The Forgotten Holocaust


Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
San Diego
In EVERY culture these forces are referred to as "conservative".

Only because the word "conservative" is used in a negative manner--in which, e.g. the people in Russia who want to bring the Communists back are referred to as "conservative."
Incorrect... you may see it as negative, but the forces that want to bring back communism in Russia call THEMSELVES conservatives.
Conservatism is not a particular political ideology, but is, in fact whatever group seeks to maintain or restore an imagined status quo. Law and order...
Conservatives are about authority and control, always.
The Communists were leftists when they fought the conservative forces of the Tsar... but when they held power, they became the force of authority. And those who want that authority back in charge see themselves as conservative because they ARE conservative.
Israel had a written promise from the US that it could build in East Jerusalem, which is NOT on the West Bank.
so what? the settlements are disputed, TODAY, and the timing of the announcement was an overt rebuke. Period. The fact is that the biggest obstacle to Jewish Palestinian relations are the attitudes and agitation of the CONSERVATIVE among both groups.
Gainsaying is all well and good, but my paragraphs add up to an argument...
this interjection has no bearing on the point.
There have been threats to Governor Palin;
Um... again... so what? Everyone in the public eye gets threats and hatemail...
That does not address the point that SARAH PALIN and Michele Bachman openly advocate armed insurrection and violence and couches their public statements in the terminology of guns, killing and revolution.
To counter you would have to point out all the Democratic leadership who are doing the same thing. And then you would have to point out how many times a democratic "movement' has handed out the private home address of someone they thought was a congressman... whose home was then vandalized by having its gas line cut.
Do you understand the difference? LEADERS talking in terms of violence and their Followers ENACTING violence... there is a link between the hyperbole of the right and the hyperbolic ACTIONS of the right.
The objective of the Tea Parties is to try to challenge "Big Government." The GOP threw in their lot with the Dems when they had control of Congress, and the Tea Parties are, in my understanding, trying to create a political force that is neither GOP nor Dem.
Fine, that's an opinion... show me some evidence that that is true...
What I see are a bunch of extremists screaming and spitting and carrying signs portraying the person ELECTED TO OFFCIE BY THEIR COUNTRYMEN as hitler, as a communist, as a witch doctor?
What I see are redneck racist rubes who do not understand the constitution of their own nation.
The same stamp of extremists that used to wear brown shirts and burn books and vandalize jewish businesses in Germany in the 30s.
It may be that some of the people who go to the Tea Parties provoke. But some Democrats and some Republicans, and some people who have no politics are idiots and yell and scream. This is NOT one sided, and many of the allegations of Congress and others are contested and some have been proved to be not true.
Really? other than the claims of republicans and tea partyers, show me some congressional claims that were untrue?
COLOR="green"]In another thread, I said I was concerned about this, and I am. However, I see no evidence that the outburst of anger over the passage of the "Health Reform" act was organized.
That's because you don't look. the "tea party" has been shown to be wholly underwritten by groups such as those Dick Army fronts for. The Buses that took 'protesters' to the town halls last summer and provided them with the signs they held were paid for by groups that are funded by insurance companies.
Sure... the average person in the tea party is genuinely angry... but not over anything they genuinely understand.

When folks with white hair are protesting "government takeover" of healthcare, you can safely assume they are simply too stupid to comprehend that the medicare they are covered by IS government healthcare.
Look around the world and the forces that beget the greatest horrors are those that are seeking to stifle 'change', and progress. . .

Like the Bolsheviks and the Nazis and the Chinese Communist Party and Pol Pot and his regime? Simply not true.

Yes, in fact it is.
You make the common mistake of thinking pol pot or Mao were 'leftist'- there is no such thing as a leftist despot.
Hitler was no more a 'socialist' than Mao was a "democrat"... they used whatever slogan they though the people wanted to hear at the time they were seizing power.
The Opposite of Liberal is Authoritarian.
And the Nazis, USSR, Red China, North Vietnam, Iraq, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and ALL the others were Authoritarians.
And if we allow the tea party or right wing to take power and turn this into a theocracy, they will be an authoritarian power, too.
Just look at what Republicans DO in office... they TALK about smaller government... but what they DO is compromise your right to privacy. They want to deregualte the shenanigans of the wealthy... but they want to incarcerate women and doctors over abortion.
EVERY policy, EVERY position can be predicted by wither or not in enhances the CONTROL of the people by the powerful.
That is authoritarian and conservative.
what to the Tea Partiers do? They whine about how a free election should be overturned because the majority does not agree with them... they would impose minority rule.
Because their screaming proves that they feel any America that doe not do as THEY wish, should be overthrown.
You have any evidence this is the case with the Tea Parties?
Yeah- its called FOX News. Billionaires disinforming the masses and spreading alarm and fear.
I would say that this is the history of most political movements. Are you saying that the Tea Parties are a genocidal movement? My opinion is the only threat that the Tea Party participants are currently concerned with is the threat of an ever bigger and more powerful government.
Yes, I am saying that if the tea party were to gain power, their natural tendency would be toward the authoritarian... I can only imagine what they would want to do about illegals... about islam...
It would be the end of religious freedom, separation of church and state.
Granted. It also happens that governments try to grab more power in times of economic upheaval and crisis.

