"The media is trying to provoke a race riot to rally support for Obama's re-election."

The only thing that makes sense so far.

Yes, when one thinks about how the Left is trying to get people to vote for Obama, it reveals a lot. It is not about how great of a job he did, but that the Republicans/Conservatives must be stopped.

And how? By imflamming race hatred. By claiming that the Republicans want to impoverish people. In other words, by trying to bring out the most base emotions and get people angry with others. Bring about racial and class war.

puppets of their masters the far right-wing lunatics, yes.

Mod's probably sparkin up and messin with you.

You bring a lot of hard facts and the resident wingers and puppets flag your comments would be my guess. There are bands of people(and their socks) on the interweb tubes who seem to pack up and go after people who are effective about spreading truths. Consider it a compliment.

Thank you attila. I contacted Current through their feedback section and suggested the idea of adding a new policy to the community guidelines. My idea was to watch for frivolous flagging, and if a person was deemed to be guilty of it, action could be taken. I suggested to them that some people may have figured out a way to be rid of comments they do not like, or simply do not want others to read. I asked them if they were in danger of allowing their website to be edited by people who did not have the spirit of their vision in mind.

Who wrote that the National Socialist Movement is left wing? I have read all of the posts here and did not see such a post.

No, I bring facts. I take a bit of pride in that what I posted - I figured out from FBI crime statistics - was presented by CNN the next day.

In response to presenting facts with supporting government links, all I get is speculation and conjecture, no facts. None.

PM me if you hear back. I would be interested to know what they say, given it has been an on-going problem for so long.

Historically, the Nazis in Germany referred to their party with the word Socialist in the label. That is a fact. It is a fact that some RWingers into labels but not considering the full story of labels, thus missing the fact that you can call a lemon an orange but it doesn't make it an orange, do a lot of projection with the label SOCIALIST and try to join liberals to Nazis.

Propaganda it is. That's a fact. It is not conjecture.

Where have I attacked your crime stats? It is the misuse of labels I have objected to here. Liberals are not necessarily Socialists. Socialists are not necessarily Nazis. Labels tend to be used irrationally and often wrong. Liberals are not Nazis and THAT is what I am going on about.

I said seemed to be. You have never said socialist equates with the left? Are you saying the National Socialist Movement is a right wing wing organization?

Will do.

I always contact sgwhite, she is good at replying.

"Is Current letting the conservatives who communicate here decide"
- In a word, yes, certainly seems so.

Sgwhite is Victor and is a he.

But you are writing about what you CLAIM some people do and what I certainly never did.

But the essence of Modern Liberalism - the kind of Liberalism to which I address my posts - is deferring virtually every issue of importance to the central authority. With the economy, this is certainly their proclivity.

Socialism takes many forms, and the overriding factor is the central management of the economy. Modern Liberals of concern are those who would defer the management, control and supervision of the economy to the central authority.

And you distorted other parts of what I posted. Please stop doing that.

If A is part of B, it does not mean that A cannot be part of C, or that A is necessarily included or excluded from C, unless one can state categorically that no Cs are As and no As are Cs. And I did not do that, of course.

Have you noticed that you think everybody distorts what you say. That's highly unlikely. A more plausible explanation is that you try to squirm your way out of logical retorts. If your last comment is any indication, you seem to be going of the beam.

Do you honestly believe he was ever on the beam?

or some one has targeted you, cuz the mods arent known for actualy doing shit.so if ya get tagged it tends to be some one flagged you.

I am curious as to what u r referring to?

Oh, nothing. Happy Easter! ☺

Thanks for digging up the neo-nazis running for office. It makes a strong case for just where the teabaggers are trying to steer the nation, doesn't it?

It never ceases to amaze me how anybody could think Nazis are liberals. If there is one thing Nazis hate as much as minorities it's liberals or left leaning in any way. They are as conservative as you get. I found a lot of liberal bashing on these Nazi web sites during my research. I did not not find one complaint about conservatives or the Republican Party. Not one. Sorry, I did find one complaint about the Republican Party. They spend to much time arguing with liberals.

