Edited title: Liberal talking points, reasons to hate Bush from the left.

[Kilmer17]

do we need to speak slower?

Fascism is NOT a political ideology.

Hitler was a SOCIALIST. SOCIALISM is a political ideology.

Fascism is a political system so to speak.

Comparing.

Fascism and Democracy are systems of Govt.

Socialism and Conservatism are ideologies.

[Ghost of]

Ah, now it was just a metaphor. I'll be honest, I think it was poorly executed.

More importantly, I think, that website was geocities but the CONTENT(rather than the host--who cares about that) was far left.

NOW, if that was a random search and you state as much, I'll be happy to retract that PORTION of what I said(relating to the web site)

[thew]

YEah hitler was a lefty.... This is way off topic but just to say you guys learned something today....

The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that exalts nation and often race above the individual, and uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism). Nazism is usually considered as a kind of fascism, but it should be understood that Nazism sought the state's purpose in serving an ideal to valuing what its content should be: its people, race, and the social engineering of these aspects of culture to the ends of the greatest possible prosperity for them at the expense of all else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Hitler was by no definition socialist.....

[Art]

Chomerics, I'll try to keep this somewhat brief.

The players on the team held a closed-door meeting. In that meeting they found a unifying rallying point. Hatred of Marty. In the meeting they resolved to play for themselves and ignore the coach. This allowed a unity and chemistry that helped the team win games. But it was the sort of unity and chemistry that is short-lived. Marty played into it as well, which was very smart on his part. But, when he caved in how he did things when the mutiny happened, he lost the team he had. He'd have had to start from scratch with but one or two guys total who could have survived. He was done as soon as the players turned on him and he gave in to them.

As for the cap, the $80 million was our budget. You apparently don't understand how the cap works. You can spend more in a single year than the total of the cap. It's called bonuses. This year, for example, we'll spend $30 million or more out of pocket than the cap. Like in 2000 when we spent $93.4 million on players though the cap was $63 or so million.

Marty decided to play with $53 million in player salary instead of $80 million he was given by Snyder. Marty was in full control. Marty took dead hits he didn't have to take. This is all fine. But let's not blame Snyder. He did it because HE wanted to and HE had full control.

An 8-8 record on Marty's terms would have been a fine achievement. Sadly it didn't occur on Marty's terms. Marty caved to the revolt against him. He went high school on offense and defense. It just so happened we had enough talent to beat a lot of weaker teams head to head because of that talent.

Marty had no intention of going through another year like 2001. That team did everything it could have done and was going to be gutted because Marty was almost to a man hated. Only Arrington among the prominant players backed him.

You then go back to your lack of knowledge about the cap. Again, I'll tell you we're UNDER the cap right now, and yet we're spending more money this year than the value of the cap. Please don't think your lack of knowledge is my fault, ok?

Spurrier was a very interesting coach to watch. He never found himself. But, to say the rest of the NFL knew how much of a joke Spurrier was is an outright lie. Spurrier was the most highly sought after coach available. Ron Wolf would have hired him in an instant. So you create fictional reasons to hate Snyder it appears. Why do you do this?

Snyder is the best owner in the league because he puts money back into the team and stadium for the players. He does everything his coaching staff asks of him. He gets the players they direct him to get. Unfortunately, he's not had good enough coaching staffs to get the most out of the teams he's been able to get them. With hope Gibbs can correct some of that flaw.

As for ticket prices, as I tried to explain to you, the marketing groups who make these estimates include premium seats of the Redskins that are not counted for other teams. The cost of general admission seating, which is what other teams have counted, is middle of the road. When you add the cost of several thousand premium seats, the average cost goes up. But, those premium seats are not part of the revenue sharing and should not be counted in these studies.

Again, all I'm asking here is you KNOW this simple stuff. Is that too hard?

[luckydevil]

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

-- Hitler

[thew]

Kilmer...

do we need to speak slower?

