Well, recently I researched the connection between environmental ethics and economy - they have amazingly much in common, but going through all the econimc theory that explained how a cost benefit analysis worked to evaluate the intrinsic value of something like a meadow or forest was tiring. At least the text was in english and so the style was enjoyable. Angloenglish scientific writing is alot different from german scientific writing. Here, you have to use complicated language and technical terms, and the more difficult it is to read the more of a scientist you appear. Texts have long complicated sentences filled with technical terms to explain completely banal and mundane contexts and connections, and everything has to be deadly serious, no humour allowed.

I thought it was the other way around - most jobs require experience and are highly specialized. That is the problem if you have unskilled workers - they don't qualify for the job.

How much more can an economy grow if you already have everything?

It is the other way around, but the claim is still there.

Well, if your population is not growing, not much.  But the fallacy is that we have everything.  100 years ago, everything did not include cars, microwaves, washers, dryers, cell phones or even phones. (some had most of the stuff, but most did not).  Even 20 year ago, who had a cell phone or needed one? (I got mine about 11 years ago)  Or the Internet?

yea, they are really just toys - but they are neat toys!

Remember the old cliche - the only differnce between a man and a boy is the cost of their toys!

 

Its not THESE statements that are communist. "equality, national pride and standing strong" are meaningless buzzwords.

1. Their actions are communist, they past laws which follow communist ideaology. Calling it "equality, national pride and standing strong" doesn't change it being communist

2. They make statements such as "spreading the wealth" and when baited, even "from each according to his means to each according to his needs".

 A pity you don't have context. What we call liberals now are what we used to call conservatism. When Lincoln became president, he was a liberal. it was not until conservatives were so outrageous did they change names, calling themselves liberals. People bought it and liberals now called conservatives were stuck cleaning up the name. we did that and now we have liberals destroying the name liberal to the point they now are starting to call themselves progressives. The ideas have not changed since their staunch support of slavery, hate, and national destruction, just the name they call it.

If you are a republican and say mainstream republican things (ex: I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman) you would be accused of hate speech and be barred from ever being a teacher, or having any of your books used in schools. Oh, and when GM was nationalized and started closing dealerships? they were targeting dealerships whose owners are republican.

Your example was that if you were an approved member of the party you could not:

1. Publish books - While you could still publish books in the USA, those books will never be used in a classroom.

2. Be a teacher - that is currently the case in the USA. I constantly hear praise of obama during college lectures from half my teachers (physics class, biostatistics class). The other half keeps their mouth shut, so they are either republicans, independents, or democrats who think I am actually there to learn about science and not liberalism.

3. Be a profession - that is the same as a teacher... unless you were seperating K12 teachers from college teachers... in which case you should know that it is even WORSE in K12 system as far as liberal propaganda.

4. Run your shop - The government nationalizes things left and right, they are specifically taxing banks and other businesses they dislike, they close down shops (of car dealers) whose owners are the wrong party after having nationalized the car companies.

 

Your example is terrible because all those things you said already happen and just serve to illustrate how wrong you are.

Indeed, the founding fathers stood for liberty and democracy. Liberal sounds like liberty, but they stand of tyranny. Democrat sounds like democracy, but they stand for communist oligarchy

Bottom line: everybody is able to publish.

Your claim about a liberal nazi like dictatorship doesn't hold up because  you would already be in prison, and sites like this wouldn't work at all, a lot like it is in China today. Anybody in a public function who had a different oppinion from the official propaganda would at best lose their jobs or be in prison or at worst just disappear. The only freedom you would have is to feel free to shut up and do as you're told, and you would probably have a civil war already because all those out there who are fervent advocates of the 2nd ammendment would take up arms and defend their rights against government oppression. I don't actually think a dictatorship would work in the US for that reason - american mentality just doesn't compute with being oppressed.

I feel like you (and others who claim this) trivialize the horrors and totality of nazirule with your comparison. As a matter of fact, your pathos has alot in common with the style the NSDAP used in their propagandacampeigns against whomever group they wanted to exterminate.

Bottom line is that both liberals and consevatives are able to accuse each other and fight like alleycats in blogs or radioshows or TVshows and any other media because the US is anything but communist.

1. You conviniently ignore points 2 through 4.

2.

Don't just handwave the current situation with such a general statement. You can still publish, but there are restrictions. In the early stages of nazi germany, jews and other undesirables had restrictions but still had human rights... at first.

3.

Nazi germany didn't have death camps at day 1, it was a transformation that took years. We are similar to an early stage... we still have rights, but are already being limited. Things are indeed not as bad as late nazi germany. But I never claimed they were.

4.

Hence the movement and unification against our would be opressors.

5.

Bullshit.

First of all, we are clearly referring to EARLY nazi germany... specifically the methods by which they built up their power to allow them to do whatever they want later on.

Secondly, your statement is just an appeal to emotion and has no actual logical or evidence based merit. Get an actual argument please.