You are somewhat wrong on several very, very clear counts:

1. "Classic Liberals" who are best represented by people like Hayek and Friedman, were hated by the Nazis. Hitler despised the "merchants" of England, and the free market in general. Today's Liberals attack the free market and push for socialism, just like the Nazis did.

But that does not make them like the Nazis, of course. It is a COMMONALITY.

2. The biggest commonality is STATISM. Today's "Liberals" defer to the federal government for virtually all issues of concern. In addition, they are in a constant battle with the "mediating" instittions of society as independent decision makers: The family, private enterprise, the church, and schools being independent. This is the biggest COMMONALITY with the Nazis: The goal of the ideal society through central control.

Liberals are against minorities in the sense that they do not look at them as their equals. Liberals put minorities in a different class of people and claim that they need special rights, monies and considerations. This in itself is racism.

Not valid. Former KKK members have been Democrats.

Check out the web sites of the American Communist Party and the Socialist Parties; all are anti-Conservative. Their complaints are exactly the same as you will hear from the Liberals. Take a look at the commie web site.

http://www.cpusa.org/

"The fact that they call themselves socialists doesn't make them liberal any more than...."

You do not read what I wrote, it seems.

The central danger of today's Leftists - and this does not include ALL Leftists - is the drive to defer virtually all issues of importance to the central authority. For the SIXTH time, that it the commonality that today's Left has with the Fascists, the Nazis and the Communists: That society's problems - race, poverty, economic "inequality" (stupid nonsensical term), health, education, etc. - should be tackled and solved by a central authority. In fact, the commonality that they all have is that it is only the central authority that is capable of doing this. This has been the rallying cry since the progressive era of the late 19th century. Look up the book that really got things going, "Looking Backwards" by Edward Bellamy.

So, for the SIXTH time, I am saying:

1. The commonality of today's Liberals with the Nazis is to have the central authority organize society.

2. The Nazis were CLEARLY anti-free market.

3. Conservatives - real conservatives, not the perverted kind - are for the decentralization of power. Not in THEORY, but in practice: States' rights, local communities determining laws on displaying creches, local curriculum decisions, environment, labor laws (right to work laws), and so on. This is in direct antithesis to what Nazis wanted and what TODAY'S Left-wingers want.

These people are Communists, not Nazis. The Communists in Russia, and the Nazis in Germany went to war with each other. They both used the name Socialist to describe themselves but had completely different political beliefs. Mishima, socialist is just a name. It does not dictate the belief of the group that chooses to use it. Canada is a social democracy. We are neither Communist or Nazi. The Russians called themselves the Republics under communism. Does that mean the Republicans are Communists? Of course not. When two KKK members, one by the name Bivins Hollar, ran as democrats in North Carolina, the party denounced them. They claim to be superseded by no other group. This means they will run for office as Democrats or Republicans. They don't care. They have their own agenda. David Duke ran in the Presidential primaries as a Democrat in 1988, and as a Republican in 1992.

Agree!

Well and truly stated!

What makes you think liberals are anti-free market? The last time the American economy was gang busters was under Clinton. A Democrat. Liberals don't like laissez-faire free markets because they lead to bubble and bust economies. You can't just want Nazis to be leftist Mishima. They identify themselves as right wing, and when they run for public office they run as Republicans. Here is a phone number Mishima. 651-659-6307. It will put you in contact with the National Socialist Movement. Call them and ask them if they are a liberal organization or not. When they laugh at you and ask if you are serious or not, you can explain to them why they are lefties and set them straight. Here is another number. 724-444-7444. That's the American Nazi Party contact number. Give them a call and explain to them your theory on why they must be liberals. I'm sure their going to want to know how to get in touch with you to thank you for your thoughts after you do.

No, government interventions lead to longer recessions. Take a look at the relationship to intervention and the length and depth of recessions in our history.

Interesting how you claim that the economy was going well under Clinton.

Think it through: Bush's policies over the years is blamed for the economy under the Obama administration. Of course, Obama DID inherit problems.

