'm agnostic and I find terminating a human life for reasons of pure convenience unethical and I know damn well I'm not alone.
A human fetus has the ability to sense pain before the end of the first trimester. It reaches potential viability before the end of the second. Calling that anything other than killing (i.e. the termination of life) is arguing semantics. You're just trying to nice over with interchangeable words the horror of what you actually support. Wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that you're the sort of kook that thinks China's one child policy was a fantastic idea.
Your logical reasoning abilities suck. There is nothing even remotely irrational about finding the termination of human life unethical, and no matter how you cut it the fetus is alive and it is human. Perfectly rational people can find abortion objectionable when done for nothing more than convenience, especially when it occurs after the fetus has developed the ability to sense pain, and even more especially after the fetus has reached viability.
Fertility doctors and doctors who provide internal contraceptives, have been known to deem late term abortions medically necessary when in reality they're merely necessary to prevent the doctor from facing a malpractice suit.
The problem is that these murderers weren't influenced by people on the "extreme right". They were influenced by social conservatives. Social conservatives are the real evil in this country that we should all be fighting against whether we are on the extreme "right" or the extreme "left".
Ok let me get this straight - you say that these murderers were influenced by social conservatives and not the extreme right? Maybe you should get your little dictionary out and look up the words 'social' and 'conservative' and put them into context, because "social conservative" is to the left of "extreme right."
No it isn't. Left and Right describe different economic theories. The extreme left is socialism, and the extreme right is Laissez-faire capitalism. Social conservatism has nothing to do with economics, Joseph Stalin who was on the extreme left was an extreme social conservative as well.
I'm not an anti-abortion activist but the killing of george tiller was a perfectly defensible act from a christian point of view. If Christians hold that Tiller was a mass murderer then it his assassination was no worse than the killing of an SS concentration camp guard. It is in no way comparable to the mass murder of innocent civilians in Oklohoma.
this might come as a lightning on a sunny day but a true christian point of view is entirely subjective. you assume that christians are in agreement on their point of view.
you seem like just another thought collectivists and do not contribute to solutions. and yes I pass judgement because I'm arrogant.
My opinions and beleifs haven't changed, but the defintion of what side I'm on these past few months seems to have(according to the MSM). When Bush was in office, what I beleived was too liberal. Now that Obama is in offic, my beleifs are now considered to far right. I think it's all just a big distraction so we don't realize its business as usual in DC and nothing of real significance has changed in the last eight months. We fight each other so they don't have to. Nothing new.
nazism, fascism, socialism, communism, democracy, communitarianism, what-have-you, are all tyrannical collectivism - ie liberal amounts of government, straying from our original limited government... our guaranteed form of government (article IV, section 4) a republic - where the rule of law applies to all equally. what we need is individualism - which, we are not seeing from these friggin' collectivists on the "so-called 'right' or 'left'".
I don't understand how Nazi which means National Socialist German Workers Party was ever considered to have any elements of conservatism.. The Nazis were for big government, gun control, anti-personal liberty, anti-religious and anti-capitalist.
conservative just means you're pro tradition & liberal means you're pro change.
the nazis thought they were taking germany back to its pure aryan tradition or whatever, conservatives don't mind big govt as long as it's their own agenda being attended.
also, the nazis lifted gun control but banned jews from having guns liek early america did to blacks. they liked gun ownership, they just didn't like jews
No one should be silenced, but I guarantee it's no coincidence that right wing media tends to be driven by "angry white male" personalities who shout down their guests & callers.
Who were the last liberal terrorists to kill anyone -- Weather Underground or Black Panthers in the 70s?
The true meaning of the word liberal is tolerant, the true meaning of the word conservative is basicly fundamentalist.....
1.original black panthers were moreso conservatives. 2 bill clinton was the last liberal to indirectly kill 1/2 million kids in iraq. not to mention all those other invasions, democratic congress of bush terms did the same, as did the liberal neocons of team Bush. abortion clinics--the hallmark of enlightened population control through murder. Faux pseudo intellectual gibberish of left wing personalities also leads me to gaurantee that liberalism is not too virtuous,logical,practical,or tolerant
I thought the militant black panthers were Marxist revolutionaries.. ?
