Adolf Hitler was a Neo-Conservative

..... The Persians though are the controlling majority by far. Thier media, government and industry is largely controlled by Persians.

I think, as its a theocracy, you'll find its the Mullah's that are in charge....

The industrial base is in reality "controlled" by the Republican Guards - which is why you have Mr. Armoureddinnerjacket making the verbose statements that he is apt to do. He's an ex-republican guardsman and this is where his personal powerbase has been established.
 
Werbung:
Can you imagine if Hitler had actually found the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail? His armies would have been unstoppable.

At least that's what i learned from watching Indiana Jones.
 
The point being that it is entirely possible for two socialist groups to be against each other

Not at all; they hated each other because they were competing for the mantle of legitimate socialism.

That said, regarding the OP, it would be useful if we could all actually agree on what a neoconservative is before we run around assigning it to historical figures (maybe Caesar was a neocon?). This is a particularly uninventive way of reviving the old "Nazi neocon" trope.

BTW, wasn't there some rule against one-line posts?
 
Not at all; they hated each other because they were competing for the mantle of legitimate socialism.

That said, regarding the OP, it would be useful if we could all actually agree on what a neoconservative is before we run around assigning it to historical figures (maybe Caesar was a neocon?). This is a particularly uninventive way of reviving the old "Nazi neocon" trope.

BTW, wasn't there some rule against one-line posts?

I suppose in the end I don't really care what the defined words are. In looking at the views and policies taken by both Hitler and Stalin, they have almost nothing in common with my views... and at least from my perspective, have a lot in common with Liberal views and policies.

So you can attach whatever label you want, but I have little to nothing in common with either of them.
 
Hitler was a vegetarian who liked big government projects and LOVED gun control and a homosexual and or bi sexual.

He also held no value for human life. Partial birth abortion has nothing on this guy. He believed in full body abortions (gas chambers)

He also loved Darwin and his killings were based on the idea that a supreme race can be achieved by getting rid of the "useless eaters"


And though I have no proof, I bet he recycled.

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


But all of those things are the opposite of Conservative. What was that word again......... oh yes


FLAMING LIBERAL
 
Not at all; they hated each other because they were competing for the mantle of legitimate socialism.

That said, regarding the OP, it would be useful if we could all actually agree on what a neoconservative is before we run around assigning it to historical figures (maybe Caesar was a neocon?). This is a particularly uninventive way of reviving the old "Nazi neocon" trope.

BTW, wasn't there some rule against one-line posts?

Really?

So why didnt Hitler join forces with his commorade Stalin rather than Musolini?

Republicans in the USA still cant accept the reality of Hitler being a Neo-COnservative.

Or perhaps we can relate the idoelogy and philosophy of Jesus Christ to that of the modern day saviour known as GEORGE W. BUSH
:D:D:D
 
Bit like George Bush hey - doesnt value human life.

I am not crazy about George Bush but he never sent anyone to die because they were a certian race. He does not want to take away our guns. He fights for the lives of unborn babies, he faught for Terry Shivo, someone Hitler would of offed in a nano second. But he has spent to much money and spends like a liberal, he thinks a big government is the cure to our troubles, those things I sure can do without.

I wish we had a leader here as good as the leader your Country has. Prime Minister John Howard would make a GREAT American. You are lucky to have him.
 
Really?

So why didnt Hitler join forces with his commorade Stalin rather than Musolini?

Because Hitler and Mussolini were both adherents to the same ideology, and were competing with Stalin and domestic communists for the mantle of legitimate socialism. A-derrr.

I don't know why you brought up Jesus Christ or George W. Bush; I can only charitably be called a follower of the former and regard myself as an opponent of the latter.
 
I suppose in the end I don't really care what the defined words are. In looking at the views and policies taken by both Hitler and Stalin, they have almost nothing in common with my views... and at least from my perspective, have a lot in common with Liberal views and policies.

So you can attach whatever label you want, but I have little to nothing in common with either of them.

I'm not the one attaching labels to any of them; see the OP for that.

He also loved Darwin

Sort of. It should be pointed out that what Hitler believed in was not social Darwinism (the belief that the strong will survive and the weak perish on a sociopolitical scale) but reform Darwinism, the belief that the government will select a winner and ensure that they win. This was a belief largely shared by the leftists of the day.

I wish we had a leader here as good as the leader your Country has. Prime Minister John Howard would make a GREAT American. You are lucky to have him.

While I tend to agree, Howard isn't their leader anymore; his party was defeated and he himself lost his seat in parliament. The new PM is a weak-kneed leftist named Kevin Rudd.
 
Werbung:
He values it so much, he's trying to stop the people who intend to murder us. What a horrible guy.

Hence, he sends our boys over there to be murdered. This is not a military war. How can we fight suicidal people? Bush is a horrible guy. He sends them over there to be slaughtered, then stands ceremoniously giving them posthumas medals. Sick! Sick! Sick! The guy needs to be committed to Bellevue along with meany Cheney.
 
Back
Top