yeah- we just went thru 8 years of government grabbing power in the name of upheaval...
Ignoring habeus corpus, wiretapping... all in the name of "security"- the rhetoric of the authoritarian.
But you really want to keep government in check... that is what the ACLU is for.
You hold government accountable to its job, providing for the common good.
Spending a trillion on killing people who did us no harm is not working for the common good.
Spending a trillion to ensure we can all get medications we need is.
In my opinion, we are also always living in peril of veering into government dominance of our lives.
Really? Based on what evidence? Liberals would legalize pot... why do 'small govenrment' right wingers insist on the government incarcerating so many people?
Here's how government in the modern world 'dominates' your life... by allowing the pharmaceutical industry to WRITE the laws that regulate that industry...
By NOT giving the people the public option the majority of them WANTED because a group that is rapidly heading to be 1/5th of ALL the money spent in the US doesn't want you to get public health care.
The government delivers mail... it runs the world's biggest and most lethal collection of armaments... it handles the processing of your feces and delivers potable water to your faucet... it does not get any MORE powerful by enacting and policing regulations that make sure profit mongers don't try to save a penny by driving their delivery trucks on bald tires, or not servicing their airplanes...
Your government is what YOU make of it.
This bill is not "Minimally impactful" and this bill was not much needed. This bill does not address most of the problems, and was sloppily drafted. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a news story that the bill does not immediately provide "must issue" protection to children and infants with preexisting conditions, as had been advertised. The Obama Admin. said it will correct this through a regulation, but the insurers are taking the position that the law trumps the regulation.

Make up your mind. Either is is or is not impactful... you can't say it isn't minimally impactful and use as your only example an area in which it is NOT going to have an impact.
In fact it is nor nearly as impactful as it ought to have been... and WHOSE fault is that?
Who is the evil actor who prevented it from being more? Conservatives backed by industries who stand to profit by NOT improving the system.
Sorry, but as one of the millions who can not get private insurance and is not old enough for medicare, you are wrong to say health care reform is not needed.
It is desperately needed.
I agree. See what I said about the genesis of the Tea Parties. Today, the people who agree with us on this point are called "libertarians."
Libertarians have their own idiocy.
They, too would do away with regulation. Which is one of the fundamental purposes of government.
They place property rights above human rights, and that is plan wrong.
What evidence do you have for this? BTW--corporations have always been legally considered as "people." Corporations can't be incarcerated, but their employees can and are, and corporations and other business orgs can and do get the "death penalty."

what evidence? how about the 140 million dollars per week the health insurance lobby spent trying to fight the health care bill...
And NO... sorry, corporations were given 'fictional" personhood for an express purpose... to make it easier for real individuals to SUE corporations for their actions. ( previously, if the CEO had left, you couldn't sue for damages... or you had to sue the specific person who did the thing that damaged you )
It is a HUGE step to suggest that corporate personhood is anything more than a legal fiction relating to tort law.
No- a corporation can not be imprisoned... and corporate officers are shielded from prosecution for the illicit acts of the corporation.
i.e. you can arrest the CEO for embezzling from his own company... but you can not arrest him because his company poisoned a whole town.

BTW- in responding to this... yes... NOW its a hijacking... but not mine.


Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
San Diego
As a matter of fact, the insurance industry and hospital industries were in favor the "health reform bill," at least up to the point where the "individual mandate" was weakened.

Bull. They fought it every inch of the way... to eliminate everything that WOULD lower costs... to eliminate the public option.
And SURE they backed a mandate to force the american people to buy their insurance. At a profit for them...
Again... the people dominating your life are not your elected representatives, not your government, but the ceos and bean counters of mega-corporations.
Its the people who stand to profit from your pain that should worry you.
WIW, the only way that I see health insurance reform working right is to have a very strong individual mandate. This bill does not, and as a result, people and businesses can and will game the system.