Logically, then, we can say the opposite: Clinton did inherit the bounty of the Reagan-Bush era, of course. The big bounty was the "peace dividend": Clinton could (and being a coward and anti-military person that he is) cut back on defense and benefit. Clinton benefitted from the bounty of Reagan's policies that brought us into the position of world leadeship and economic dominance once again. During the Clinton presidency, pundits actually remarked that Reagan is still leading the country, and that was true, of course.

And you said it yourself in the same sentence: "Liberals don't like laissez-faire free markets." Very true.

This is very tiresome. As I wrote in my last post - and repeating it for the SEVENTH (7th) time now - I did not say that socialists are Nazis.

I will not write the entire explanation again, but you are either not reading what I wrote, or you are deliberately distorting and misrepresenting. If you choose to respond, I would appreciate it if you respond to what was actually written or not deliberately distort what was written. Otherwise, please simply do not respond.

Of course, I cannot stop you from misrepresenting and distorting what I wrote, so from this point on, if you choose to continue that, I will simply point out that you are distorting. I will not explain the same thing over and over and over.

I'm not misinterpreting anything Mishima. I know exactly what you are trying to say. The trouble is I , and the Nazis, disagree with you. Nazis are conservatives. They say so themselves. Nazis hate liberals and liberalism. They say so themselves. Nazis like Republicans and the Tea Party. They say so themselves when they run as Republicans, and especially when they run as Tea Party Republicans. I didn't say that you claimed Nazis and socialists are the same thing. My point was that they both used socialists to describe themselves. Calling yourself a socialist doesn't mean a thing.

You are doing it again. You have twisted and misrepresented what I wrote. That is all I will write unless you really read the posts or stop distorting what I write.

I am not misinterpreting or distorting a thing and you know it. What I am doing is besting you with logic and you don't like it. Call those numbers and run your ideas past them. There is no chance you will do that because you know they will tell you that they are conservative groups through and through. Call them and let us know what they told you. You know damn well I'm going to.

Do you want to watch a little free market economy experiment Mishima. For the last ten years, Canada has had one of the best economies in the world. One of the reasons for this was our conservative government was kept in check because they did not have a house majority. Now they do. Watch how quickly our economy starts to decline now that the Conservative Party of Canada can do whatever they want to. Watch how quickly they start to attack the middle class here. They have three full years to do their conservative magic. Check back next year and you will already be able to see what conservatism does for a countries economy.

Yes, let's just watch. Good idea. But watch America, too. Watch what happens if Obama stays in office and especially if the Senate stays Left-winger.

The republicans are going to lose congress and the senate. Obama is going too stay in office. Your economy will grow by leaps and bounds.

Two points:

1. Obama will not stay in office. The Conservatives, who outnumber Liberals over 2 to 1, will get behind Romney. I do not know about the Senate, but I really hope we can get the whole thing: President, House and Senate.

2. They will bring prosperity, but that is of secondary concern. Liberty is first. Obama is a Statist. You can live under statism and enjoy the feeling of security and being taken care of. It must be reassuring. But it is for cowards and those who are afraid of life. Give me Liberty, pal.

Lets wager Mishima. If Obama loses, I will never post on this web site again. If Obama wins, you will never post on this web site again. What do you say?

No thank you. There is no point in it, first of all.

Next, it is possible that the entity in the White House will be there for another four years. The very thought of it is hateful and abhorrent, of course, but it changes nothing. We have to fight for liberty against the incursions of Socialism.

No, you have distorted what I wrote. Until you respond to what I wrote and stop distorting and misrepresting it, that is all I will write. I used logic.

In fact, I just was at the gym and saw a bit of CNN, hardly a "right-wing" network. They actually CONFIRMED the very numbers that I posted, but mine were UNDERESTIMATES! Check it out. It was about race-related crime. I wrote that it is 5-6 times the expected rate; they said it is 6-7 times! I DELIBERATELY underestimated to be on the safe side. Please notice that I wrote the numbers BEFORE CNN reported them!

But they presented other "data," "facts" that actually distorted the reality of the situation. Watch and see if you can pick it out, or I can. Let me know if you want me to let you know; I remember the numbers.

