Whats wrong in this pic ?

[E4 No More]

Unless they gave me reason otherwise; I respected all Military Officers and still do. They earned that respect by getting the commission. But that’s just my opinion; some people don’t respect anything.

I respect your opinion, but IMHO earning a commission isn't anything special. They go to college, get a piece of paper saying that they are better, and I'm supposed to accept that as being fact and give them respect for it? Sorry, as a lowly corporal in the Marines I spent too much time correcting the horrendous spelling and punctuation errors of too many officers to buy that. There were also many times that I could converse with them on what many would consider intellectual subjects without them demonstrating that they possessed superior knowledge of that subject. I later went to college myself and got an advanced degree, and I still don't think that makes me any better than those that are without a degree. The military is structured and sustained on an outdated feudal system that should be pruned of the inane things that serve no other purpose than to support an antiquated system. The example would be ridding the salute from everything but ceremonial processes such as a change of command.

[BigK]

Were you in the military? I had to smile a little bit picturing someone telling a military Officer he had to earn their respect.

Perhaps I could have been more clear...

You can force someone to salute you, you can force someone to call you sir, and you can force someone to follow orders.

These are merely gestures that allow respect to be implied, but only a fool would infer they were being respected from these demonstrations alone.

I respect lots of people and every one of them has earned it. I fake respect to far more people out of fear of reprisal. I do NOT believe Obama respects our soldiers or what their service stands for. I think he fakes this respect for cameras out of fear of reprisals by the public on election day. I respect the office of the presidency, but I do not respect the man who is currently making a mockery of that post.

[QuietDan]

Zippy is a total embarrassment and so is his staff. Someone in protocol didn't get him the word, or he's such an arrogant SOB that he didn't listen -- or care. November 2012 can't get here soon enough, so we can toss out the garbage.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hi HvyMtl

It would be unproductive to engage in an authority-quoting contest. I can quote you college perfessor historians who maintain that pre-revolutionary war colonists were rabidly anti-gun.

Left-Right has inadequate dimensions to describe the reality. Would an advocate of free speech in old Communist Russia have been called a right-winger or a left-winger? A conservative or a liberal?

The Nolan Chart at two dimensions gets closer, though numerous dimensions would be more ideal (but more difficult to conceptualize)--

Nolan Chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nazis, commies and fascists would all share close space at the lower-left corner. If you project the 2D nolan chart onto the the one-dimensional left-right scale, then nazis, commies, fascists and pure libertarians would all be "centrists"!

And while he's at it, Lester, he could read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Facism" which is

about as good a study as one can find on the subject.

The extinct notion Hitler was a right winger, is still believed by those who believe

whatever the mainstream chooses to tell them. And maybe a dose of liberal elitism thrown

in.

Hearing their argument about Hitler being a right winger is getting tiring. I guess Stalin was, too.

Choose your philosophy carefully. It can enrich your mind, or it will kill you.

Edited August 11, 2011 by 6.8 AR

[Guest Lester Weevils]

And while he's at it, Lester, he could read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Facism" which is

about as good a study as one can find on the subject.

The extinct notion Hitler was a right winger, is still believed by those who believe

whatever the mainstream chooses to tell them. And maybe a dose of liberal elitism thrown

in.

Hearing their argument about Hitler being a right winger is getting tiring. I guess Stalin was, too.

Choose your philosophy carefully. It can enrich your mind, or it will kill you.

Hi 6.8 AR

It is a certain kind of blindness which can affect both sides. USA from the 1900's even more 1930's up thru WWII contained as many or more socialists as today. Not using socialist as an insult, but a political belief system. After the war, western academic studies were done on authoritarianism and the academics were incapable of seeing authoritarianism in the left, only on the right. Because naziism and fascism were authoritarianism on steroids, I think that helped reinforce the idea of naziism as a right-wing phenomena. Which persists among some otherwise bright people even today.

There are other social psychologists whose filters make it easier to see authoritarianism on the left, who also do studies on the topic. Each side are somewhat blind to certain flavors of authoritarianism. Which is about the same as the biblical passage, "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" To me it seems that authoritarian personalities are well-distributed among the various world-views.

HvyMtl's quoted historian appeared to reason that the nazis must be right wing because they were anti-communist. However as we entered the cold war after WWII the main-stream politics in England and western Europe was self-admittedly socialist, but most were also anti-communist. George Orwell for instance was a proud socialist but anti-communist.

If anti-communist equals right-wing, then most of post-WWII socialist europe was right-wing!

edit: However the nazi belief system was a mish-mash which borrowed liberally from many traditions. It was not self-consistent. Socialism was not the only thing borrowed.