... but anything the government demands you purchase from them you should not have to pay one cent of extraneous profit on. Imagine if you had to pay a private company to provide your water...
You HAVE to have water... how much could they demand?
The mandate should be simple... medicare for everyone. Everyone below retirement age PAYS IN.
No insurance industry to add 30% profit on top of every expense.
The Stanford experiments proved that it is not hard at all to get people to do violence to strangers.

Agree with that, but what's it got to do with this thread?
Its about the fact that there was more than one holocaust. The Stanford experiment was SPECIFICALLY addressing the question of how the nazis got people to do the horrific things they did.
The experiment proved that almost ANY person can be manipulated to hurt strangers... that it is not even rare... but a common human tendency.
The real lesson of the Holocaust, and Nanking is that Liberty requires of us eternal vigilance, not so much aimed at others, but at ourselves.

Agree. So you're a Tea Party attendee?
No. I believe in free elections and the person who is elected is the person chosen by the people.

Also- I am not a homophobic racist dimwit in love with my guns.

The Tea Parties are not part of the Republican party. But there are plenty of hate filled people on the left as well. I experienced a lot of their venom during the Bush administration. I had hoped that we on the right would handle the Obama admin with more decency than they showed President Bush. Maybe I was wrong.
Well, for one thing the Bush administration deserved a lot of venom. It was actively undermining the Constitution. It lied to get us into a foreign war. It committed crimes and embarrassed the nation on the world stage. It built a gulag and rewrote the 'law' to endorse its own illegal actions.
it decimated the world economy. It Doubled the deficit and grew the size and scope the the US government in all the arenas in which YOU seem to worry about... greater surveillance, less freedoms.
curtailed civil rights. All the areas in which you ought to fear the government growing, the right endorsed and encouraged in the Bush Adminstration.
And the health care industry and health insurance industries were already two of the most highly regulated industries in the US--
Wrong. that is plainly incorrect. You conflate regulations on drugs and medical equipment manufacture with health insurance.
In fact, health insurance companies have a congressional EXEMPTION from anti-trust law.
In fact, other than a handful of State that regulate insurance within their states, there are virtually zero Federal regulations on health insurers... other than the one saying they can not sell products out of State,.
That is what accounts for at least some of the high costs involved. We who oppose it are afraid the "reform" is intended as the takeover of health care by the federal government. That's why many of the states are suing.
They will lose. The Constitution gives the government the right to tax. The mandate takes the form of a tax credit you get IF you buy health insurance... and that you pay if you don't.
Its legal.
But more to the point,.... the problem is that it is NOT a government takeover of health care. If it were, then it would save us money. As it is, we all have to shell out 30% more to line the pockets of a middleman who does not contribute to care.
If you can trust your government to manage the largest lethal arsenal in the world... you should trust them to handle aspirin and inoculations.
Seriously... if they wanted to mess with you... they have tanks...they have drones, they have NUKES.
Don't worry so much about the antibiotics.
I don't follow this one. The Holocaust started because Hitler hated Jews. The rape of Nanking took place because the government of Japan sent its racist soldiers into China. Maybe you can expand this one. This thread would be a good place to expand the latter. Except confine it to the Rape of Nanking.
No, the holocaust started because of financial and political instability of Germany after WWI.
The German experiment with democracy was failing,
People were out of work, there was a depression on... people were angry, lots of demonstrations, lots of 'tea party' type invective aimed at the Party in power.
Hitler gave the industrialists the promise to re-arm, and he gave the people a Non-German scapegoat to target their anger at and endorsed and enabled them to freely vent that anger in the form of violence.
He bent the Germans' own feelings and fear of inferiority into the diametric opposite.
And he rose to power by fomenting the idea that the existing government was not valid and deserved to be overturned.

Regardless of its cogency, your argument is irrelevant to the thread.
You have failed to demonstrate that is irrelevant.

I have shown how the cultural symptom of genocide has its roots in political expediency for a group seeking power thru playing on the fears and rage in a disaffected populace.
the entire point of the thread was that there are more holocausts than the german one....
I pointed out that that was true, and why it is dangerous to think the holocaust unique and ourselves immune.

that is entirely material to the thread.

While I agree with the maxim, I have to say that I see a lot of people on this forum who do not understand history--not talking about you necessarily. I am afraid they are repeating history because they are in favor of handing power to the federal government that the Framers of the Constitution never contemplated it was going to have.

I have read what the framers had to say... both in the Constitution and in their personal writings, and I think you are wrong.
The Constitution gives the Federal government only a few important charges.
One- is to provide for the general welfare. Access to healthcare that is not predicated upon personal wealth is in the general welfare.
second is to REGULATE commerce. Not de-regulate it... but regulate it.

Because the framers understood that profit, like a strong and willful horse, does no useful work unless it is in harness.