Third, are you aware that I am a jew? and that while my grandparents survived the holocaust, their close and extended family did not. My great grand-parents, most of their children, their siblings, their children, their uncles, their aunts, their children, etc all have been murdered by the nazies. And their names are now engraved on plaques of memorial in Germany.

I am not saying I am offended, but that is a hillarious faux pas on your part that I am completely shocked that you would make. Whats next, tell some black people that they are trivializing black slavery by calling socialism a form of slavery? (oh wait!)

Now, I am not saying its impossible for jews to trivialize the holocaust or for blacks to trivialize slavery... I am just shocked that a so called politically correct liberal would make such a statement.

Prisoncamps for undesirable political opponents, intellectuals etc. were around since year 1. They were among the first things that were established. A concentration camp is not automatically equal to a deathcamp, even though distinguishing here seems awful as thousands of people died in "regular" camps as well.

The other half would be unemployed or in said prisoncamps. I haven't heard of uncontrolled nationalization where the goal was to control private business of political opponents and banks and even the whole car industry. The latter wouldn't even make sense as they are bankrupt. What would they want with a bottomless moneypit like that? I heard it differently in the news here, even though one could argue about the necessity to save and substitute an industry that has no customers just in order to save the jobs. But saving jobs was the goal of all that, not government controll - or that is how it was reported in the news here.

The point of departure for Hitler in January 1933 was very different from Obama's in January 2009. Comparing it is not insightful in any way. Hitler used the force of the SA and SS to beat up, arrest and even kill parliament members in the beginning to get the vote he wanted. He also staged a terrorist attack to dissolve civil liberties and habeas corpus rights in March 1933. I have yet to hear about liberal measures that parallel Hitlers in his very first half year of office alone.

How's that for EARLY nazi rule? Conservative bitching and moaning about Obama's nazimethods is very amusing when you actually compare what happend in the last stages of the Weimar Republic and the first year of Hitler's rule in 1933 to the first year of Obama's administration. Why don't you go to the history department of your library the next time and do some research instead of listening to populist and declamatory radioshows and/or TVshows that claim to be politically informe. There are many actual examples based on facts and documents available in historybooks that have nothing whatsoever to do with emotions.

It depends entirely on the degree of comparison. Comparing nationalsocialist methods used by Hitler like forcible coordination that established a totalitarian regime, extensive use of secret police to enforce said regime, a private security force to intimidate political opposition, extensive censoring of all media, mandatory membership in the ruling party and dissolving all other political parties at the same time etc. to Obama's policy is too exagerrated to be taken seriously. If anything, the patriot act was closer to Hitlers methods of control.

Comparing the strife of the farmers in feudal russia and under Lenin to slavery in the US wouldn't rise an eyebrow - there are similarities in the degree of exploitation and suffering, inhumane treatment  even though the political and economic backgrounds are entirely different.

Well, he is starting with his "national Police Force".  A force he envisions to replace the military.

Germany in 1933 was a nascent democracy, and of course America in 2009 is a 200+ year old one, so it will take longer if we allow it.  The key is in the last phrase - if we allow it. And one way of "allowing" is to ignore the warning signs.  The first shot has been fired.  We need to stop it before it reaches a conflagarion.

The partition of the political system into judicative, executive and legistlative bodies is well suited to prevent anything from happening that isn't sanctioned by the voters and violates the consitution.

Even as the president, supposedly the most powerful position in the world, it isn't possible to just decree laws - but that is what Hitler did. After he threatend or arrested or even killed the political opposition the parliament, if you can still call it that, every law was just nodded through - and Hitler ensured dictatoral powers for himself by quasi legal means.

The police thing.. I haven't heard of that so far. I thought the US already have a national police force - the FBI.

I associate Hitler with blind hatred and racist ideology, a total will to dominate the world by force and to ruthlessly exploit or kill of those that didn't fit into his worldview. To compare someone like Obama or GW Bush as well with Hitler is an unacceptable insult. You cannot use Hitler as a foil and then clarify that you only meant certain very specific issues that might have some similiarities if you're blind and squint really hard. I wish people would stop using the emotional carrd - and using Hitler and everything that is associated with him is very emotional - and stick to facts or at least a more neutral tone.

Indeed.  But its jurisdiction is somewhat constrained, apparently more than BO would like.

BO's call for a domestic police force 'as strong as our military' was always a bit strange & unlikely to go anywhere, but not inconsistent with his political philosophy and desire for centralized/nationalized control of everything.

IN theory.  In practice, it is if we allow it.  Again, where in the constitution does it say that you should spy on your neighbors?  Obama decreed it (he has since backed off due to furor over it).  Where in the constitution does it say an executive agency can make law?  He did, the EPA and classifying Co2 as a toxic gas (clearly it is not - even science backs that up).  Where in the constitution is the president allowed to appoint non-confirmed people to make policy?  (Obama did - See Czars).

As I said, if we allow it.  And the answer is, yes it can happen in any society.

Look at present day Venezuela for a metamorphose of democracy into socialism and tell me how that isn't supposed to happen. Sure the US isn't Venezuela, but it clearly illustrates what is possible when there are those willing.