Parents angered by son's suspension over peanut cookies ["You cannot speak to the principal,"....]

NJ.COM ^

[Nataku X]

You're right in that the words "conservative" and "liberals" don't really make sense in my original post by the dictionary meaning. I should've written "Republican" and "Democratic" instead. Republicans do tend to dislike illegal immigration, homosexuality, and they do tend to strongly support the traditional family structure (all of which is emphasized in the Nazi party platform). And the Nazis also hate capitalism so they also fit well within the Democrats economically.

Overall, the best phrase to describe Nazis politically is, well, National Socialists. :o) Indeed what you say about Nazis not being conservative at all is true... but they do nonetheless share a goodly number of Republican platforms. I remember reading a list of 10 platforms on one Nazi website... exactly 5 were favorable to Republicans and 5 were favorable to Democrats.

Off-topic, but thought I'd throw this out here too: if you want to get even more technical--the Soviet Union and Red China were the ONLY socialist states, in the strictest meaning--where the government owned every business and worked to redistribute goods. Countries like Sweden, Nazi Germany, etc., are more appropriately called "really idiotic welfare states"--they may not like lassiez faire capitalism, but they do have some private ownership of businesses. Classic Marxism doesn't even have a central government nor is its economy regulated at all. A communal farm is the only place you'll find true Marxist communism.

[RJS1950]

Even with an insulin pump, you can't eat anything you want. Besides, there are different types of type 2. I take no medication nor do I require insulin. My body produces enough insulin, my cells have stopped using it efficiently. Diet, exercise and some amount of common sense keeps my blood sugar well within range. Pumping more insulin into me would accomplish little.

[Lucky Dog]

It appears that our discourse has wandered from the “peanut allergy” case in the original post of this thread. However, at the risk of wandering just bit further, let me bring back the statement from post number 32 (I believe) that began this divergence:

These parents need to try and afford a PRIVATE school where NAZIS are not the authority.

It appears that the author of the above comment was attempting to imply that the school authorities’ reaction in the post originating this thread was similar to the reputed arbitrary, centralized and absolute tyrannical control of the Nazi’s of WWII Germany. From the facts as they were made known, the author’s analogy appears to have some, if, perhaps, not complete, validity.

Given the previously posted, dictionary definition of “socialism” and the Nazi’s self ascribed adherence to that philosophy (however incomplete), it seems the word “socialist” could have been substituted for the word “Nazi” and retained the poster’s meaning, if not the rhetorical impact. From this “cognitive leap,” our divergence began with whether “far right,” “far left, “conservative” or “liberal” applied as a descriptor of the WWII German Nazi’s.

Your assertion, Nazis are from the far right and Communists are from the far left. Can we get this straight and start calling them Communists from now on? followed by my counter assertion that a major defining Nazi characteristic, socialism, is not a trait of the “right” (far or near) began our divergence. The divergence increased with your further assertion: … they [the Nazi’s] support a strong military, are against illegal immigration, and are jingostic. All of which leans towards the conservative side of things…

It now appears that our divergence deepens despite your concession that “conservative” and “far right” are not a correct labels to apply to Nazi’s. Rather than “conservative” or “far right,” you now wish to substitute “Republican” as a parallel with Nazism. Again, I must beg to strongly differ with you yet once more.

The advocacy of a strong military is not the defining issue in this case. Rather, it is the intended use of that strong military that is the difference. The WWII Nazi’s wished to use a strong military for the purpose of conquest. The Republicans wish to use a strong military for defense. The net impact of your assertion is that same as saying that a get-away driver for bank robbers who advocates a well maintained vehicle to avoid break-downs in an escape is the same as the proverbial “little old lady” who advocates a well maintained vehicle to avoid break-downs on the way to church. Both analogies are patently misleading.

The same faulty analogy process applies to the term “illegal immigration” or “traditional family.” To the Nazi’s, any “non-Aryan” immigration was “illegal.” Similarly, to the Nazi’s any non-Aryan family was not worthy of anything but extermination. To a Republican, illegal immigration has to do only with whether or not an individual arriving in this country has complied with the requirements of immigration law which is independent of race. Similarly, a Republican concept of traditional family is independent of race and has to do only with the presence of two members of the opposite sex who are married to each other and their legal offspring.

As to your attempted implication that Republicans are “jingoistic” and Democrats aren’t, such is pure “hogwash.” Any, and all, political parties are “jingoistic” in the sense that they try to reduce their political stances to simple, easy to remember, patriotic, catch phrases in order to attract adherents who may not be willing to take the time and trouble to fully investigate an entire political platform. They hope to appeal a citizen’s patriotism and thus gain their support. Consider LBJ’s campaign as an example of the “Democrat” party’s “jingoism.”

jin·go·ism n. --- Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.

As to your “off-topic” aside, I tend to agree. Indeed, the USSR and Red China failed to be “socialist” in the pure sense of the word. They were/are in Marxist/Leninist terms, a “dictatorship of the proletariat” (and far more “dictatorship” than “proletariat”). I would disagree with your assertion on the communal farm being the ideal model of pure socialism unless you stipulate that it is a “family farm.” I maintain that pure socialism has the core philosophy: “from each, all, according to his ability, and to each, only, according to his needs.” This philosophy has been successful (to the degree one can say it is successful at all) only in the nuclear family setting and to a more limited degree, the “clan.”

BTW, thanks for the debate. I find that far too many Freepers want to just argue rather than debate.