You could argue that abortion is murder but it's not terrorism because it's not intended to intimidate or achieve any political goals. Except for the new world order or what have you lol
Yeah but the difference is the Panthers or other radical black groups wanted their Civil Rights. Weather Underground wanted the war to end which many people agree with. The radical Right groups all have a FEAR of people who are not like them. You can end a war you can give civil rights but to end radical right you would have to make the country pure of one race while purging the others. That's unreasonable and almost always resorts in attacking minorities.
Ugh, my college uses Krugman's textbook on both of my economics classes. I feel like I have to be exorcised every time I leave my economics class. Perhaps I need to be cleansed of Keynesian "animal spirits" lol
lol, I have thought about it, but I will start doing so when I am closer to passing the class. I don't want the bias to affect my grade to the point of failing me.
I still have to figure out whether my professor is a Keynesian or not.
lol, i hear ya. in my speech class(should be renamed social marxism for beginners), while every1 was writing about the greatness of the latest left wing fad and feel good do goodism, i wrote why USA is sucking more day by day and why it's headed south, which did not go over too well with the students but surprisingly the teacher actually commended me, and then we got to talking and she was actually 180 of what i thought she was!! it was a revelation.
SA, Krugman needs to silence opposition to further his statist keynesian agenda. It would be highly unethical to be silent at this time. Keep pressing on decentralization, competing currencies and men like Krugman will matter no more.
I dont think its just about liberalism, remeber when the conservatives tried to silence us(ex-liberal) on the Iraq war issue. The reason then was that we were enboldening the insurgents.
Just look at the way journalist on the left and right tried to disown this guy, Glen becks camps tried to make him out as a left looney and Fox & co. as an extreme right.
So thats what it is, both side again playing with our emotions :)
Point well taken, but I would also note SA's point tht the Iraq War (and associated military adventurism) is inherently un-conservative in the traditional sense.
Defintely agreed that both sides are big on hyperbole; this is why we should turn off Fox and MSNBC and just watch YouTube lol
not really, it's utterly conservative to be logical in judgement about the use of military force, for it must be used for the interest and benefit of the nation, which requires not all embracing idealism in foreign policy but calculated judgemnt on it's use, beenfits and drawback which ultimately is more conservative than not.
I never really understood why white supremacists and nazis were considered right wing. They advocate collectivism, corporatism, and less free trade as much as communists or socialists. They just go about it a different way. They would have gotten along very well with Karl Marx who hated Jews, Poles and other European minorities.
xtremejohnny69 7 months ago
@xtremejohnny69
They're just racist fascists. The truth that no committed leftist will ever admit is that fascism is simply a form of collectivism and has far more in common with their own philosophy than it does with a capitalist philosophy . Fascism is the inevitable evolution of socialism once socialism fails.
roonalwazlib 6 months ago
There is no extreme right violence anymore than there is any white-on-black violent crime. Instead of talking about something that does not exist, Krugman should start talking about the black-on-white violent crime crisis White America is mire in. This goyim-hating creep Krugman must explain to us all why is it that negroes are targeting and raping 35,000 white women each year, and why is it that blacks have killed more than one million White people since the 1964 civil rights bill was passed.
WhiteyMcWhiteJr 10 months ago
Socialism sound better every day.
sphinxpress 1 year ago
The Ron Paul drawing you show at the end seems like an indication of my own feelings that libertarianism, or constitutionalism is not so much extreme right as it is centrist. It may be radically centrist, or radically anti-statist or anti-planned economy. But, as you are probably aware, the original right wing of the French parliament favored royalty, the nobility and the church against the market and self direction.
GBanville 2 years ago
Fanatacism is a natural result of having your homeland invaded by enemies and your entire civilization taken over by gradual espionage.
kwazi6 2 years ago
I'm a liberal and I appreciate your effort at a civil conversation. Yes, guilt by association never has been a solid aguement style. However, I have heard many conservative pundants using very inflammatory talk to call lefties a threat to our democracy. All these nut jobs need is a little push to take action.
Homes11134 2 years ago
I'm a conservative and I appreciate YOUR effort at a civil conversation. Guilt by association is NOT an argument style. I've hear liberal pundits using very inflammatory talk to call wingnuts a threat to our Democracy. All these hippies need is a little push to take action.
