Skip to forum content

You are not logged in. Please login or register.

(Page 1 of 2)

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Your View: Were Nazis RW or LW?

Pages 1 2 Next

You must login or register to post a reply

RSS topic feed

Posts: 1 to 30 of 31


You're really so dense you don't understand the difference between the state government's overwhelming debts and the private sector? Sure, mega corporations with good political connections can prosper, but sooner or later California's fiscal irresponsibility will run them out too.
How many thousands of acres of prime farmland has the state's insane environmental policies already destroyed? Why are their roads, bridges, and dams disintegrating? They are squandering their grandchildren's legacy with rainbow and unicorn schemes. It cannot go on forever, and it won't.


And yet Obamacare has been a complete failure, forcing many who had decent coverage to lose it or pay vastly higher prices. The VA and Medicare programs are infamous for their failures, some of them fatal. This is your model for government gifts?
The private sector is not perfect, but it will always do any given task better, faster, and cheaper. The only people benefiting from our huge and ever expanding government are government employees


I remember the local woman who was so upset when she had to switch to Obamacare. She had cancer and has a special policy that covered only that. She got a cheaper policy that gave her better coverage, at a lower fee, and she got to keep her doctor and treatments. Actually the private sector was not doing a better job, and definitely not a cheaper job. And the VA was trying to do too much with too little. They are not paying enough for staff and often staff is not conveniently located for recruitment. Who wants to work in Podunk? Actually we would have a magnificent VA if we paid and charged like private hospitals. And the reason the ACA was passes was that the private sector was not doing that job at any price.
The AHCA seems designed to fail because the are putting even less resources into the job. That the ACA was designed to fail to usher in a single payer plan is a frequent charge. Not sure why the AHCA was even more designed to fail, as that reason makes even less sense.


The cost of oil recovery is small ,and Venezuela's agricultural land is some of the world's most productive.


I argue that those groups, with their strict personal morality, wrote the play book. And one currently critical idea was that you do not let your personal beliefs interfere with business. You did not pick and choose your customers, but your customers picked you. Hence that is now commercial expectation and law. So you suck it up and bake that cake for the gay couple.
You can object to baking cakes and can quit at any time, but you can't object to your customers. Another is that you always carry through on a deal even if you lose money on this one transaction. And your word was your bond. And you never knowingly cheated a customer. In fact it was from this that arose the fixed price system that we all take for granted. The Quakers, so the story goes, could not give food away to the Irish poor. They were caught in the middle between Anglican nobility and Catholic peasants during the Irish potato famine. But they could sell everything at the lowest possible price with no haggling, a fixed price that gave them enough to survive on and gave the best price to their customers. Since everyone always questions if they could have gotten a better deal in haggling, did they give in too soon? This way the customer knew and did get the best price available. And they drove the competition off until they too adopted fixed prices. And the idea was so good, was so much more efficient than haggling over every item that it quickly spread around the world.  Imagine shopping where you had to argue over every avacado or bag of sugar.


But the government found it easier to import nearly everything, which put the farmers out of business. Because their production costs were often higher than the store price.
You need to automate agriculture. The US can grow corn for tortillas cheaper with farmers earning $100,000 and year and farm equipment often costing that much per piece than Mexican farmers can on 40 acres with a mule and subsistence. So the Mexicans go where the work is, because it isn't at home. And there is not enough corn grown at higher prices. Unless the government puts a tariff on it to keep the farmers working, but then all the rest want to know why the government is hurting them to keep a bunch of expensive farmers in business. Same thing happens in agriculture in Venezuela. Nobody grows Sugar in the sugar islands because sugar from sugar beets in Michigan is cheaper. And nobody get injured cutting cane either.


OK, live on and prosper in spite of your sterile fixations.
Oh and leave Economics to those that can understand the synthesis that makes nations so diverse as Singapore and Norway, blissful, sovereign, & successful: Mixed Economy!
page 54 & 55 of ECONOMICS The Science of Common Sense, by ELBERT V. BOWDEN (Second Edition, 1977) Pure Capitalism simply cannot stand by it's own in an economy, unless it's meant to utterly ruin the country..!