No, you are both wrong and distorting. I do not know if it is deliberate on your part. Hard to say.

If you knew anything about conservatism, you would know that European and American are different. Take royalty: What is the take on American as compared to European conservatives?

The Constitution is considered to be a Conservative document but you will deny that, even though William Gladstone wrote about it, among others.

But I am already regretting writing this because I am responding to another distortion and misrepresentation by you. You did it again.

The entity? It's not possible, It's a certainty. It is my opinion that the majority of Americans have seen the vision that Republicans have for America and they are going to reject it whole heatedly. I think in November, after the vote,there will be a record number of Democrats holding office. The Republicans will have the fewest government representatives in their history.

Mishima, half the time I do not even know what you are talking about your logic is so convoluted. Has it completely escaped you that every single thing you write gets voted down to -5 or -7 or -10. What is it that you hope to accomplish. Your a conservative. The things you say don't make any sense at all. That's why institutions of higher learning are populated by liberals. Liberals are smarter, by a long shot. Now take the bet and prove you actually believe what you say or leave the discussion to honest people.

No. The media did its usual distortions because the Republicans were arguing among themselves during the normination. The media made issues out of non-issues. I remember the time that Ronmey got rightfully angry when the Left-winger interviewer kept at Santorum, over and over and over, with the stupid "condom" issue, badgering and hypothesizing over a non-issue. When it came to Romney, Romney said (paraphrasing): "Well, now that you have talked about condoms for 15 minutes....."

After the Republicans stop the infighting, they will focus on getting rid of Obama, of course. The garbage that is being presented will be forgotten or a non-issue as it should be. The Supreme Court's decision is going to help the patriots, also. The Tea Party has gotten some interesting ways to get people invigorated and to the polls. I am a member, so know what specifically what we lovers of freedom are doing to bring back liberty.

Yes, I will get voted down on a progressive site. I could write that it is warm in Australia, and people would find a problem with that and vote me down. I could direct you to conservative sites where I occasionally post, and you would see the mass of positive votes. Many of us exchange contact information.

You wrote I do not make any sense, yet I posted information about crime and was called a racist, a liar, and a propagandist. Yet, the very next day, CNN reported this information because they considered it valid to the latest discussion on race and crime. And I was voted down for posting the same thing that CNN put up the next day.

Explain that.

Did you forget that I said I had no problem with your statistics and did not find them erring? What you don't seem to want to consider is why African Americans commit more crimes. Tell me why that happens? What are the socioeconomic affects on crime rates. Tell me what it is you hope to accomplish here other than driving people that are more informed than you crazy? If every thing I said was met with disagreement, I wouldn't bother talking to those people anymore. I can't imagine trying to communicate on a website with conservatives who were constantly telling me I'm wrong. I'm not a masochist. Now take the bet if you are so sure your Republicans are going to do so well. You are not going to take the bet because not even you believe the things you say. Oh, and by the way, I just started your inevitable minus votes.

How can I tell you WHY African Americans commit more crimes? All one can do is speculate. You seem willing to do that. I used the statistics YOU provided and extrapolated. You are claiming - without empiracle evidence - that unemployment leads to crime. It is a reasonable assumption, but the fact is you do not have evidence.

But I tentatively accepted your assumption and used YOUR data. Well, the unemployment rate is twice. But I already responded to that, and you offer no explanations other than to ask me for one and implying that unless I come up with an acceptable one, I will be implicitly accused of all sorts of things.

I have motivations for being here. You project yourself into the situation, claiming your are "not a masochist." I will tell you this much: Neither am I.

There are groups who use labels and framing over using facts and logic. It's a Rove thing and it is a nasty contagion.

Let's see.... nazis were fascists, Facists are the people who want to meld government with corporate entities. Now, which party in the US is all about 'privatizing' government services and activities?

Halliburton did not dig latrines nor put in water pipes cheaper than the Army used to do for its self. And the Army managed to do such things without the screw ups that let to raw sewage getting into the drinking water supply for the troops.

Commonality you say? Yep.

Another person distorts and deliberately misrepresents what I wrote.