The inconsistent mish-mash may be on the rise again. Norway's Anders Behring mass murderer similarly has a bizarre combination of contradictory thought, and there are reports of Russian "youth groups" borrowing liberally from many sources including nazi thought.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[Guest HvyMtl]

Hmm off topic, but, I will put it in simple terms. The end of WWI, the newly formed, and weak, German government was left leaning. At the time, the communists (left) were gaining traction in the country. The counter came from the right leaning groups. Hitler co-opted the right leaning parties to gain control. Remember: Threats to Democracy and the Constitution can come from both sides of the political scale.

Point is - history is history, white washing it for politics is fool hardy at best. Calling someone a Communist / socialist - does not vibe with calling someone a Nazi. They are counter to each other. But what do I know, as I do not rely on the mainstream media (I include Fox in that group.) I just merely went to a respected Southern University (conservative one, too) and studied. I have a Political Science degree, because I saw how quickly the populace could be mislead, and once considered trying to counter it. I have realized the pros rely on the amateur to keep their place of power. They mislead by comparing their political "enemy" to whomever was the perceived worst politician.

Claiming O as a Nazi would be the same as claiming Reagan was a Commie. But, if you wish to continue - be my guest. It just calls into question everything you say afterwords.

As for changing the views of those who claim otherwise. I am not going to try, you are concreted into place.

Edited August 11, 2011 by HvyMtl

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Point is - history is history, white washing it for politics is fool hardy at best. Calling someone a Communist / socialist - does not vibe with calling someone a Nazi. They are counter to each other. But what do I know, as I do not rely on the mainstream media (I include Fox in that group.) I just merely went to a respected Southern University (conservative one, too) and studied. I have a Political Science degree, because I saw how quickly the populace could be mislead, and once considered trying to counter it. I have realized the pros rely on the amateur to keep their place of power. They mislead by comparing their political "enemy" to whomever was the perceived worst politician.

Projected onto the right-left single vector, commies and nazis are both centrists, as are libertarians.

A right-winger on this axis would value economic freedoms but prefer to infringe personal freedoms. For instance various sexual behavior laws, blue laws (anti alcohol, anti gambling, anti prostitution, anti drugs). Selected "exceptions" to the bill of rights, while giving lip service to the overall concept of the bill of rights.

A left-winger on this axis would value personal freedoms but want to infringe economic freedoms. For instance business restrictions, taxes, environmental restrictions, confiscation of property if "the state" needs the property more than the property owner, redistribution of wealth from haves to have-nots.

For instance the Swedes seem classic left-wingers. They have been a very open society which does not much care what people do in their personal lives as long as the citizens pay high tax to take care of everybody cradle-to-grave at a relatively high standard of living.

Commies as implemented in communist nations, have no respect for either economic or personal freedoms, and so they lie at the middle of the right-left scale. Nazis and fascists also had no respect for either economic or personal freedoms and also would be neither right or left on the scale. Libertarians want to maximize BOTH economic and personal freedoms, and therefore are also centrist on the single-vector scale. None of those groups IN PRACTICE would significantly tilt to a preference for economic freedoms versus a preference for personal freedoms.

The propaganda used to justify a repressive regime may be tilted right or left but the repression is the core feature of a repressive regime. I suppose repressive theocracies or monarchies could also be centrist.

Maybe some repressive theocracies tilt a little one way or the other? Theocracies tend to limit personal freedoms as a matter of religion, but a Saudi Arabia enforces property rights and allows a fair amount of business freedom so perhaps are right-wingers. Some islamic states appear more socialistic. Certain Catholic nations limit personal freedoms as a matter of religion, but believe in forcibly spreading the wealth, and are probably left-wingers.

Dunno if the 2-D concept is especially novel or controversial. Maybe it is.

I recall even before John Kennedy's assasination sitting in Jr High civics class, the teacher drew the left-right line on the blackboard, with Nazi on the right and Commie on the left and USA in the center. Then he drew a big X over the line and said "Wrong" and drew another line with Commie, Nazi, Dictatorship, Theocracy all on one end, Anarchy on the other end, and USA in the middle.

Nolan and some others just combined the two dimensions.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Actually, the Hell it doesn't.

From what I said, point out to me what I "white washed" history.

I'm proud for you and your political science degree, but i think some of your

professors may have been a bit too left leaning themselves.

As far as relying on the MSM(with or without Fox News, since there seems to be

some kind or retarded sensitivity to that particular news outlet), I don't rely on

any one particular source. Point your eyeballs down the angle of your nose towards

someone else, please.