Fascism is NOT a political ideology.

You don't need to speak at all. Your wrong. Five idiots all in agreement doesn't make it right. Socialism is a political ideology and so is fascim. Hitler was one and not the other....

Hitler believed in mass extermination of communists and the disabled.... Thats not a "socialist" ideal.. It's FASCISM.. so was Hitler.. over on the right....

Keep working on that passing thing...

[Kilmer17]

Read the quote from Hitler himself.

[Ghost of]

thew

That last post doesn't prove much.

Communists exterminated other Communists, let alone other political factions like the Social Democrats and others. Hardly, reveals Communists as not being leftists.

Totalitarians tend to act that way.

I will agree with you, though, that fascism can be an ideology as well. It does tend to exalt race or nation above the individual, and subordinates business to national goals.

BUT, that doesn't make it right-wing.

[Art]

Thew,

Please tell me whether the following statements are leftist or right.

1. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

2. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

3. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

4. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

5. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

6. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

I've got more.

But, first, can you please comment on whether these are left or right leaning.

You clearly don't have any idea what the Nazi party stood for. And so you know, Hitler wrote each of these and several more party platform planks. Do you know how many?

[Art]

Originally posted by luckydevil

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

-- Hitler

Wait. You mean HITLER said he was a socialist. But, Thew says Hitler wasn't a socialist. Who's right?

Let's inspect. Is Hitler correct that he was a socialist?

Or, is Thew right when he says Hitler wasn't?

Gosh. This is a tough call.

I mean, if Hitler were to call for the nationalization of businesses, profit-sharing, state insurance for the elderly and all that jazz, it might be more clear.

But, in the end, I think Thew knows what Hitler was better than Hitler knew himself. I'm persuaded.

Thew.

It's time you provided something other than a third graders coloring in this site. Especially when that proves just how left Hitler was.

[Ghost of]

Another thing:

Calling for the death of the disabled in the form of "euthanasia" is this really that far from what many leftists advocate here in the US. From abortion to pulling the plug to assisted suicide, the left(and others, true, but I'm focusing on this for a reason) have been there supporting these issues.

Are these really that far from the cold calculations involved in euthanasia? I don't think so. To be sure, many on the left embrace a kinder, gentler version of it and don't advocate euthanasia and some are even anti-abortion too.

But I think that the idea of eliminating the disabled--well that's not quite right-wing is it?

[Ghost of]

Ouch, Art you were harsh on Code in that thread. LOL

As for nationalistic Communists---lol, the Chinese and Cambodian communists(hell the Vietnamese too) were all fiercely nationalistic, in addition to being led by dictators. They were definitely NOT right-wing.

The Khmer Rouge murdered tens of thousands of ethnic Vietnamese living in Cambodia, didn't mean they weren't Communist.

Ok, for an example of a right-wing fascistic government--Chiang Kai Shek and his Kuomintang Party.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Art

Wait. You mean HITLER said he was a socialist. But, Thew says Hitler wasn't a socialist. Who's right?

Let's inspect. Is Hitler correct that he was a socialist?

Or, is Thew right when he says Hitler wasn't?

Gosh. This is a tough call.

I mean, if Hitler were to call for the nationalization of businesses, profit-sharing, state insurance for the elderly and all that jazz, it might be more clear.

But, in the end, I think Thew knows what Hitler was better than Hitler knew himself. I'm persuaded.

Thew.

It's time you provided something other than a third graders coloring in this site. Especially when that proves just how left Hitler was.

This should be my last post on this topic, somehow we turned why Bush's policies are against mainstream conservatism into weather Hitler was on the left or the right.

Unfortunately, this debate will never be solved. For every Socialistic policy the Nazi party had, they also had some extremeist right wing policies as well. I have always felt the political spectrum runs full circle with the ideology of Socialism and Facism intermingling into Totalitarianism.