Do you see the irony? Please?
logrusmage 2 years ago
Too many blanket statements for me to like this commentary Jack. Sorry. Most liberals I know aren't socialists or unAmerican. BUT I am happy you're not claiming "right wing nuts" are really "left wing nuts" like Hannity and other conservatives pundits are doing. Good for you.
eelzen 2 years ago
Eelzen, you took the words right out of my mouth. Absolutely correct.
Brun was an isolated incident, but O'reilly who kept up the "Tiller the Baby killer" rhetoric may as well could've inspired Roder to commit the murder. Not sayin conservatives should'nt keep defending their values. First Admendment protects that.
Nawledge1 2 years ago
He is right on!!Great video!!!
killergames187 2 years ago
good video.
midwestcharm 2 years ago
Good stuff right on the money. Only problem is commentators like O'Reilly ARE maniacs / retards and dont do the conservative cause any good at all.
timegrinder 2 years ago
What does Conservative have to do with Nazi? That makes no sense. Conservatives are first of all PATRIOTS. That is the opposite of Nazi philosophy which hates America and freedom.
JimmyFormerMarine 2 years ago
i'd answer you but you have to be trolling because no one is this dumb
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
Do you know what Nationalism is? Or what patriotism is?
Pride in one's country or people or principals. Nazi's were very patriotic to their country. American Conservatives are very patriotic to theirs. Though more so towards the political ideology the define(d) their respective nations. Conservatives, in theory, should champion the principles of the founding fathers- though the word for that brand is paleo-conservative. Nazis championed the principles of Hitler's Nazism, of course.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Good Vid!
GOD BLESS, ALL TRUE PATRIOTS!
Praise The LORD
and Pass The Ammunition!
islam & liberal socialist,
are the enemies, of us all!
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!
DEO VINDICE!
rebelstang 2 years ago
Well done. Thanks
tomrdee 2 years ago
Both left and, right (Democrats and, Republicians) are lost in a world of thinking that each other are so important that they are responsible for all the problems each group deems as problems.
Von Brunn wasn't "right wing." He was anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist and, pro-Nazi. Check out the websites of those groups and, you'll find an entire idealogical world that despises mainstream talk radio.
That they can't see that tells me a lot about their lack of understanding and, knowledge.
MrPotatoesLatkie 2 years ago
Jack, the left will and always will remain stupid. But you must understand that TV and radio pundits on the right need to keep social issues out of the political spectrum since it serves no purposes other then divide the country.
shiftstart 2 years ago
Fav, comment and 5 stars.
osc1882 2 years ago
Once again. Nailed it SA.
Going through the awful Bush years made a lot of people forget just how dangerous the left can also be.
If you disagree with them on any level, not only are you wrong, but you must and will be SILENCED at fist or gunpoint.
"Hate Crime!!! Hate Speech!!!"
hrosemd 2 years ago 2
the only dangerous thing the left does is give the right the necessary cards to do all the things that the right scaremongers about..
when the left is in power they go "if they enact gun control or expand federal & executive power or limit economic freedom for corporations then they might turn us into a surveillance state!!!!" and then once the Republicans get elected, they just skip the gun control part and take away out freedoms without all the little bullshit steps inbetween
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
@hrosemd liberals will shame you. rightwingers will kill you. yeah, pretty much the same.
therealaj123 9 months ago
Wrong, the worst terrorist attack in history was done by the military - Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Or has everyone forgotten that we dropped nuclear bombs on innocent civilians?
smallmaniac 2 years ago
Or how about actually lighting all of those women and children on fire down at Waco.
hrosemd 2 years ago
they did the same thing in SC and GA but on a much greater scale.
803honda 2 years ago
Not nearly as many died, that's why i didn't mention it.
smallmaniac 2 years ago
The dropping of atomic bombs saved more lives than it took by far. If you learned the reasons behind the atomic bombings then you would understand that the invasion of Japan would have cost millions of American and Japanese lives.
disturbedone5009 2 years ago
I guess that would be true, if it wasn't totally false.
