Elisabeth Hasselbeck speaks out about a character on "Law & Order: SVU," named Elizabeth Hassenbeck, who was raped twice and murdered. Yeah, that might not have been a coincidence.
My thoughts below about what Elisabeth said on The View about it.....
I really don't blame Elisabeth for being angry. I mean the world is a nutty place and this kind of obvious stunt by Law and Order naming a character one letter removed from her name is pretty sleazy. It gives goofballs out there another idea to put in there strange heads and they already have enough idea's without television shows doing this sort of thing. I'm not a fan of The View because to me it's a liberal's dream come true with Rosie O' Donnel that thinks nobody should own a gun but her bodyguard and that talks about helping homeless but calls the cops when they are outside her door. It's a hypocrites paradise on there. Barbara Walters claimed the sexiest man she ever met was Fidele Castro the communist Cuban dictator. She might as well think Hitler is sexy also because she's another red communist. Poor Elisabeth is the only one normal on that show with two brain cells but I still won't watch it cause for the most part Elisabeth allows herself to be silenced while fatheads like O'Donnel and that other Communist Walters yell over her. I have a great idea for a new co-host for the view since they got rid of Star Jones. The View should bring back Eva Braun and hire her to co-host because she'd fit right in with the rest of the liberal communist's on that pathetic show lol...
Jeff
Elisabeth Hasselbeck
Moderator: Available
Who is Elisabeth Hasselbeck?
I'm not sure how agreeing with a person's displeasure at a fictional character having almost the same name to hers turned into a confused semi-political rant that lumps three fundamentally different ideologies together, but complaining about what "Law and Order: SVU" may have done wrong would be more meaningful without the irrelevant inflamatory statements.
To clarify the ideologies (quotations are from Wikipedia):
- Hitler and Braun advocated Nazism, not Communism, and Nazism (fascism in general) is an ultra-conservative ideology that "combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism".
- Communism (particularly the Marxism-Leninism (Jeff's 'red communism') that has been adopted at times by various countries and "Communist parties") is not inherently conservative but is anti-Nazism and anti-liberalism. Marxism-Leninism holds "the necessity of a violent overthrow of capitalism through communist revolution, to be followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat as the first stage of moving towards communism, and the need for a vanguard party to lead the proletariat in this effort."
- Liberalism (more specifically for American politics, "American liberalism") is defined by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr and others as "a broad political and philosophical mindset, favoring individual liberty, and opposing restrictions on liberty, whether they come from established religion, from government regulation, from the existing class structure, or from multi-national corporations." This definitely does not fit the restrictive Nazism and Communism ideologies.
Regarding "Law and Order: SVU" character naming, I agree on one hand that it was in bad taste if they purposefully chose a name similar to a specific person to make a statement against that person, and the assumption here would be that the writers had heard of her and felt the need to make a statement against her. But on the other hand it is also difficult to come up with unique names for fictional characters, they are always going to be similar if not identical to at least one real person's name...and most likely a fictional name will be similar to thousands of real people's names. Similarity of names does not in itself prove malice. I don't know who Elisabeth Hasselbeck is and I have never watched the View, so I don't know if there are any similarities between the real person and the fictional character other than the name.
I'm not sure how agreeing with a person's displeasure at a fictional character having almost the same name to hers turned into a confused semi-political rant that lumps three fundamentally different ideologies together, but complaining about what "Law and Order: SVU" may have done wrong would be more meaningful without the irrelevant inflamatory statements.
To clarify the ideologies (quotations are from Wikipedia):
- Hitler and Braun advocated Nazism, not Communism, and Nazism (fascism in general) is an ultra-conservative ideology that "combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism".
- Communism (particularly the Marxism-Leninism (Jeff's 'red communism') that has been adopted at times by various countries and "Communist parties") is not inherently conservative but is anti-Nazism and anti-liberalism. Marxism-Leninism holds "the necessity of a violent overthrow of capitalism through communist revolution, to be followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat as the first stage of moving towards communism, and the need for a vanguard party to lead the proletariat in this effort."