On top of that, you apparently do not understand Conservatism at all. That is unfortunate.

And the more that government services are "privatized," in most cases, the more is saved and the more that the power - economic, of course - returns to the people. You are purposely incorrectly defining the private sphere: When the government colludes with private companies, it is not the free market. It can buy from the private companies, like when NYC saved incredible amounts by having garbage disposal done with private companies instead of having the city do it with the union thugs and radicals extorting more and more from the taxpayers, for example.

Very good group of posts you put up here. Thank you for saying so clearly, in one place, what I have been saying in several for a while. Your connection between American liberalism and statism is spot on. What is not touched on, or I missed it, is the difference between European liberals and American liberals. They are polar opposites which may explain some of the liberal v. conservative observations and the comparisons with the Nazis/Communists. Unfortunately most of your writing is lost on many here. I particularly liked the Sixth and Seventh time repetitions you are having to make.

Thank you for your encouragement and kind words.

America's Liberals deny that the Nazi's were rabid anti-free market.

"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 speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

DOESN'T THAT SOUND EXACTLY LIKE LIBERALS IN AMERICA TODAY?

Mishima, how is that you do not understand that your crime rate statistics are not relevant here. They have nothing to do with the topic at hand. This post is about a Neo-Nazi group claiming they have to protect a predominantly white community from attack by a group of African Americans. The statistic of African Americans attacking a white community en-masse is 0%. I have however shown you a case of whites attacking an African American community. This is why your logic is convoluted. What you do is called irrational rationalization. You could not come up with an example of African Americans attacking a white community, so you just blathered on about crime rates. We know what the crime rates are Mishima. We are informed liberals. Trying to use African American crime rates to prove they will do something they never have, is like me claiming I need Nazis to protect my safe at home from attack by white bankers, because most of the people who committed banking fraud an Wall Street were white. Now show us an example of African Americans attacking a white community and we will start taking your off the track conservative rationalization a little more seriously

The crime rate statistic was in response to someone who brought it up.

I left out another part of that CNN report - the part after the one in which they actually presented data that I presented here a day earlier.

They presented information to deceive. Possibly not deliberately, but it certainly seemed that way.

They said that most crimes occur within the same race. Well, they said that 96% of crimes on blacks is black-on-black crime. OK. And, crimes on whites is perpetrated by whites 84% of the time.

The obvious intent was to give the viewer the impression that races commit crimes on their own race.

But is that accurate?

To the typical viewer, numbed with television, it is just accepted. But if a person really THINKS about those data, something else literally JUMPS right out.

Can you see it? It is tied into this discussion.

"Today's Christians stand at the head of this country. I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit".
"I believe that my conduct is accordance with the Almighty".
"Taking these consequences into account, It is no accident that it is always primarily the liberal who tries and succeeds in planting such mortally dangerous thoughts into the minds of our people".
"As long as the elite still piously worship their liberal democratic press every morning, it very ill becomes these gentleman to make jokes about the stupidity of a friend who, in the last analysis, only swallows down the same garbage, though in a different form. In both cases the manufacture is one and the same, liberals".
" The foremost connoisseurs in the use of falsehoods and slander have always been liberals".
"Liberals always get a lot of credit for suffering, while never actually being made to suffer".
"Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy".
"Liberals are always wrapping their comically irrelevant charges in a haze of lies".
"Liberals always seem to be defending liars. Lying is their most cherished human activity".
"It is the press, above all, which wages a positively fanatical and slanderous struggle, tearing down everything that can be regarded as support of national independence, cultural elevation, and the economic independence of the nation".
And my personal favorite.
"Here the liberals procedure is as follows: He approaches the worker, simulates pity with his fate, or even indignation with his lot of misery and poverty, thus gaining his confidence. With infinite shrewdness, he fans the need for social justice, somehow slumbering in every American man, into hatred against those who have been better favored by fortune".
These are all Hitler quotes. Even the last one about American liberals.
DOES THAT SOUND EXACTLY LIKE CONSERVATIVES IN AMERICA TODAY?
Edit: Sorry everyone. These quotes are incorrect. I was duped. Someone replaced the word Jews with the word liberal and posted them on the internet as facts. My deepest apologies. I'm quite embarrassed. I am usually more careful about verifying my sources. I will do my best to never let it happen again. I have decided to leave them there as a reminder of what can happen when we take things posted on the web at face value. A reminder for me especially.