Japan was already defeated, and had been trying to surrender to Allied forces. The US decided to bomb anyway to produce a psychological effect from the mass-murder of Japanese civilians.
sonofaglitch2 2 years ago
Japan was defeated but that does not mean they were ready to surrender. The Emperor recorded a message to the people that Japan was going to surrender to the US military but his top generals hid it. The people wanted the war over but the military did not. The nuclear bombings ended the war.
disturbedone5009 2 years ago
If we never got involved in WWII, that would have saved more lives. But as per usual we go around acting as parent to everyone.
smallmaniac 2 years ago
Are you retarded? Does the date Dec 7, 1941 mean anything to you?
disturbedone5009 2 years ago
SEPTEMBER 11th, SEPTEMBER 11th, SEPTEMBER 11th, SEPTEMBER 11th, SEPTEMBER 11th, SEPTEMBER 11th,
amartin7889 2 years ago
WTF is that all about?
disturbedone5009 2 years ago
No, I'm not retarded. I understand cause and effect. Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened if we would have minded our own business and never gotten involved in WWI or WWII. Maybe you should ask yourself if you have a mental deficiency problem. Also, killing innocent civilians isn't justifiable even if it is in retaliation. Sorry that my moral standards don't meet your criteria of what is just. What was that saying; "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", maybe you should think about that
smallmaniac 2 years ago
The only reason Japan attacked us is to prevent our interference in their empire building in Eastern Asia.
Its more like 250,000 Japanese civilians or 1 million + dead American troops in the invasion.
Besides Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets.
disturbedone5009 2 years ago
We shouldn't have interfered in any nations business unless it conflicts with the liberty of our country. Your missing the point that if we wouldn't have gotten involved in the Great Wars we never would have been attacked by Japan. And calling innocent civilians military targets doesn't make it right. Military targets and terrorism are the same thing when they involve non-combatant personnel.
smallmaniac 2 years ago
I never called civilians military targets. Both cities were used by the military for their war effort.
disturbedone5009 2 years ago
But civilians were vaporized, hence terrorism.
smallmaniac 2 years ago
"The only reason Japan attacked us is to prevent our interference in their empire building in Eastern Asia. "
So wait, you're saying Japan attacked us to keep us out of their business? Whaaaaattttt?
ronrutherford 2 years ago
No Japan attacked us to keep us away from their destructive sweep across China where they raped murdered and pilaged. If their business is the invasion of another country then someone should step in.
disturbedone5009 2 years ago
That's just the interventionist foreign policy that caused Pearl Harbor and 9/11. The United States interfering in the affairs of other nations has lead to disastrous consequences for the American people. It creates more enemies than it stops. Diplomacy through communication, not through the barrel of a gun, is the proper way to oppose global injustices without yielding devastating retaliations upon American citizens.
smallmaniac 2 years ago
So you have no problem with Japan marching across eastern Asia murdering people and destroying countries in the name of the emperor? We tried diplomacy and they still acted like they wanted peace literally to the hour that Pearl Harbor started. We tried communication but it failed.
disturbedone5009 2 years ago
Uh I think you need to go re-read your history.
tfboyle 2 years ago
Uh where am I wrong?
disturbedone5009 2 years ago
So you have no problem with America marching across North America murdering people and destroying tribes in the name of the manifest dynasty?
We did not try diplomacy. We passed strict trade embargos on them after the rape of Nanking and Americans were joining the Chinese to fight the Japanese (of their own free will).
Not taking a side in this persay, but you need to be a bit more aware of what was going on, as well as the fact that the US in essence did the same thing. Repeatedly.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
I never said I agree with what we did to the natives. I think they have been more than repaid for it but some might not agree.
I think diplomacy only works with those who truly want peace. Look at Nazi Germany and the allies. They tried diplomacy all the while Hitler broke treaties and limits on the size of his military equipment. You cannot talk to someone who is not listening.
disturbedone5009 2 years ago
I don't think Natives should be given special treatment, if that is what you are insinuating. My point was the US did basically the same thing the Japanese did. Right down to biological warfare.
You also need to look into Dewey's campaign in 1944. One of his major critiques of FDR was that the only 'peace' FDR (and Truman) would accept from the Axis was unconditional surrender. All of them preferred to fight to the bitter end over that and you know? I agree with that mentality. As for Hitler..
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
The treaties he broke were from World War One and the second reich, these treaties were a leading cause of his ascension to POWER. Essentially they were attempts by the French at petty revenge against the Germans- some of them were ridiculous (for instance, France gained the rights to all of Germany's coal mines- the massive debt of Germany also let to massive money printing to keep paying it and super inflation which impoverished the German people).