We agree on some things.


You're actually posting images of an outdated economic textbook?


Hahahahaha! The "Basic Economics: The Good Citizen's Guide to the Economy"


Not to put too fine a point on it, but requiring a Christian baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay marriage is unwarranted interference with their religion. A custom wedding cake is a unique work of artistry, not a commodity. They want a generic wedding cake, go to Kroger or Safeway. There are plenty of custom bakers who will be fine with it.
Would you see it as reasonable to force a Muslim or Orthodox Jewish butcher to kill and cut up a pig for ham? Should Trump be allowed to demand a leftist portrait painter to do his official portrait?
We've already had examples of Muslim taxi drivers refusing to transport dogs or alcohol. Is that legit?


The federal government has no business in the insurance business, and "insuring" someone with a preexisting condition is charity, not insurance. Actually, it's not even charity, it's theft, because it's done by force of law.
If the federal government honestly wanted to reduce the cost of health care, they could have allowed insurance across state lines, allowed people to purchase what insurance they feel they need, and perhaps set up a fund for catastrophic illnesses. Instead, they gave us a system wirse than the UK


That is just the point. It can't be and is against his necessary capitalist ethics. He is such a bad businessman he ought to be put out of his misery as a business.
The historic ethic is you can object to a product but not a customer. It is the same for race. You don't have to be an innkeeper but you can't object to any customer able to pay. Sorry but those are the ethics from those ancient entrepreneurs and the basis of our business law.
Did you know that the Studebaker Brothers who had a wagon company in South Bend and who built half of the wagons for the Union Army during the Civil War were all pacifists. They used their profits to relieve their co-religionists caught between the two armies in the Shenandoah Valley, scene of some of the most intense and longest lasting battles of the war. That is what I am talking about. You can object to the product and they could have stopped making wagons but you cannot object to your customer.


We'll just have to agree to disagree in this.


There is substantial difference between merely providing a product and actually participating in something objectionable.
In the famous gay wedding cake incident, the bakers had sold cakes to the gay couple in question for years. They only refused to make them a wedding cake, which is an individual and custom product. It virtually requires the baker to participate in the planning and execution of the wedding. They even recommended other bakeries they knew would do a gay wedding cake.
Again, you've evaded the question. Can a black photographer be forced to take event photos for a KKK rally? Must a white Trump supporter cater a Black Lives Matter event? Does a Christian dentist have to perform tooth extractions on Easter Sunday? Should a Muslim pianist be forced to play at a Jewish wedding? Does an atheist surgeon have to perform clitorectemies on Muslim girls despite them being against his personal ethics?
There used to be a principle for businesses that they could refuse service to anyone. Is it really reasonable to use state coercion to force such things, especially when other outlets are available? Where do you draw the line?


When I got married the baker had us look through a loose leaf book of pictures of cakes and decide upon batter choice and estimated number of guests to determine size of cake and if sheet cakes needed to be added. Where in that is custom design or participation. He didn't even deliver.
You are right that the baker had served the couple for years and were chosen because the bakery was so understanding and accepting. The couple rightly felt betrayed and abused and the courts agreed. The bakery accepted the deposit and the order and then changed their mind. Another business no-no. Not good businessmen and totally violating business customs. The extra fine was for stupidity.


Just how are those people with preexisting conditions to get and pay for treatment? Maybe charity? Why not just help them afford private insurance? What a twisted web when we first deceive, especially when we deceive ourselves.


Ham or pork are products. They do not have to make that product especially if it is not in their normal business. Sorry wedding cakes were essential elements in that business. So just how is a gay wedding cake different from a straight wedding cake? The only thing I see is perhaps two groom figures. So charge the for two sets of figures and put the bride figures aside for the Lesbian couple next week. And charge them double too for the figures. Why soon you have increased business from a population known for bigger fancier weddings. Definitely a win-win.
I remember a Black friend explaning why especially in large cities Blacks could get better service. "Since everyone moved to the city to make money they faced a choice. They could not serve a customer and lose that sale or they could serve the different customer and thus make money." The choice was facilitated by the greed that capitalism has long glorified.