You see, Thew is arguing that Nazi Germany was a facist regime, of which he is partially right. Art, you are arguing that Nazi Germany is a socialist regime, of which you are partially right. What neither of you are looking at is what Nazi Germany really was, totalitarianism. It contains both facist and socialist idologies and it is at the apex of the on the opposite end of democracy.

Art,

You constantly put people down who oppose your viewpoint instead of rationalizing where they are coming from. If somebody doesn't agree with your ideology, you call them ignorant and ignore what they're trying to say. The fact that you would try to rationalize Nazi Germany as an extreme left wing group, while not recognizing the extreme right wing viewpoints of Nazism shows either your ignorance or your bias. The fact that you ignore that Nazi Germany was a system in which the citizens were directly controlled by the state in forms of propaganda, war and political seizure shows this.

Thew,

In your effort, albiet a lame one, to try and rationalize why a right wing conservative would oppose Bush (a good question by the way), you chose the wrong topics. You should have stuck with the federal budget and the social programs he's funded. Instead, you took the position of social values, which are left beliefs. I tend to agree with Art on this one, you are more left than right, no matter who you vote for.

Either way, we will never come to the end of this thread. Nazism was both left and right. Totalitarianism encompasses both communism and facism, so you have aspects of both left and right in each. You can argue until the cows come home, and it won't change a thing on your beliefs, so why bother? It's a waste of time and anyone who wants to get true beliefs will toss out both of your responses because of your hard line stances.

As for the Skins, I'm done arguing with you Art, because our viewpoints are so far off. I don't blame Skins fans for liking Snyder, but to defend some of his actions is just wrong. I just hope that we never meet on the street, because it would be like matter and antimatter colliding, we both be dead.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by Art

Wait. You mean HITLER said he was a socialist. But, Thew says Hitler wasn't a socialist. Who's right?

Let's inspect. Is Hitler correct that he was a socialist?

Or, is Thew right when he says Hitler wasn't?

Gosh. This is a tough call.

I mean, if Hitler were to call for the nationalization of businesses, profit-sharing, state insurance for the elderly and all that jazz, it might be more clear.

But, in the end, I think Thew knows what Hitler was better than Hitler knew himself. I'm persuaded.

Art, sometimes I think that you're a fairly intelligent guy, and sometimes I think that you actually believe the rhetoric that you use to entertain us (and persuade the more intellectually decrepit members of the site).

Let's take out the sarcasm and pick apart your argument. Your claim is that when any person identifies his beliefs, that claim is to be believed over what an outsider might perceive those beliefs to be. Your devotion to this claim is so strong that it holds even in the following circumstances:

1) When the outside observer is acting on solid evidence;

2) When the self-identifier is a known lying, psychotic, spittle-emitting lunatic.

That's pretty strong devotion. You must really love this claim, as it immediately gives the lie to the scores of times you've accused people on this board as misrepresenting themselves as "conservative" or "centrist" when they are ACTUALLY flaming liberals. Of course, they must be right and you must be wrong if your above claim is true. It also means that the East Germans were correct in claiming that their country was a democracy.

Of course, I can see why a right-winger such as you would be terrified at the thought that Hitler could be anything but a lefty, especially when the historical evidence is against you. Here's an example.

Socialism very specifically necessitates that the means of production are to be controlled by the people through the democratic process. Nazism was far from democratic, and Hitler despised democracy. Instead, he vested complete control of employees in employers, whom he called "leaders of the enterprise." He vested full decision-making power in these capitalist leaders, while removing all power from the employed. However, he had to keep the masses happy with the socialist rhetoric. William Shirer notes, "{Hitler} had to allow Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons."

[Art]

Chomerics,

When people refuse to even acknowledge that Hitler was a socialist, I'm going to make fun of them. When someone doesn't understand how the cap works in the NFL, but is angry by how someone manages it, I'm going to make fun of them. It's got nothing to do with agreement or disagreement with any particular viewpoint. It has to do with basic intelligence. It is true that most often that general lack occurs among those on the left who are more emotionally driven in their views than logically driven.