It's not just opinions that get automatic down votes; sometimes it is the manner in which they are presented. But you are already aware of that, aren't you?

Agree wholly.

If only this were true! I gladly pray to any-and-all-god(s) you are correct, but I think you misunderstand the insanity and gullibility of a fair percentage of the american populace. They worship at the feet of the koch-brothers and their prophet Faux-Noise channel. Any of the outright bull$h!t these scum peddle is eaten up by these poor deluded simpletons. There is great danger these mad-scum will take total majority powers come the election. I frankly don't think this country or the world can take 4+ more years of right-wing-corporate-fascist mad "american exceptionalism".

I truly wish contributors would stop taking the rantings of the right-wienies seriously and giving them the platform they so cravenly demand to spew their venom. If I don't want strays, I don't feed the strays. We need to have a heart to heart with those who feel the need to arguie the fine points of liberalism with hard core liberal baiters. I'm sure you see no profit in it as do I.

He should be aware of it coraj. That's all he ever gets.

Hear, hear!

There's some people here absolutely DESPERATE for attention!

Yep, it's deliberate and intentional. People need to stop taking the bait.

I'm 100% with you!

There is a major flaw: The term "Liberals" in Hitler's vocabulary is entirely different from its meaning as applied to Liberals in America over 70 years later - in a different era and on a different continent.

This is not to play with words and definitions, of course: Those who extolled the free market, laissez-faire, states' rights, and limited government of that era were considered those who promoted Liberal Democracy. Milton Friedman, von Mises and F.A. Hayek were among those who fit into that category.

So, when Hitler attacked Liberalism, he was not attacking the idea of Liberals in America today, but the ideas of the private person against the collective, the personal against the State, and personal comfort and gain against duty to the State.

Today's Left in America focuses on the atomization of rights as opposed to the mediating institutions such as the church, the family and private free market. This atomization necessitates State intervention on mediating and solving virtually all issues, not community, family, tradition and church. It leads to the dissolution of all that stands between the individual and the State.

Again, today's Left in America wants to defer to the State in virtually every issue of importance.

I will ask again: Please do not twist, distort, and misrepresent what I wrote. If you do - and you are free to do that, of course - I will only point out that you are distorting. I will not explain this over and over.

Thank you.

I am not a baiter. I think that the post I wrote to JimStoner above this fits the criteria you requested: "the need to arguie the fine points of liberalism."

Well guess what Mishima. I just fired off an e-mail to the American Nazi Party. I said I was interested in their message, but had a friend who tells me Hitler was not a conservative and they are not a conservative movement. I can hardly wait to here back from them. I wonder why you didn't do that?
What do you mean cut and paste? Are you now saying Hitler did not say those things about liberals? Just a little while ago you were telling me that he was talking about a different kind of liberal when he said them.

Well, good for you, putting your trust in the Nazi Party to verify your contentions. I wish you the best. Hold them up as a banner of truth and of proof. Heck, if the Nazi Party says it must be so, then you can claim you have found an excellent source.

Why I did not do that? A couple of reasons:

1. I want no association with Nazis. Lunatics, whack-jobs, nut cases.

2. Would not want to "verify" my beliefs based on what some maniac claims.

3. Am not an obsessive-compulsive.

"What do you mean cut and paste? Are you now saying he did not say those things about liberals?"

You did it once again: Distorted and misrepresented. I found your quotes all over the net - on liberal sites. So, I took parts of the statement and did a book search to find out the real origin and full statement. I reported it back to you, with the precise quote, source and page number. Even included a link.
And you distort what I wrote. I cannot be clearer than I was: Exact quote, book title, page number and link. And you still are claiming otherwise. In-freakin-credible. Don't post to me anymore, please.

Did you try the link. It's as convoluted as you are

"Just a little while ago you were telling me that he was talking about a different kind of liberal when he said them."