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
It is also of note that most diplomacy ended when Germany invaded Poland, the UK and France declared 'war' after that. The Phoney War. Where they essentially sat on their hands. =P
It has been said that the Polish weakened the German army a lot more than people realized and if France and the UK had pressed an offensive right then they would have won.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Yes I have a problem with it. It's wrong and unjustifiable. You nor I, however, have the right to take money from American tax payers without their consent and fight a war that doesn't defend them, but in fact makes them unsafe. It's a lack of imagination we have here. The only solution anyone as to problems like this is government interference. No one thinks for themselves. We also still have bases all over the world in the name of protecting people, so all in all it didn't turn out well.
smallmaniac 2 years ago
Hey I am all for closing our foreign bases and bringing those troops home. The Cold War is over and the Soviets are not going to march across Eastern Europe, even if they did I say fuck them they can defend themselves, so we do not need those bases.
disturbedone5009 2 years ago 2
ok the way i see it is there are extremes on every side.the Crazies or fringers (as I like to call themare the ones whom do not care what there actions will do in the long run. People that hurt others to prove thier point are on both sides. there are also alot of people whom believe the same but won't hurt others to prove their point. The others whom won't need to point out the ones that do and get them help before they do something like burn down an animal testing lab or shoot a Dr. is bad.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
SA,
Name a few animal rights and environmental activists that murder. You're statement that these two guys could be from the left is wrong.
wolgreth 2 years ago
Wiebo Ludwig - Convicted in 2001 for five bombing against oil & gas installations. There wasn't any fatalities, but considering the targets this was simple luck.
Marie Mason - burned a building containing records on GM potatoes developed for poor parts of Africa. Again death was avoided only by circumstances.
Not to mention the countless left-wing terrorist groups like RAF responsible for numerous cases of manslaughter. So go to hell with your stupid theory and try to live in the real world.
DaniOcean 2 years ago
Nice piece, Jack. I was wondering when you were going to get another commentary out - it seems like it's been a while. This piece reminds me of the words of Charles Beard, who said, "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
barsandstars220 2 years ago
Conservation of animals or trees is not an irrational idea. Calling Dr. Tiller a baby killer is irrational, and that kind of crap can stay on the air precisely because of the simplistic social conservatives that watch. Bill O'Reilly screams at his guests on the air. It's ridiculous. Find someone like that on the left and then make an analogy.
JerryRSun 2 years ago 2
I can just as easily argue the opposite! There isn't a single eco-activist who is doing something useful for the nature, or have a brain for that matter. Usually those people are very poorly educated lunatics not much different then any regular punk or skin head.
And if you look from the pro-life nuts POV aborting is equal to killing.
If you want a comparison between the two most dumbest people in America compare - neocon dumb-fuck Bill O'Reilly with communist swine Bill Maher. Equally stupid!
DaniOcean 2 years ago
Bill Maher is a communist? And saying there isn't a single eco activist doing something for nature is pretty dumb. You have to have pretty bad definitions of words for that to be true. I'm not going to look from the POV of a pro-life nut, because that would be irrational. I understand why they think that way (Christianity), but my point still stands that it's totally irrational. Calling abortion killing is pretty vague. Scratching your nose is killing your nose cells.
JerryRSun 2 years ago 2
Well from what I saw of Maher he is communist. He supports socialized medicine, bailouts, government redistribution of wealth, social security and so on. The only anti-communist stance he takes are some social issues like legalization, war and gay marriage. His rhetoric is abusive, simplistic, uneducated and very poorly formulated. He appeals to basic self-defense instincts of people and uses numerous straw-men and ad hominem attacks against any opposite, to his own, view. Just like O'Reilly.
DaniOcean 2 years ago
Bill Maher is a comedian. He has never incited crime as closely as Bill O'Reilly, and that is my point. Those things you listed are not part of the definition of communism, although they may be things a communist OR capitalist country can have. Bill O'Reilly is MUCH worse than just using straw-men and ad hominems. He employs pretty much every formal and informal logical fallacy in the book.
JerryRSun 2 years ago
I still can't see how you can correlate speech with crime, but this always buzzelled me about people.
