The Men Who Built America (History Channel Series..lol)

[Metsfanmax]

That doesn't mean anything. I could also put marzipan in a box, and call it marzipan, and if you ate it, you would be eating marzipan.

I wouldn't eat marzipan.

Just because it's possible that it could be a piece of shit in the box, does not mean that we should assume there is always a piece of shit in the box. In fact, 99% of the time, whatever it says is in the box is usually in the box. To rest on the 1% possibility as some kind of argument is a cop out

But you may continue arguing that the national socialist workers party had nothing whatsoever to do with socialism

Yes, I would clearly take the Nazi party at their word. The Nazis were generally pretty trustworthy people.

[Phatscotty]

That doesn't mean anything. I could also put marzipan in a box, and call it marzipan, and if you ate it, you would be eating marzipan.

I wouldn't eat marzipan.

Just because it's possible that it could be a piece of shit in the box, does not mean that we should assume there is always a piece of shit in the box. In fact, 99% of the time, whatever it says is in the box is usually in the box. To rest on the 1% possibility as some kind of argument is a cop out

But you may continue arguing that the national socialist workers party had nothing whatsoever to do with socialism

Yes, I would clearly take the Nazi party at their word. The Nazis were generally pretty trustworthy people.

What's next? Democrats do not technically believe in the redistribution of wealth, based on the opinion that the redistribution was necessary?

[Metsfanmax]

That doesn't mean anything. I could also put marzipan in a box, and call it marzipan, and if you ate it, you would be eating marzipan.

I wouldn't eat marzipan.

Just because it's possible that it could be a piece of shit in the box, does not mean that we should assume there is always a piece of shit in the box. In fact, 99% of the time, whatever it says is in the box is usually in the box. To rest on the 1% possibility as some kind of argument is a cop out

But you may continue arguing that the national socialist workers party had nothing whatsoever to do with socialism

Yes, I would clearly take the Nazi party at their word. The Nazis were generally pretty trustworthy people.

What's next? Democrats do not technically believe in the redistribution of wealth, based on the opinion that the redistribution was necessary?

No no. Democrats don't have the world "socialism" in their party name. How could you possibly believe they support redistribution of wealth?

[Phatscotty]

That doesn't mean anything. I could also put marzipan in a box, and call it marzipan, and if you ate it, you would be eating marzipan.

I wouldn't eat marzipan.

Just because it's possible that it could be a piece of shit in the box, does not mean that we should assume there is always a piece of shit in the box. In fact, 99% of the time, whatever it says is in the box is usually in the box. To rest on the 1% possibility as some kind of argument is a cop out

But you may continue arguing that the national socialist workers party had nothing whatsoever to do with socialism

Yes, I would clearly take the Nazi party at their word. The Nazis were generally pretty trustworthy people.

What's next? Democrats do not technically believe in the redistribution of wealth, based on the opinion that the redistribution was necessary?

No no. Democrats don't have the world "socialism" in their party name. How could you possibly believe they support redistribution of wealth?

haha. Aren't you clearly taking the Democrat party at their word, that they are not scoailists? HAHA how does it feel to have your own logic used against ya?

♥

[chang50]

That doesn't mean anything. I could also put marzipan in a box, and call it marzipan, and if you ate it, you would be eating marzipan.

I wouldn't eat marzipan.

Just because it's possible that it could be a piece of shit in the box, does not mean that we should assume there is always a piece of shit in the box. In fact, 99% of the time, whatever it says is in the box is usually in the box. To rest on the 1% possibility as some kind of argument is a cop out

But you may continue arguing that the national socialist workers party had nothing whatsoever to do with socialism

Yes, I would clearly take the Nazi party at their word. The Nazis were generally pretty trustworthy people.

What's next? Democrats do not technically believe in the redistribution of wealth, based on the opinion that the redistribution was necessary?

No no. Democrats don't have the world "socialism" in their party name. How could you possibly believe they support redistribution of wealth?

Give it up mate,by past experience I now believe PS is unbalanced..

[Phatscotty]

That doesn't mean anything. I could also put marzipan in a box, and call it marzipan, and if you ate it, you would be eating marzipan.

I wouldn't eat marzipan.

Just because it's possible that it could be a piece of shit in the box, does not mean that we should assume there is always a piece of shit in the box. In fact, 99% of the time, whatever it says is in the box is usually in the box. To rest on the 1% possibility as some kind of argument is a cop out

But you may continue arguing that the national socialist workers party had nothing whatsoever to do with socialism

Yes, I would clearly take the Nazi party at their word. The Nazis were generally pretty trustworthy people.