AtB,

I may be wrong here, but did you just essentially lead your reply to me that if a person is a known liar that if the person says he's a socialist, writes a socialist manifesto, starts a party based on that socialist manifesto and rules a country based on those beliefs, that we should disbelieve he's a socialist because he's lied about other things?

I believe Clinton is a Democrat. I believe he lied about other things. Do I therefore have to disbelieve he's a Democrat?

Every single word and belief I've written in this thread are actual actions and beliefs and words written or conducted by Hitler and his goons. The historical evidence of what Hitler was is remarkable. It's remarkable not for the fact he was a leftist, but for the fact that SO MUCH of what he believed is currently the rage among the left in America.

I listed several of the founding principles of Hitler's government. You go so far as to attempt to get out of the socialistic nature of Hitler by saying socialism very specifically necessitates that the means of production are to be controlled by the people through the democratic process.

While I will agree with you that a simple dictionary definition may not encompass all of what socialism is, I will provide what Webster's defines socialism as.

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

If socialism very specifically requires worker control and a democratic process, can you explain how this fundamental portion of the system is somehow excluded in every rendering of what it means? I suspect given your political leanings you probably admire socialism and have read books about it.

So, may I ask you how you avoided knowledge of government ownership and adminstration of the means of production? In fact, I'd appreciate even a SINGLE citation that suggests socialism ignores government control of this entirely and puts it wholly in the hands of the people as this is the first I've heard of socialism not being a governmentally controlled system.

While I'm sure some forms of socialism may call for the central theme you present here, I have to ask you, if it very specifically calls for it, what the hell is Webster's doing defining it almost precisely how Hitler did in the 25 planks of his socialist party platform?

[Art]

AtB,

Another point on a portion of your argument I didn't want to mix with the main reply. We are on an internet message board with people posting under handles that disguise who they are. We have any number of Eagle fans who come to our site posting as Redskin fans, but you know who they are.

Wacky Ralph wasn't actually a Redskin fan, a guy named Ralph, or all that funny. We're on a message board where people try to provoke certain people by pretending to act certain ways. I have often tracked people down as I'm an admin and have personal information on people.

These people are nameless and faceless and can only be judged on their words since there is nothing else we know. Over time a person may reveal who they are here. Simple declarations that you are a thing with the anonymity of the internet doesn't rise to quite the same level as a historical or public figure who has reams of data to describe who they are.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Art

Chomerics,

When people refuse to even acknowledge that Hitler was a socialist, I'm going to make fun of them. When someone doesn't understand how the cap works in the NFL, but is angry by how someone manages it, I'm going to make fun of them. It's got nothing to do with agreement or disagreement with any particular viewpoint. It has to do with basic intelligence. It is true that most often that general lack occurs among those on the left who are more emotionally driven in their views than logically driven.

AtB,

I may be wrong here, but did you just essentially lead your reply to me that if a person is a known liar that if the person says he's a socialist, writes a socialist manifesto, starts a party based on that socialist manifesto and rules a country based on those beliefs, that we should disbelieve he's a socialist because he's lied about other things?

I believe Clinton is a Democrat. I believe he lied about other things. Do I therefore have to disbelieve he's a Democrat?

Every single word and belief I've written in this thread are actual actions and beliefs and words written or conducted by Hitler and his goons. The historical evidence of what Hitler was is remarkable. It's remarkable not for the fact he was a leftist, but for the fact that SO MUCH of what he believed is currently the rage among the left in America.

I listed several of the founding principles of Hitler's government. You go so far as to attempt to get out of the socialistic nature of Hitler by saying socialism very specifically necessitates that the means of production are to be controlled by the people through the democratic process.

While I will agree with you that a simple dictionary definition may not encompass all of what socialism is, I will provide what Webster's defines socialism as.