Again, you distort and misrepresent what I wrote. You do it consistently and repeatedly.

At first, I just took for granted that your quotes were real. But you persisted, so I took one and found out that it was a distortion, all over the net, by Liberal bloggers and web managers.

I only scanned your "cut and paste" and pointed out that Liberals of that era were something else: 70 years ago and on a different continent. I am repeating myself once again for you. It keeps happening. I will not do it again.

You distort what I write, you misrepresent what I write. You post cut and pastes that you have not verified and post them as truth. Even when the truth is presented to you, you keep insisting that it is not true, despite a precise quote, book title, page number and link to the very book and page by a credible, nonpartisan organization.

So are you actually saying that when the American Nazi Party gets back in touch with me and tells me that they are a conservative group, and we both know they will, it means the entire American Nazi Party is wrong about what they are because they disagree with your point of view. Look at your response. You already know they are going to claim to be a conservative group or you would have said good, they are going to say they are liberals.That's not what you did though did you? I'm not putting my trust in the Nazi party. I'm asking them if they are liberal or conservative. Don't you think the Nazis are excellent source of information about the Nazis. If the Nazi Party says its so it must be so? Does that mean when they tell me they are a conservative group they will be wrong about it? Think about what that means Mishima. Just stop for a second and think about what it must say about you if people , even Nazis, can't decide who they are, and what they stand for themselves, because it conflicts with your view of things. Nazis are conservatives. Always have been, and always will be. If you don't like it than stop being a conservative like the Nazis are.

I am going to reply to you with the response I get back from the American Nazi Party. And I'm going to reply to you with that response every time you praise conservatism on this web site.

No. You are a baiter, of course.
Oh, by the way, there are several spelling errors in your comments. I have always been too much of a lady to point them out.

http://www.threeyearsofhell.com/archive/2006_06.php

Your right Mishima. They were misquotes. It took me a while to run it down. But Nazis are still conservatives.

The link is good. It will pop up as not able to connect via Current and ask if you want to go outside of Current. It is an excellent search engine of books via Google.

Stop the games.

Don't have to Mishima. You were right. The quotes were doctored. I asked myself why I had never heard them before so I ran them down on my own. But Nazis are still conservatives.

Thank you very much for writing what you did. It has renewed my trust in you. Most people would not admit to an error, and your error is very understandable. When I first saw the same posts, I also accepted them. Most people would.

Your welcome, and thank you. What kind of person would I be if I could not admit to a known error. I don't want to be that person.

If one simply juxtaposes the term "liberal" and "conservative," the Nazis will probably pick Conservative. But if you define - even simply - conservative principles, that would be another story.

Take race: Conservatives want race eliminated from consideration in employment, schooling, and judicial decisions. Liberals want affirmative action, preferential hiring and admissions, and "social justice" for selected groups. Conservatives are annoyed when the Liberals scream "racism!" at the slightest thing and anywhere they can: Look at the false charges against the Tea Party, for example. Liberals focus on American history as a history of white people oppressing "minorities." Do you know Tim Wise, author of "White Like Me?," and William Ayers, author of "Race Course" in which both attack America as literally EVIL? Are they Liberal or Conservative? (Assume they have to make a choice.)

Or, conversely, what do you think the American Communist Party would say if you asked them if they are Conservative? What would Ayers say?

If you want to conclude that Liberals are Communists (or the reverse) because the Communists would choose the Liberal over the Conservative camp, go right ahead.... Pick a radical group and go by what it claims or denies.

Or, if you were intellectually honest, you could stop the deflections from the original post that referred to..... (I will not repeat the center, the essence, the core, the most important part that YOU WANT TO AVOID AND DUCK AND DODGE!)

Go ahead and quote the Nazis. Go right ahead. Perhaps I will go to the www.cpusa.org for some quotes, too......

Why not forget the spelling errors and respond to the content?

"What does a different continent have to do with it?"

Everything.

"Do you mean Hitler was on a different continent, and didn't know about America, or American Liberals were on a different continent 70 years ago than American Liberals are today?"

Neither.