- Liberalism (more specifically for American politics, "American liberalism") is defined by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr and others as "a broad political and philosophical mindset, favoring individual liberty, and opposing restrictions on liberty, whether they come from established religion, from government regulation, from the existing class structure, or from multi-national corporations." This definitely does not fit the restrictive Nazism and Communism ideologies.
Regarding "Law and Order: SVU" character naming, I agree on one hand that it was in bad taste if they purposefully chose a name similar to a specific person to make a statement against that person, and the assumption here would be that the writers had heard of her and felt the need to make a statement against her. But on the other hand it is also difficult to come up with unique names for fictional characters, they are always going to be similar if not identical to at least one real person's name...and most likely a fictional name will be similar to thousands of real people's names. Similarity of names does not in itself prove malice. I don't know who Elisabeth Hasselbeck is and I have never watched the View, so I don't know if there are any similarities between the real person and the fictional character other than the name.
Glenn
Law and Order is a show famous for this sort of thing. They take people and stories from the news headlines and change them just a tad bit and make episodes out of it. Soon to come is an episode that is changed again just a little bit that will mock the news about Mel Gibson and his drunken words and actions while he was arrested.
Elisabeth Hasselbeck is one of the co-hosts of The View with Barbara Walters and she used to be on Survivor. I do feel in my personal opinion that most likely someone who is extremely liberal at Law and Order and did not like the Republican minority on the show meaning Elisabeth Hasselbeck thought it would be cute to change one letter of her name and make a character on the show who gets raped not once but twice and then murdered. I feel as usual it's in very bad taste and I feel she has the right to be angered by it.
Long ago when there was only one law and order show and not three the producer of the show named Dick Wolfe he fired the lead actor whose name I cannot think of at the moment but he fired the guy for speaking out and expressing his opinion of dislike for then attorney general Janet Reno.
I feel the truth is a very liberal show just wanted to bash again a right leaning republican personality and it's par for the course with them in my view.
Oh the lead actor who was fired was Michael Morierty and he even spoke of why it happened on many radio news programs then.
Sorry Glenn about the wrong use of terms but anyone like Walters who loves Fidele Castro is communist to me. The woman is on record saying she feels he was the sexiest man she ever met......WHOO WEE LOL...Now that is a little scary when you start admiring those kinds of characters.
Jeff
Elisabeth Hasselbeck is one of the co-hosts of The View with Barbara Walters and she used to be on Survivor. I do feel in my personal opinion that most likely someone who is extremely liberal at Law and Order and did not like the Republican minority on the show meaning Elisabeth Hasselbeck thought it would be cute to change one letter of her name and make a character on the show who gets raped not once but twice and then murdered. I feel as usual it's in very bad taste and I feel she has the right to be angered by it.
Long ago when there was only one law and order show and not three the producer of the show named Dick Wolfe he fired the lead actor whose name I cannot think of at the moment but he fired the guy for speaking out and expressing his opinion of dislike for then attorney general Janet Reno.
I feel the truth is a very liberal show just wanted to bash again a right leaning republican personality and it's par for the course with them in my view.
Oh the lead actor who was fired was Michael Morierty and he even spoke of why it happened on many radio news programs then.
Sorry Glenn about the wrong use of terms but anyone like Walters who loves Fidele Castro is communist to me. The woman is on record saying she feels he was the sexiest man she ever met......WHOO WEE LOL...Now that is a little scary when you start admiring those kinds of characters.
Jeff
Jeff
Clearly it is on a non-physical level...or maybe a lot of alcohol was involved! But it's possible to think someone is sexy without being like them or agreeing with their ideologies...I think Ashley Judd is sexy, that doesn't make me a move star or in agreement with everything she believes in...heck, because I think she is sexy I could less what she believes in!Mills75 wrote: but anyone like Walters who loves Fidele Castro is communist to me. The woman is on record saying she feels he was the sexiest man she ever met......WHOO WEE LOL...Now that is a little scary when you start admiring those kinds of characters.