Luther, I've read a lot of your stuff, and while I only agree with you about 50% of the time, I find you an intelligent and articulate writer.  Thus I seek your opinion about a post I made earlier today on "Conservatively Speaking", for which I was banned.  Here is a link:
I was told by another poster that I should have first read the article (which I had actually done) but when I went to reply to him, found I was banned on the site.  Is this typical of this site? (I see that you have been there).


And the Communist Party USA endorsed Hillary Clinton. What's your point?
There seems to be some delusion among leftists and Democrats (but I repeat myself) that communism was somehow less repressive and evil than fascism; when in point of fact they were equally vile. Persecuting people for their social class or wealth is not morally superior to persecuting them for their race.
The difference, of course, is that American conservatives despise National Socialists; but American leftists think Marxism is peachy keen.


I was following that channel. i am now following you instead and have deleted it from my feed.
If that doesn't tell you my opinion then let me add that I agree with your post and I abhor censorship
Oh. And thank you for your kind words.


Well not here. The difference was that Nazis had a real nationalist hang-up that could not translate into an international appeal. Stalin actually killed more people before WW2. He starved them, hardly more kindly. He did in fact luck out on Hitler's personal interest in showmanship versus Stalin's secrecy. Both seem to have had several screws loose and were hardly stable characters and each was obsessive about personal loyalty. And being fired by them might involve gunfire.
For a time in the 1930s leftists did think Marxism had the asnwers but then the conservatives back then loved kindly uncle Adolf. What concerns me is that currently there is this myth that Nazism must have been left wing. It was not and was never considered such. There proud that they were nationalist, expansionist, and racist, all the marks of right wing. Of course all sides should understand that totalitarians are far more dangerous. And liberals who want to implement social welfareism, which is a capitalist invention, designed to save capitalism is far different from any of the totalitarians. And we should all get off this stupid finger pointing. Mildly left learning is far from and often just as concerned about constitution, although they emphasize different part and are focused on different right being protected. And don't tell me you are really concerned about everyone's rights if you don't support gay rights or Hispanic and Black rights, Asian rights.


Leftists are no more comfortable with Marxism than conservatives are with Naziism.


That's your problem right there: you don't seem to be able to understand that rights are ONLY negative, and that any and all so-called "positive" rights are, in fact, really only threats and crimes of extortive theft, which lead inevitably to slavery.


Yeah, running away is considered "winning" on my planet, too! Whee!
And people with facts always have to use fallacies (ad hominems, tu quoques) too!
Nice try, though!


Yes, those evil National SOCIALISTS "wanted every single form of socialism dead!"
Nice try!


The "Right" wing meme is only a gang-rights fallacy generated by leftist gangsters to slander individualists as equally herd-like to retroactively rationalize their own gangs.


Hard to say, since he didn't last long enough to actually do anything!


I haven't flagged you, so I can't address the first part. If you become too obnoxious or tedious, I might block you or ignore you.
Fascism is a left wing ideology. Leftist attempts to pretend otherwise are useful only against the gullible. Unlike most, I read a lot of history, and the only factor that labels fascism as right wing is  that Soviet Marxists labeled them as such. Soviet authorities labeled any person in their polity who advocated increased personal freedom as "right wing deviationists."


So the question is, are you going to pretend the Soviet Union were praising the National Socialists because Germany was more free?
What the National Socialists were was widely recognized throughout Europe as another flavor of socialism. That only changed with the war, when suddenly the Communists did an about face.

Posts: 1 to 30 of 31

Pages 1 2 Next

You must login or register to post a reply

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Your View: Were Nazis RW or LW?

Similar topics in this forum