And no those things are not part of webster's definition of communism, but they are part of what any socialist or communist would do if he was in power. And again - NO they can never be part of capitalist society, only in socialist or fascist ones. Well you can incorporated them in the intermediate form where a capitalist society evolves in to it's socialist or fascist successor.
DaniOcean 2 years ago
First of all, I did not correlate O'Reilly's little crusade with full on crime. And second of all, it would be pretty ironic to argue that there's legitimacy in comparing abortion to criminal killing when Dr. Tiller's actions were SPECIFICALLY non-criminal.
JerryRSun 2 years ago
socialism isn't communism. talk radio and fox news would be great for society if they didn't constantly do the keep repeating the lie until it becomes true thing
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
As for those eco-activists name one and what did he do to help the environment. And signing a petition to ban dihydrogen-monoxide doesn't count :) .
And of course it is irrational, but the biggest problem is that pro-life nuts never try to put them selfs in place of the other side that leads them to killing.
Rationality is the only real way to judge anything clearly and without evaluating both sides you are just as irrational as the other guy.
DaniOcean 2 years ago
I agree you have to evaluate both sides. They can't both be right, and sometimes they can both be wrong. But merely taking sides does not mean you didn't consider the other side. Bill O'Reilly never considers the other side. He refuses to ever acknowledge when someone presents the other side, and he literally says he doesn't care, and keeps pushing his points. As this video said, that's the definition of a fanatic.
JerryRSun 2 years ago
Well I am 100% with you on this.O'Reilly is an ass hole, but I am still against censoring him.
DaniOcean 2 years ago 2
I never said anything about censoring O'Reilly. I am merely arguing that he is a negative influence on society, because unfortunately people who aren't well educated don't realize that his arguments are not supported by logic, and that he literally lies on every show.
JerryRSun 2 years ago
@JerryRSun
LMAO! Eco activists are often anti-human, and many of them don't actually do much for nature except whine. You do realize that it is actually possible to not be Christian and still find abortion unethical. The comparison to scratching your nose and killing epithelial cells is ridiculously off base. At some point, not too far into the pregnancy, a heart beat begins and a brain starts to develop. Not too long after that the fetus has the distinct ability to sense pain.
roonalwazlib 6 months ago
@roonalwazlib
I don't know why you even try to argue with your generalizations. You can only say crazy stuff like that when you're preaching to the choir. Yes, other religious nutjobs will also find abortion unethical to have be legal. If you're talking about atheists, then you cannot say that with a straight face, unless you're arguing semantics and talking about 3rd trimester abortions or some such.
JerryRSun 6 months ago
@JerryRSun
Again with your piss poor logic. You make laughably stereotypical generalizations followed by unsound analogical comparisons and then project onto others who disagree with you the notion that they're making generalizations. I'm sorry but I have to laugh. XD
In your nonsensical pea brain it's only religious nut jobs that could possibly object to abortion. I'm agnostic and I find terminating a human life for reasons of pure convenience unethical and I know damn well I'm not alone.
roonalwazlib 6 months ago
A human fetus has the ability to sense pain before the end of the first trimester. It reaches potential viability before the end of the second. Calling that anything other than killing (i.e. the termination of life) is arguing semantics. You're just trying to nice over with interchangeable words the horror of what you actually support. Wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that you're the sort of kook that thinks China's one child policy was a fantastic idea.
roonalwazlib 6 months ago
Your logical reasoning abilities suck. There is nothing even remotely irrational about finding the termination of human life unethical, and no matter how you cut it the fetus is alive and it is human. Perfectly rational people can find abortion objectionable when done for nothing more than convenience, especially when it occurs after the fetus has developed the ability to sense pain, and even more especially after the fetus has reached viability.
roonalwazlib 6 months ago
Fertility doctors and doctors who provide internal contraceptives, have been known to deem late term abortions medically necessary when in reality they're merely necessary to prevent the doctor from facing a malpractice suit.
roonalwazlib 6 months ago
The problem is that these murderers weren't influenced by people on the "extreme right". They were influenced by social conservatives. Social conservatives are the real evil in this country that we should all be fighting against whether we are on the extreme "right" or the extreme "left".