Jeff
Glenn
I respect you Glenn as always and do hear your points for sure but things like this from Walters get to me and even though this is written by conservative Brent Bozell others seem to have the records also about her interview with Fidel when she seemed to glorify him undeservingly.
Journalism is never more amoral than when dictators are the mandatory "get" for a news puff piece. For the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the network anchors were all scrambling to get an interview with Fidel Castro, the dictator-celebrity. Which network superstar would get the first opportunity to reward the communists for their exclusive by lauding the achievements of the glorious revolution? Best known (or caricatured) as the woman who asks the ridiculously offbeat questions like "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you like to be?" Walters also has the chops to ask tough questions. In the middle of the Clinton years, when Hillary Clinton parceled out only rare interviews and expected utter servility in return, only Walters was willing to dig deep into Whitewater obscurities, asking, for example, who it was who handled the legal work for the corrupt Castle Grande real estate development. (It was Hillary.) She was certainly capable of bringing the heat to Fidel Castro. But she didn't. Her "20/20" interview did get to the point of dictatorship, but only by glorifying supposed social achievements that are dubious at best: "It is true that you have very high literacy; you have brought great health to your country. However, you still do not have freedom of the press. You do not have -- your newspapers, your radio, television -- everything is controlled." Other television reports that document the so-called "great health" of Cuba, omit natty details like clinics that are lucky to have a box of Band-Aids and a clean syringe, and the fact that people aren't exactly hopping on boats to Havana for open-heart surgery or a kidney transplant. People who need the latest, greatest medicine come to Castro's Great Satan of the North. Barbara's question wasn't based on thorough, accurate research. It was based on pandering. While she gave him a decent battle on the lack of press freedom, she didn't get to the tougher point: political enemies and potential crusading journalists are oppressed not only by fear and intimidation, but also by imprisonment, torture and execution. What must Fidel think of some American journalists and their gullible ways? I suspect even he was amazed to hear Walters report this: "For Castro, freedom starts with education. And if literacy alone were the yardstick, Cuba would rank as one of the freest nations on Earth." For the life of me, I can't figure out how networks who prance around about their own rights in this country can visit another country that meets the dictionary definition of totalitarianism and then post this offensive garbage about literacy being equivalent to freedom. Maybe it's something in the water over at ABC, because this isn't the first time on ABC a reporter has fainted over Fidel. In 1993, fellow star interviewer Diane Sawyer made Fidel sound like the hero of a Schwarzenegger action film, with his "death-defying two-year fight" for communism, driven by "his invincible certainty of their destiny" and "his burning desire to crush Cuba's American-supported dictator Fulgencio Batista." But Barbara gave this monster too much respect. She set him up as some sort of independent thinker on world politics: "President Castro, you oppose an attack against Iraq, yes? ... In your view, is Saddam Hussein a good leader for the people of Iraq?" It would be nice if reporters had the decency not to honor dictators with democratic titles like "president" when they have in no way earned them. But to ask one dictator if another dictator is "a good leader for the people" is clearly inappropriate. It sends the message that somehow Castro is an expert on that which makes one "a good leader for the people," that he has experience at being "a good leader for the people." One cannot imagine Barbara Walters clamoring to interview Augusto Pinochet to salute his social achievements and asking if other dictators are good leaders. But Pinochet was dictator of the right, not the left. Even more than a decade after communism's failure became too obvious to be ignored, communist leaders are still being honored with the notion that they are close to the people, fulfilling their material and intellectual needs. The Cold War may be over, but the liberal media attitude remains like an odor you just can't blow out of the house. Liberals still pay tribute to this "romantic revolutionary" bilge, and blur the blacks and whites of Castro's oppression with the alleged moral sophistication that both American and Cuba have a long way to go to Utopia. Barbara Walters could have done better. And her audience deserved better.