If socialism very specifically requires worker control and a democratic process, can you explain how this fundamental portion of the system is somehow excluded in every rendering of what it means? I suspect given your political leanings you probably admire socialism and have read books about it.

So, may I ask you how you avoided knowledge of government ownership and adminstration of the means of production? In fact, I'd appreciate even a SINGLE citation that suggests socialism ignores government control of this entirely and puts it wholly in the hands of the people as this is the first I've heard of socialism not being a governmentally controlled system.

While I'm sure some forms of socialism may call for the central theme you present here, I have to ask you, if it very specifically calls for it, what the hell is Webster's doing defining it almost precisely how Hitler did in the 25 planks of his socialist party platform?

Art, like I said give the name calling a rest. It's tiresome and boring.

It's no wonder why your for this administration when you look at your cap policy. You can't keep on spending above the cap and not pay for it.

Now, let me get your argument correct. First you claimed Marty had an extra $27million to spend. I gave you real cap numbers which showed what the Skins spent, and you claim and he didn't

As for the cap, the $80 million was our budget. You apparently don't understand how the cap works. You can spend more in a single year than the total of the cap. It's called bonuses. This year, for example, we'll spend $30 million or more out of pocket than the cap. Like in 2000 when we spent $93.4 million on players though the cap was $63 or so million.

Then, you claimed oh, it wasn't real money, it was signing bonus money. Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claims? Oh, let me guess, the burden of proof is on me, isn't that your next step?

Your act is to put people down who disproove your claims, call them a fool and hope to hell they don't call your bluff. You sure you don't work for the Bush administration?

As for knowing the cap, I'm not a capologist, but I would venture a guess I know a hell of a lot more about the cap then you. Just to state the the budget was $80 million is a joke. So tell me, how were they going to fit the extra $27 million dollar bonus' under the cap. You know, you have to pro-rate your SB, so unless the average contract was 7 years, they didn't have the money to sign the players. You see. . . $53 million + $14million of dead money is $67 million, or the cap number. Now, where are they going to come up with the extra $3-7 million dollars? Who were they going to cut? Stubblefield? WIlkenson? Where was the $7 million comming from.

Now, tell me how I'm ignorant about the cap. Tell me how you could fit another $3-7 million under the cap and who they were going to cut. And finally tell me where is the evidence the Skins had a payroll of $80 dollars in 2001 and how it was Marty's "idea" not to spend the money.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Art, you've done me the honor of a well-thought-out, polite response, and I will attempt to return the favor.

You're correct in assuming that I've read reams and reams of books on socialism, although honestly it doesn't compel me the way it did when I was in my early teens (socialist at 13, right-libertarian at 19). Webster's does do a decent job of trying to summarize the various meanings to which the word has been subjected historically without going into pages and pages, but there are (to generalize almost unconscionably) two main variants of socialism:

1) Complete governmental control of all property by a central council (Leninism), and

2) Control of business by workers.

The first is now a cute anachronism; the second as relevant today (and the way in which I use it) translates to democratic control of the means of production.

Now, it is true that both Leninism (let's just call it "communism" here for unpretentiousness' sake, although academics would be furious) and Nazism call for direct governmental control of people's lives. However, the key distinction is that Nazism is a capitalist system.

First off, the Nazis lied to the people. They adopted a whole bunch of socialist rhetoric for their charter in order to gain the support of the working classes, while writing reams and reams of propaganda against Marxists (whom Hitler called "Judeo-Bolsheviks"). However, throughout this entire period, the Nazis denied the existence of class struggle and never wanted to abolish capitalism (this was explicit). Moreover, when they got to power, they totally abandoned the socialist agenda. The lefties among the Nazis were killed or purged (the Strassers and Röhm, for example--c.f. Trotsky in Russia) and businesses kept control of production (even film production!). The only private property that was divested was that of Jews. Trade unions were outlawed, as were strikes. Big business flourished, and that's why the Nazis enjoyed the support of such right-wing parties as the German National People's Party (this even before they got to power).