What's next? Democrats do not technically believe in the redistribution of wealth, based on the opinion that the redistribution was necessary?

No no. Democrats don't have the world "socialism" in their party name. How could you possibly believe they support redistribution of wealth?

Give it up mate,by past experience I now believe PS is unbalanced..

and you are off your mother fuckin rocker and the one who tries to spread their misery and unhappiness onto others. You can't accept and are in denial of the world you live in, trying to turn everything upside down, trying to force people to bend to the way you think they should live their lives and force on them your personal version of what is acceptable and trying to tear down their morals and values. Remember, the only thing that separates humans from animals is values

I accept reality just fine, thank you very much

[chang50]

That doesn't mean anything. I could also put marzipan in a box, and call it marzipan, and if you ate it, you would be eating marzipan.

I wouldn't eat marzipan.

Just because it's possible that it could be a piece of shit in the box, does not mean that we should assume there is always a piece of shit in the box. In fact, 99% of the time, whatever it says is in the box is usually in the box. To rest on the 1% possibility as some kind of argument is a cop out

But you may continue arguing that the national socialist workers party had nothing whatsoever to do with socialism

Yes, I would clearly take the Nazi party at their word. The Nazis were generally pretty trustworthy people.

What's next? Democrats do not technically believe in the redistribution of wealth, based on the opinion that the redistribution was necessary?

No no. Democrats don't have the world "socialism" in their party name. How could you possibly believe they support redistribution of wealth?

Give it up mate,by past experience I now believe PS is unbalanced..

and you are off your mother fuckin rocker and the one who tries to spread their misery and unhappiness onto others. You can't accept and are in denial of the world you live in, trying to turn everything upside down, trying to force people to bend to the way you think they should live their lives and force on them your personal version of what is acceptable and trying to tear down their morals and values. Remember, the only thing that separates humans from animals is values



I accept reality just fine, thank you very much

As long as I don't have your good opinion,it's fine.because that would worry me.

[AAFitz]

That doesn't mean anything. I could also put marzipan in a box, and call it marzipan, and if you ate it, you would be eating marzipan.

I wouldn't eat marzipan.

Just because it's possible that it could be a piece of shit in the box, does not mean that we should assume there is always a piece of shit in the box. In fact, 99% of the time, whatever it says is in the box is usually in the box. To rest on the 1% possibility as some kind of argument is a cop out

But you may continue arguing that the national socialist workers party had nothing whatsoever to do with socialism

Yes, I would clearly take the Nazi party at their word. The Nazis were generally pretty trustworthy people.

What's next? Democrats do not technically believe in the redistribution of wealth, based on the opinion that the redistribution was necessary?

No no. Democrats don't have the world "socialism" in their party name. How could you possibly believe they support redistribution of wealth?

Give it up mate,by past experience I now believe PS is unbalanced..

and you are off your mother fuckin rocker and the one who tries to spread their misery and unhappiness onto others. You can't accept and are in denial of the world you live in, trying to turn everything upside down, trying to force people to bend to the way you think they should live their lives and force on them your personal version of what is acceptable and trying to tear down their morals and values. Remember, the only thing that separates humans from animals is values

I accept reality just fine, thank you very much

This is why you find so much resistance on the forum. We all know these things, have values, and fight against them, like yourself.

[AAFitz]

It's easy because God said it was wrong, and, I will only speak for Christians here, but Christians with an ounce of exposure to the Bible have heard from God for thousands of years the murder is wrong.

You want to give Kant all the credit, go ahead. But maybe Kant was just trying to find a way to take God out of the equation, for other reasons than wanting to be objective or of genuine care...

Kant was just one of many who recognized that there is a logical way to construct the principle that "murder is wrong" without appealing to God. You may deny the existence of such an argument if you want, but I'd be interested to see how you can explain that most atheists don't go off killing people left and right.

wow. Really? OKAY!

NAZI = National Socialist German Workers' Party

I can understand now how you have been so ignorant of this. You did not know what a nazi is

Clearly you feel that reading the name of a political philosophy is enough to adequately explain how it works. You might be better served reading a bit about how the Nazi party worked, though. You'll be surprised, evidently.

I'll give you a hint: the first three paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry on Nazism are enough.

WHOA WHOA WHOA! All you asked was how Nazi's was an example of Socialism. I pointed out to you that they named themselves Socialists.

Well, if there's one thing we can all agree on, naming oneself something, and being that thing, aren't exactly the same thing.