Lecturer, syndicated columnist, television commentator, debater, marketer, businessman, author, publisher and activist, L. Brent Bozell III, 51, is one of the most outspoken and effective national leaders in the conservative movement today
Journalism is never more amoral than when dictators are the mandatory "get" for a news puff piece. For the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the network anchors were all scrambling to get an interview with Fidel Castro, the dictator-celebrity. Which network superstar would get the first opportunity to reward the communists for their exclusive by lauding the achievements of the glorious revolution? Best known (or caricatured) as the woman who asks the ridiculously offbeat questions like "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you like to be?" Walters also has the chops to ask tough questions. In the middle of the Clinton years, when Hillary Clinton parceled out only rare interviews and expected utter servility in return, only Walters was willing to dig deep into Whitewater obscurities, asking, for example, who it was who handled the legal work for the corrupt Castle Grande real estate development. (It was Hillary.) She was certainly capable of bringing the heat to Fidel Castro. But she didn't. Her "20/20" interview did get to the point of dictatorship, but only by glorifying supposed social achievements that are dubious at best: "It is true that you have very high literacy; you have brought great health to your country. However, you still do not have freedom of the press. You do not have -- your newspapers, your radio, television -- everything is controlled." Other television reports that document the so-called "great health" of Cuba, omit natty details like clinics that are lucky to have a box of Band-Aids and a clean syringe, and the fact that people aren't exactly hopping on boats to Havana for open-heart surgery or a kidney transplant. People who need the latest, greatest medicine come to Castro's Great Satan of the North. Barbara's question wasn't based on thorough, accurate research. It was based on pandering. While she gave him a decent battle on the lack of press freedom, she didn't get to the tougher point: political enemies and potential crusading journalists are oppressed not only by fear and intimidation, but also by imprisonment, torture and execution. What must Fidel think of some American journalists and their gullible ways? I suspect even he was amazed to hear Walters report this: "For Castro, freedom starts with education. And if literacy alone were the yardstick, Cuba would rank as one of the freest nations on Earth." For the life of me, I can't figure out how networks who prance around about their own rights in this country can visit another country that meets the dictionary definition of totalitarianism and then post this offensive garbage about literacy being equivalent to freedom. Maybe it's something in the water over at ABC, because this isn't the first time on ABC a reporter has fainted over Fidel. In 1993, fellow star interviewer Diane Sawyer made Fidel sound like the hero of a Schwarzenegger action film, with his "death-defying two-year fight" for communism, driven by "his invincible certainty of their destiny" and "his burning desire to crush Cuba's American-supported dictator Fulgencio Batista." But Barbara gave this monster too much respect. She set him up as some sort of independent thinker on world politics: "President Castro, you oppose an attack against Iraq, yes? ... In your view, is Saddam Hussein a good leader for the people of Iraq?" It would be nice if reporters had the decency not to honor dictators with democratic titles like "president" when they have in no way earned them. But to ask one dictator if another dictator is "a good leader for the people" is clearly inappropriate. It sends the message that somehow Castro is an expert on that which makes one "a good leader for the people," that he has experience at being "a good leader for the people." One cannot imagine Barbara Walters clamoring to interview Augusto Pinochet to salute his social achievements and asking if other dictators are good leaders. But Pinochet was dictator of the right, not the left. Even more than a decade after communism's failure became too obvious to be ignored, communist leaders are still being honored with the notion that they are close to the people, fulfilling their material and intellectual needs. The Cold War may be over, but the liberal media attitude remains like an odor you just can't blow out of the house. Liberals still pay tribute to this "romantic revolutionary" bilge, and blur the blacks and whites of Castro's oppression with the alleged moral sophistication that both American and Cuba have a long way to go to Utopia. Barbara Walters could have done better. And her audience deserved better.