To be fair, the Nazis did create a government-owned business (Volkswagen) and routinely meet with business leaders to coordinate production, but they never interfered with the system of pricing and profiteering (they didn't take profits away from the businesspeople).

I think it's accurate to say that, more than anything else, Hitler's system was authoritarian--repressive in both personal freedoms and economic freedoms. It might have contained elements of socialism, but it also contained elements of far-right provincialism and "unchecked" capitalism (including the erosion of workers' rights). That's why I don't think the "National Socialists" were socialist at all.

[Art]

Originally posted by chomerics

Art, like I said give the name calling a rest. It's tiresome and boring.

It's no wonder why your for this administration when you look at your cap policy. You can't keep on spending above the cap and not pay for it.

Now, let me get your argument correct. First you claimed Marty had an extra $27million to spend. I gave you real cap numbers which showed what the Skins spent, and you claim and he didn't

Then, you claimed oh, it wasn't real money, it was signing bonus money. Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claims? Oh, let me guess, the burden of proof is on me, isn't that your next step?

I don't know what claim you are confused by. Marty was given an $80 million budget on player salaries in 2001 a year after we spent $93.4 million on player salaries in 2000. Do you need a link as to where that information came from? Do you not realize any number of teams have payrolls that are larger than the salary cap and you need that verified?

The sum total of what you don't know would leave me posting dozens of links. All of the information, though, is available here, on this very board. You can even search for it if you'd like. Marty was given $80 million to spend on players in the 2001 season. Marty decided to spend $53 million, take a number of cap hits, and give a large deal to George, a player he later cut.

Your act is to put people down who disproove your claims, call them a fool and hope to hell they don't call your bluff. You sure you don't work for the Bush administration?

As for knowing the cap, I'm not a capologist, but I would venture a guess I know a hell of a lot more about the cap then you. Just to state the the budget was $80 million is a joke. So tell me, how were they going to fit the extra $27 million dollar bonus' under the cap. You know, you have to pro-rate your SB, so unless the average contract was 7 years, they didn't have the money to sign the players. You see. . . $53 million + $14million of dead money is $67 million, or the cap number. Now, where are they going to come up with the extra $3-7 million dollars? Who were they going to cut? Stubblefield? WIlkenson? Where was the $7 million comming from.

Now, tell me how I'm ignorant about the cap. Tell me how you could fit another $3-7 million under the cap and who they were going to cut. And finally tell me where is the evidence the Skins had a payroll of $80 dollars in 2001 and how it was Marty's "idea" not to spend the money.

Again, you've yet to disprove a single claim I've made as every single word I've said to you is factual, and you simply don't know the topic. Trust me when I say, you clearly do not know the cap as well as I do. I only know this because you do not seem to know we have carried larger yearly payroll numbers than the total salary cap each of the last three seasons now and thre of the last four.

Yet you keep stupidly asking how it's possible.

Low Paragraph 5 contract values with higher than normal guaranteed numbers is how. We've had dozens of articles on this board about cap management from media sources as well as from people who understand the topic, like me. You should learn from me OR those sources.

Here's the last thread with a media report on the cap.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52934&highlight=salary+cap+nfl.com

As for 2001, Marty decided to cut Stubblefield, Tre and Keith Sims very early on. Even before Deion was released, Marty had taken $13 million in dead money. Deion, Carrier, Centers and later George actually took our dead hit to a hair over $20 million if memory serves. Restructured deals for Westbrook, Bailey, Davis, Wilkinson, Coleman and George all upped the amount we spent to $53 million though we had more than $14 million of dead money.

Again, this is all information in links on this board over the last four years. Do a search if you don't know it. I'm not telling you anything that's not PRECISELY factual. Marty decided to accelerate whatever cap hit was to come into his first year, figuring he would have more flexibility the following years. I have no problem with how Marty managed the cap. But, the choice was HIS. He had $27 million he could have used to bring in more players and help the team. He left that money in Snyder's pocket.