The NAZI party may very well have started off as a socialist party, but what it was transformed into, was something so different as to render the comparison rather foolish. In fact, I think it might be fair to say they called themselves socialists, to try to push an adgenda, that was at the heart, the complete opposite of socialism.

Conversely, you and many like you, are labeling the democratic party as socialists, to also define it as something that is not what it truly is as well.

I did the same thing by labeling you a communist, when really, all you did was say some things that were mildly communistic.

[Symmetry]

It's easy because God said it was wrong, and, I will only speak for Christians here, but Christians with an ounce of exposure to the Bible have heard from God for thousands of years the murder is wrong.

You want to give Kant all the credit, go ahead. But maybe Kant was just trying to find a way to take God out of the equation, for other reasons than wanting to be objective or of genuine care...

Kant was just one of many who recognized that there is a logical way to construct the principle that "murder is wrong" without appealing to God. You may deny the existence of such an argument if you want, but I'd be interested to see how you can explain that most atheists don't go off killing people left and right.

wow. Really? OKAY!

NAZI = National Socialist German Workers' Party

I can understand now how you have been so ignorant of this. You did not know what a nazi is

Clearly you feel that reading the name of a political philosophy is enough to adequately explain how it works. You might be better served reading a bit about how the Nazi party worked, though. You'll be surprised, evidently.

I'll give you a hint: the first three paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry on Nazism are enough.

WHOA WHOA WHOA! All you asked was how Nazi's was an example of Socialism. I pointed out to you that they named themselves Socialists.

Well, if there's one thing we can all agree on, naming oneself something, and being that thing, aren't exactly the same thing.

The NAZI party may very well have started off as a socialist party, but what it was transformed into, was something so different as to render the comparison rather foolish. In fact, I think it might be fair to say they called themselves socialists, to try to push an adgenda, that was at the heart, the complete opposite of socialism.

Conversely, you and many like you, are labeling the democratic party as socialists, to also define it as something that is not what it truly is as well.

I did the same thing by labeling you a communist, when really, all you did was say some things that were mildly communistic.

They did kind of kill their socialist side pretty early on.

Wiki- Night of the Long Knives

[Metsfanmax]

Remember, the only thing that separates humans from animals is values

Actually, the only thing that separates humans from non-human animals is a foolish insistence on speciesism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8mynrRd7Ak

[thegreekdog]

WHOA WHOA WHOA! All you asked was how Nazi's was an example of Socialism. I pointed out to you that "Socialist" is right in their name.

And yet, despite this, Nazism was incredibly far from being socialism. Again, I recommend that you read a bit about World War II if you are confused on this point.

Phatscotty doesn't really know who is socialist and who isn't.

[Phatscotty]

WHOA WHOA WHOA! All you asked was how Nazi's was an example of Socialism. I pointed out to you that "Socialist" is right in their name.

And yet, despite this, Nazism was incredibly far from being socialism. Again, I recommend that you read a bit about World War II if you are confused on this point.

Phatscotty doesn't really know who is socialist and who isn't.

TGD is right. My specialty is Marxism...

and there is no way the national socialist workers are socialists. I get it

[Lootifer]

Tell me Scotty are you overweight?

(inb4 "its phat not fat brah" - Etymology: The term derives from African American Vernacular English as a deliberate misspelling of the word fat.)

[Phatscotty]

btw, John Adams also said...

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.

In the time of John Adams, it was universally recognized by religious people that morality and religion are basically synonymous. We now have learned better than this.

How is the current state of moral confusion better?

What moral confusion?

[Phatscotty]

Tell me Scotty are you overweight?

No

[Iliad]

btw, John Adams also said...

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.

In the time of John Adams, it was universally recognized by religious people that morality and religion are basically synonymous. We now have learned better than this.

How is the current state of moral confusion better?

What moral confusion?

Can you please put in your own words, what do you mean by moral confusion, what do you see as its causes and what are its effects.

Also why you think culture changing is a new phenomenon.

[Phatscotty]

btw, John Adams also said...

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.

How is the current state of moral confusion better?

What moral confusion?

Can you please put in your own words, what do you mean by moral confusion, what do you see as its causes and what are its effects.

Also why you think culture changing is a new phenomenon.

The line between right and wrong has been blurred, and in some cases, people are actually afraid (in a country of free speech and free expression) to say what is right or wrong. Not hard to see why people are less concerned about doing the right thing, because they come under attack for even thinking they are in a position to know what is right or wrong.

I don't think culture changing is a new phenomenon (??) I think preserving our culture and our heritage is a worthy cause.