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
Ok let me get this straight - you say that these murderers were influenced by social conservatives and not the extreme right? Maybe you should get your little dictionary out and look up the words 'social' and 'conservative' and put them into context, because "social conservative" is to the left of "extreme right."
barsandstars220 2 years ago
No it isn't. Left and Right describe different economic theories. The extreme left is socialism, and the extreme right is Laissez-faire capitalism. Social conservatism has nothing to do with economics, Joseph Stalin who was on the extreme left was an extreme social conservative as well.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
Actually, left and right describe two of three options one has when playing chicken - so shove that up your nose.
barsandstars220 2 years ago
What the fuck are you talking about?
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
G O N A T I O N A L...
SpideyNinety08 2 years ago
seriously, get a national radio program or something...go to serious or write these articles in the editorial section of some bigger newspaper
SpideyNinety08 2 years ago
Another one out the park..... ELF and ALF are extremist groups. They burn down labs and kill people for the sake of nature.
There are computer hackers, neo-Nazis, radicals from the left and right.
There are influences from any side of the spectrum.
LILVOKA 2 years ago
I'm not an anti-abortion activist but the killing of george tiller was a perfectly defensible act from a christian point of view. If Christians hold that Tiller was a mass murderer then it his assassination was no worse than the killing of an SS concentration camp guard. It is in no way comparable to the mass murder of innocent civilians in Oklohoma.
Miggins88 2 years ago
this might come as a lightning on a sunny day but a true christian point of view is entirely subjective. you assume that christians are in agreement on their point of view.
you seem like just another thought collectivists and do not contribute to solutions. and yes I pass judgement because I'm arrogant.
and no I do not believe in a seperate creator.
JonasAbrahamLind 2 years ago
Yeah, last time I checked killing someone is not defensible from a Christian's POV. lrn2bible.
barsandstars220 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Terrible narration!
NorseMaiden 2 years ago
He's a better narrator than I am.
950horsepower 2 years ago
My opinions and beleifs haven't changed, but the defintion of what side I'm on these past few months seems to have(according to the MSM). When Bush was in office, what I beleived was too liberal. Now that Obama is in offic, my beleifs are now considered to far right. I think it's all just a big distraction so we don't realize its business as usual in DC and nothing of real significance has changed in the last eight months. We fight each other so they don't have to. Nothing new.
AtheyFam 2 years ago 9
Comment removed
kmg501 2 years ago
nazism, fascism, socialism, communism, democracy, communitarianism, what-have-you, are all tyrannical collectivism - ie liberal amounts of government, straying from our original limited government... our guaranteed form of government (article IV, section 4) a republic - where the rule of law applies to all equally. what we need is individualism - which, we are not seeing from these friggin' collectivists on the "so-called 'right' or 'left'".
stop buying the lies
PwndByTheFed 2 years ago 2
I'm so sick of this 'Well, they could be leftists' meme.
Unsubbed.
PolitikalJunkie 2 years ago
But that was hardly the point of the entire video?
Loserido 2 years ago
Well we can also compare leftists to Stalin. And from what I remember he killed more than one security guard.
philippe1985 2 years ago
I don't understand how Nazi which means National Socialist German Workers Party was ever considered to have any elements of conservatism.. The Nazis were for big government, gun control, anti-personal liberty, anti-religious and anti-capitalist.
Tigernomar 2 years ago 3
conservative just means you're pro tradition & liberal means you're pro change.
the nazis thought they were taking germany back to its pure aryan tradition or whatever, conservatives don't mind big govt as long as it's their own agenda being attended.
also, the nazis lifted gun control but banned jews from having guns liek early america did to blacks. they liked gun ownership, they just didn't like jews
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
ur mistaken, replace conservative and liberal with republican and democrat. true liberals and conservatives are nothhing like u say.
manicmetropolis 2 years ago
lol or you could replace conservative with nazi and liberal with democracy..
there are liberal republicans and conservative democrats, political partys and philosophies are two different things
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
in reality its a part of moderatism
manicmetropolis 2 years ago
No one should be silenced, but I guarantee it's no coincidence that right wing media tends to be driven by "angry white male" personalities who shout down their guests & callers.
Who were the last liberal terrorists to kill anyone -- Weather Underground or Black Panthers in the 70s?
The true meaning of the word liberal is tolerant, the true meaning of the word conservative is basicly fundamentalist.....