I can't give you evidence Marty had a payroll of $80 million in 2001 because I've told you repeatedly in this thread he didn't. He could have had that much to spend as that's what Snyder approved and instead of spending it he spent $53 million. Marty had full control. He did what he felt was best. I don't fault him for it. But, I do know how he operated the cap when he was in charge and what he left on the table.

You clearly don't know. But, on this board, when I know how to hit search and find this information, you can rest assured, I know more than you. And as long as you know less and shine that in my face like you're proud of it, I'm going to make fun of you.

[Art]

Ok, AtB, so we're clear, you agree completely that Hitler talked like a socialist. That his party platform was socialist almost entirely. That he played up socialist values in some sort of popularity gambit, and once it worked, what you disagree with is that he remained socialist.

In your point of view -- using language that seems very much like you borrowed it from Steven Kangas (a noted liberal) right down to the troublesome definition of socialism you provided -- once Hitler took power, he stopped being a socialist, though you agree he was one in order to attain power.

Is that about what you're saying?

I want that answered before we go too much deeper because if the answer is what it seems to be, this conversation alters slightly in tone to what we KNOW Hitler stood for to what he may or may not have done to validate that.

[Ancalagon the Black]

I agree that the Nazi party platform had a lot of socialist rhetoric in it that was entirely discarded when they got into power. So, yes. Hitler pretended to be a socialist to get into power.

Hmm...I'm certainly familiar with some of Steve Kangas' work, but I didn't refer to any of it in writing my post. But it's not surprising that we lefties share similar definitions.

[Art]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

I agree that the Nazi party platform had a lot of socialist rhetoric in it that was entirely discarded when they got into power. So, yes. Hitler pretended to be a socialist to get into power.

Hmm...I'm certainly familiar with some of Steve Kangas' work, but I didn't refer to any of it in writing my post. But it's not surprising that we lefties share similar definitions.

AtB,

Just for clarification sake, your definition isn't similar to Kangas. Your definition is IDENTICAL. Word for word. I just find it odd. I can't find a single other reference to that definition of socialism OTHER than on a liberalism web site with a hundred myths about how wrong conservatives are. I even found one site that argues Kangas' definition by pointing to Websters, so, I found that amusing considering I did the same thing. I just did it before seeing it.

Color me suspicious. I was hoping you were using Kangas to support you because he's a guy who's easy to discredit as he makes arguments that a leftist can't be a dicator who believes in the military, without even realizing that's what Stalin was . But, I'll move on.

I have a serious problem with your view that Hitler rose to power on the strength of socialist rhetoric. Understand, true socialism has never been tried anywhere in the world. I find it hard to believe this is all that popular a theory that people would rally behind it. It seems to me the most compelling thing about Hitler's popularity was the nationalism he brought to the table.

Here's a beaten nation after the first World War. They are having massive economic issues. They are the losers of a major war. Here comes this guy talking about how great they are. Lifting them as a nation and tapping into that pride. I think that's far more likely to have inspired his popularity than socialist rhetoric.

I think while you are correct to say Hitler didn't impose strict goverment take overs of business, preferring to allow those who'd proven they could maintain a business in charge. But, this is pretty much exactly how the socialism in Sweden works, so, I don't think that can be a primary underpinning of your argument that it disqualifies Hitler from being a leftist.

The German state under Hitler did exert state control over business. Hitler admired much of FDR's work in this country and instituted similar socialist programs in Germany. Mussolini was also a national socialist who was even further left than Hitler, though like Hitler, businesses weren't taken over by the state in Italy. And like Germany, there were rather severe state controls over business in Italy.

You may be correct that Hitler didn't institute the total platform of his socialist agenda. That doesn't negate the fact that he was brought to power by the left in his country and his viewpoints mirror much of the left in this country today.