Oh yeah, I forgot, only minority cultures are valued and deemed worth protecting...the predominant culture must be attacked and torn down, in the name of "progress"

[AAFitz]

The line between right and wrong has been blurred, and in some cases, people are actually afraid (in a country of free speech and free expression) to say what is right or wrong. Not hard to see why people are less concerned about doing the right thing, because they come under attack for even thinking they are in a position to know what is right or wrong.

I don't think culture changing is a new phenomenon (??) I think preserving our culture and our heritage is a worthy cause.

Oh yeah, I forgot, only minority cultures are valued and deemed worth protecting...the predominant culture must be attacked and torn down, in the name of "progress"

You're right. I mean its been long enough. We really need a national "Plantation Owners Day" to celebrate all the sacrifices they made.

[Phatscotty]

The line between right and wrong has been blurred, and in some cases, people are actually afraid (in a country of free speech and free expression) to say what is right or wrong. Not hard to see why people are less concerned about doing the right thing, because they come under attack for even thinking they are in a position to know what is right or wrong.

I don't think culture changing is a new phenomenon (??) I think preserving our culture and our heritage is a worthy cause.

Oh yeah, I forgot, only minority cultures are valued and deemed worth protecting...the predominant culture must be attacked and torn down, in the name of "progress"

You're right. I mean its been long enough. We really need a national "Plantation Owners Day" to celebrate all the sacrifices they made.

lol. straight to slavery.

God bless your twisted enslaved mind and your black heart

[/]

That doesn't mean anything. I could also put marzipan in a box, and call it marzipan, and if you ate it, you would be eating marzipan.

Just because it's possible that it could be a piece of shit in the box, does not mean that we should assume there is always a piece of shit in the box. In fact, 99% of the time, whatever it says is in the box is usually in the box. To rest on the 1% possibility as some kind of argument is a cop out

So Democratic Republics are kind of horrible in general, aren't they?
I mean just go to any of these places that are so proud of all the Democracy and Republicanism...
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Lao People's Democratic Republic

To be fair, you said yourself that the Nazis are the National Socialist German Workers' Party, the party's ideals outlined by the 25-point program is heavily reliant on ethnic, cultural, racial exclusions. Without the Nationalist element, the label "Nazi" cannot be true.

As for the actual implementation of socialism in Nazi Germany, it's all rather complicated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
Hitler was very anti Communist and anti Capitalist, but made economic policies that were both left and right, many of which were successful, and are still used in modern Germany. The working classes taxes weren't raised, the government would ensure that the people were fed, but he also heavily believed in private property, the competition by any means with other nations, and the resulting "survival of the fittest" ends.


Anyhow, more to the topic, I've been meaning to see the show, I love the History Channel, but I was busy for the past several weekends. I'll probably watch this weekend if I can remember.

[Iliad]

How is the current state of moral confusion better?

What moral confusion?

Can you please put in your own words, what do you mean by moral confusion, what do you see as its causes and what are its effects.

Also why you think culture changing is a new phenomenon.

The line between right and wrong has been blurred, and in some cases, people are actually afraid (in a country of free speech and free expression) to say what is right or wrong. Not hard to see why people are less concerned about doing the right thing, because they come under attack for even thinking they are in a position to know what is right or wrong.

I don't think culture changing is a new phenomenon (??) I think preserving our culture and our heritage is a worthy cause.

Oh yeah, I forgot, only minority cultures are valued and deemed worth protecting...the predominant culture must be attacked and torn down, in the name of "progress"

How has the line between right and wrong been blurred? That's exactly what I'm getting at here, your strange belief that in the past there weren't arguments over morality. Culture and morality have always been shifting and changing, the line between right and wrong continuously being re-drawn. And with good reason, otherwise we'd still be stoning people for adultery.

Haha, right, the 'predominant' culture, wink wink nudge nudge we all know what we're talkign abotu here, must be protected. Not like it's reinforces itself through history textbooks which are predominantly about the 'predominant culture'. You want an example, just take a look at your own thread about the men who built America show.
You don't think 'predominant culture', nudge nudge, wink wink we know what that stands for, hasn't been protected?

Does history really cover the experiences of minorities, or predominantly the views of the establishment and the

[Phatscotty]

I'm guessing you hold the results of multi-culturalism in Europe as a success

[Symmetry]

I'm guessing you hold the results of multi-culturalism in Europe as a success

Have you ever really left the US, Scotty?

[Metsfanmax]

I'm guessing you hold the results of multi-culturalism in Europe as a success

Have you ever really left Minnesota, Scotty?