Co-opting is an interesting term. It usually means that one is using something from

another, not becoming that way. Hitler did a lot of things that didn't add up, but he was

a died in the wool communist, and didn't like the idea of sharing the world with Stalin.

Why don't you wander into the fray called fascism? It's another commonly misunderstood

term. It was so misunderstood that a lot of powerful Americans appeared to embrace it.

Glad they let it go, too. Mussolini and Hitler were two types of fascists. Two different types.

I read it in that book I mentioned, earlier. You might consider reading it. It could clear up

a few issues. Jonah Goldberg is considered by a lot of "experts" to be an "expert" on the subject.

I don't mean to sound rude, but I came from humble beginnings and won't bother you with my

degrees. And, yes, you are right to say I am concreted on some issues. I'm proud of it, too.

I am glad it was a conservative college, though.

Maybe I can say it this way so you can understand. Look back at the Nazi Party and then forward

to now. The Democrats have "co-opted" the ways of the Nazi's by their usage of the green movement

and taking away rights of their citizens. Their use of propaganda(What was Goebbels?). There are so

many similarities, I think this has been discussed in a previous thread.

I see no logic between that comparison of Obama to Reagan. The latter had something called

"Character".

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hmm off topic, but, I will put it in simple terms. The end of WWI, the newly formed, and weak, German government was left leaning. At the time, the communists (left) were gaining traction in the country. The counter came from the right leaning groups. Hitler co-opted the right leaning parties to gain control. Remember: Threats to Democracy and the Constitution can come from both sides of the political scale.

It was an inconsistent mish-mash including socialism. A little something for everybody.

To extend your earlier quote--

Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nazism was founded out of the current of the far-right and racist German völkisch nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany. The ideology was created by Anton Drexler as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism. Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies, though a majority of scholars hold it to be a far right form of politics.

Nazism promoted an economic Third Position; a managed economy that was neither capitalist nor communist. It officially promoted a form of right-wing socialism. This economic system rejected egalitarianism and instead supported a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and promoted the creation of national solidarity that would transcend class distinction. The economy was to be subordinate to the goals of the political leadership of the state. It was to provide to members of the Aryan race: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance, and protection from capitalist exploitation.

====

But as mentioned earlier, post-WWII mainstream european socialists were not friendly to communists and essentially claimed to go for the same goals-- economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance, and protection from capitalist exploitation. Perhaps call it Communism Lite but without quite as much racism or overt suppression. Though some nation's African and Asian colonies had to about be pried from their cold dead hands. Racist? Hmmm.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Lester, no offense, but I expect better than Wiki quotes, you are a much wiser man than that.

All I will say is this: When crossing a railroad track, the trains do not only come from the left...

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Lester, no offense, but I expect better than Wiki quotes, you are a much wiser man than that.

All I will say is this: When crossing a railroad track, the trains do not only come from the left...

Hi HvyMtl

Agreed trains come from the right and left. In addition sinkholes can open up and things can fall out of the sky. An out of control truck can come from ahead or behind.

I added addl content you did not respond to, but specifically stated that I was extending yer quote.

Your quote--

"Nazism was founded out of the far-right and racist German voelkisch nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany." Source: Thomas D. Grant. Stormtroopers and Crisis in the Nazi Movement: activism, ideology and dissolution. London, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2004. Pp. 30-34, 44. (emphasis added.)

The first part of the Wikipedia quote--

Nazism was founded out of the current of the far-right and racist German völkisch nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.

Along with Wikipedia footnote 9--

Thomas D. Grant. Stormtroopers and Crisis in the Nazi Movement: activism, ideology and dissolution. London, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2004. Pp. 30-34, 44.

Do you not notice a CERTAIN SIMILARITY between your quote and my quote? Most likely sheer coincidence of course.

Of the rest of the wikipedia quote, do you agree or disagree? Why? References?

Edited August 11, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[Armed Aviator]

Yeah, I believe this is a (poor) picture of O and staff, honoring the fallen soldiers and sailors lost in the Chinook Helicopter shoot down.

OP, way to POLITICIZE something that should NEVER be political.

And Caster, your use of a RIGHT WING leader to compare to a LEFT WING leader - is fail.

If you want to troll it correctly, use Mao, or Stalin, or Lenin, or even Kim Il-sung.

Hitler wasn't a right wing leader . . . He was pure socialist left wing. . . . JEEEZZZZZ! National Socialist German Workers' Party (NAZIs) NUF SAID! Though I totally disagree with Obama and his policies, this was not the time nore place to politicize!