Though today's left is not openly racist or particularly nationalistic means times have changed. Hitler hated internationalism, and would have despised the American left for kneeling to the United Nations. But, the vast majority of what Hitler spoke about fits much more snugly with a far left agenda than that of any conservative agenda of today.

[Mad Mike]

I just want to know when this site became the summer home of the democratic underground.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Art,

This is the closest I came to providing a definition of socialism:

Socialism very specifically necessitates that the means of production are to be controlled by the people through the democratic process.

I did a Google search on "Steve Kangas" and "socialism" and got the following, from the Liberalism Resurgent website that I believe you're referring to:

Myth: Liberalism is socialism, and socialism is big government.

Fact: Liberals believe in private ownership of the means of production; socialists, public.

Summary

Modern American liberals are democratic capitalists. That is, they believe that private capitalist individuals should own and control the means of production, as long as they operate within the democratic law. By contrast, socialists believe that everyone should own and control the means of production. Socialism has been proposed in many forms. Perhaps the most popular form is social democracy, in which workers vote for their supervisors, company policy, and industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another form of socialism is anarcho-socialism, in which employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market, absent any centralized government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is not a necessary feature of socialism; only worker ownership of production is. Dictatorships can never be socialist, because workers do not own or control anything when a ruling elite is telling them what to do. For this reason, socialists reject the claim (made by the Soviet Union itself) that the Soviet Union was a socialist country. It was instead a brutal dictatorship over workers.

I don't see the word-for-word identical definitions here, but perhaps you're referring to another Web page. Do you have a link? (As a writer, I get very defensive when even a vague odor of plagiarism arises, so I'll try to be open to fair criticism here.)

I would be shocked, honestly, if you could find the word-for-word identical definition, but it would make me look very very bad. So perhaps in that case I would have to just give you my word that it's not copied, just as I accept your word that the Webster's-dictionary defense was your idea (and I do). (By the way, "means of production" and "controlled by the people" are pretty common socialist themes in so many words, so those strings shouldn't be particularly surprising.)

As for Hitler, well, I do not claim that he rose to power solely on the basis of socialist rhetoric; I claim that he utilized it to ensure the support of the working classes. It was the carrot and the stick: promise wealth to the people while uniting them against a common enemy. Hitler's xenophobia and hatred of other cultures (in particular, his insistence on a national culture) was certainly not leftist and would fit in far better with elements of the modern right, don't you think?

Furthermore, you admit that Germany was undergoing severe economic depression (one reason that the Weimar Republic failed so miserably). Don't you think that rhetoric promising riches to the masses would be just about as useful as inflaming nationalist hatreds in pulling people over to your side?

So we have two things going on here: Hitler's socialist rhetoric (which you say wasn't as useful as his nationalist rhetoric) and his nationalist rhetoric (which you say was important and meaningful in getting the people's support). Now, even ignoring my previous paragraph, doesn't this mean that the elements of Hitler's agenda that align with the right were more important to the people than his putative leftist agenda? And doesn't this jibe well with the fact that the right-wing political parties supported Hitler while the leftists were openly declared enemies by him?

You go on, towards the end, to assert the following:

That doesn't negate the fact that he was brought to power by the left in his country and his viewpoints mirror much of the left in this country today.

Though today's left is not openly racist or particularly nationalistic means times have changed.

I have yet to see evidence that the left brought him to power (in fact, they were ardently against him). And how exactly have times changed? Are you saying that the left was more openly racist and nationalistic back then, and that it's better now? But don't we agree that the fight for civil rights was an essentially leftist struggle back in the 1960s? And isn't nationalism a key component of rightist politics?

Where you see leftist rhetoric and ideals, I see provincialism, xenophobia, race discrimination, the imposition of a national culture, and incredible restrictions on personal behavior on moral grounds.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Addendum: if I'm guilty of plagiarizing, it's from this site: http://www.wikipedia.com, which I used to refresh my memory before writing my post. Hope I didn't copy anything too closely, as I read, digested, and then posted.