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
1.original black panthers were moreso conservatives. 2 bill clinton was the last liberal to indirectly kill 1/2 million kids in iraq. not to mention all those other invasions, democratic congress of bush terms did the same, as did the liberal neocons of team Bush. abortion clinics--the hallmark of enlightened population control through murder. Faux pseudo intellectual gibberish of left wing personalities also leads me to gaurantee that liberalism is not too virtuous,logical,practical,or tolerant
sarjil 2 years ago
I thought the militant black panthers were Marxist revolutionaries.. ?
You could argue that abortion is murder but it's not terrorism because it's not intended to intimidate or achieve any political goals. Except for the new world order or what have you lol
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
No.
You got your definitions wrong.
Look them up on wikipedia or Webster's dictionary.
barccy 2 years ago
Yeah but the difference is the Panthers or other radical black groups wanted their Civil Rights. Weather Underground wanted the war to end which many people agree with. The radical Right groups all have a FEAR of people who are not like them. You can end a war you can give civil rights but to end radical right you would have to make the country pure of one race while purging the others. That's unreasonable and almost always resorts in attacking minorities.
PoliticalSkeptic 2 years ago
i'm pretty sure the panthers & WU also wanted communist revolution but i doubt that was why they resorted to violence...
if abortion was banned, there might be a few less of them or maybe they'd just find something else to hate.
i'm agreeing it's just fun to play devils advocate sometimes
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
Paul Krugman, with bright intellectuals like him, who needs retards.
sarjil 2 years ago 2
Ugh, my college uses Krugman's textbook on both of my economics classes. I feel like I have to be exorcised every time I leave my economics class. Perhaps I need to be cleansed of Keynesian "animal spirits" lol
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago 2
do what i do, start a fight with the professor!!. it will make you feel much better plus the professor usually ends up looking like a dumbass.
sarjil 2 years ago
lol, I have thought about it, but I will start doing so when I am closer to passing the class. I don't want the bias to affect my grade to the point of failing me.
I still have to figure out whether my professor is a Keynesian or not.
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago
lol, i hear ya. in my speech class(should be renamed social marxism for beginners), while every1 was writing about the greatness of the latest left wing fad and feel good do goodism, i wrote why USA is sucking more day by day and why it's headed south, which did not go over too well with the students but surprisingly the teacher actually commended me, and then we got to talking and she was actually 180 of what i thought she was!! it was a revelation.
sarjil 2 years ago
I have so much respect for republicans like SA.
MagnusIan 2 years ago
SA is a libertarian but most importantly a conservative. Most libertarians join the republican party so they could vote in election primary.
Then again, it doesnt really matter what you call yourself, be it democrat or republican, just follow the conservative principles and you will be ok
uche007us 2 years ago
wow. great one this time.
glidinclyde 2 years ago
The new shouters on the left are no better than the "you're with the terrorists" neo-cons.
tattypatty 2 years ago
well done
tantoi10man 2 years ago
SA, Krugman needs to silence opposition to further his statist keynesian agenda. It would be highly unethical to be silent at this time. Keep pressing on decentralization, competing currencies and men like Krugman will matter no more.
utubehayter 2 years ago 2
Jack does a great job (again) of exposing the intellectual hypocrisy of modern "liberalism."
PEinHK 2 years ago 2
I dont think its just about liberalism, remeber when the conservatives tried to silence us(ex-liberal) on the Iraq war issue. The reason then was that we were enboldening the insurgents.
Just look at the way journalist on the left and right tried to disown this guy, Glen becks camps tried to make him out as a left looney and Fox & co. as an extreme right.
So thats what it is, both side again playing with our emotions :)
uche007us 2 years ago 2
Point well taken, but I would also note SA's point tht the Iraq War (and associated military adventurism) is inherently un-conservative in the traditional sense.
Defintely agreed that both sides are big on hyperbole; this is why we should turn off Fox and MSNBC and just watch YouTube lol
PEinHK 2 years ago 2
not really, it's utterly conservative to be logical in judgement about the use of military force, for it must be used for the interest and benefit of the nation, which requires not all embracing idealism in foreign policy but calculated judgemnt on it's use, beenfits and drawback which ultimately is more conservative than not.
sarjil 2 years ago
Well said SA
lebowzki 2 years ago 3
Fuck Paul Krugman
Apptendo 2 years ago 13
Amen.
djsherin 2 years ago 4