Lecturer, syndicated columnist, television commentator, debater, marketer, businessman, author, publisher and activist, L. Brent Bozell III, 51, is one of the most outspoken and effective national leaders in the conservative movement today
Jeff
I can appreciate that Jeff, there are certainly things that get to me like that as well.Mills75 wrote: but things like this from Walters get to me and even though this is written by conservative Brent Bozell others seem to have the records also about her interview with Fidel when she seemed to glorify him undeservingly.
Glenn
Glen
"- Hitler and Braun advocated Nazism, not Communism, and "Nazism (fascism in general) is an ultra-conservative ideology that "combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism".
First, Eva Braun advocated nothing - she was Hitler's ditsy 'beard'.
Second: NAZI stood for National SOCIALISM.
The definition of Nazism above is faulty, to be diplomatic.
Continuing:
No god other than Adolf. Not "ultra-conservative". Otherwise by that stretch of paralogism [mental gaseous eruptions {grin}] Mao, Pol Pot [they should have smoked it instead {grin}], Fidel, Islamo Fascists, etc. should be equated to 'Waskely Wepublicans" - Elmer Fudd.
For those young Uechi students reading this thread, most likely the product of present day educational system that considers history to have started yesterday, I humbly supply facts. Oh, pardon me! As one teacher calling into a Boston talk show a few years ago said;
"I do not teach history It is only about facts. When my students axe [sic] me questions about the past I tell them about the struggles of people against racial surpression".
First, Eva Braun advocated nothing - she was Hitler's ditsy 'beard'.
Second: NAZI stood for National SOCIALISM.
The definition of Nazism above is faulty, to be diplomatic.
Continuing:
No god other than Adolf. Not "ultra-conservative". Otherwise by that stretch of paralogism [mental gaseous eruptions {grin}] Mao, Pol Pot [they should have smoked it instead {grin}], Fidel, Islamo Fascists, etc. should be equated to 'Waskely Wepublicans" - Elmer Fudd.
For those young Uechi students reading this thread, most likely the product of present day educational system that considers history to have started yesterday, I humbly supply facts. Oh, pardon me! As one teacher calling into a Boston talk show a few years ago said;
"I do not teach history It is only about facts. When my students axe [sic] me questions about the past I tell them about the struggles of people against racial surpression".
Re: Glen
Topos wrote:"- Hitler and Braun advocated Nazism, not Communism, and "Nazism (fascism in general) is an ultra-conservative ideology that "combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism".
First, Eva Braun advocated nothing - she was Hitler's ditsy 'beard'.
Second: NAZI stood for National SOCIALISM.
The definition of Nazism above is faulty, to be diplomatic.
Continuing:
No god other than Adolf. Not "ultra-conservative". Otherwise by that stretch of paralogism [mental gaseous eruptions {grin}] Mao, Pol Pot [they should have smoked it instead {grin}], Fidel, Islamo Fascists, etc. should be equated to 'Waskely Wepublicans" - Elmer Fudd.
For those young Uechi students reading this thread, most likely the product of present day educational system that considers history to have started yesterday, I humbly supply facts. Oh, pardon me! As one teacher calling into a Boston talk show a few years ago said;
"I do not teach history It is only about facts. When my students axe [sic] me questions about the past I tell them about the struggles of people against racial surpression".
Uh...socialism in nazism...term. Nothing more. Thats it HItler tried to kill communits remember? Atleast thats what my texts books said. Though he hated the jews more, he went after communists.
There was an entire chapter in my text book i remember that was devoted to the differences between communism, fascism, democracy. There are some very significant differences, primarily on economics and philosophy behind it.
IN THEORY communism is democratic.
IN THEORY fascism is well...it isn't.
Private business exists in fascism.
Government regulation in communism.
AAAhmed46
Indeed Hitler wanted to kill Communists. So did Lenin & Stalin. And they were more successful. Stalin had Comrade Trotsky [of the galloping trots? {grin}] assassinated in Mexico in the early 1940's.
A little search in well researched studies will lead to a figure on the number of Communists Lenin killed.
He had a most wonderful phrase "Useful Idiots" for those
dewy eyed mincing intellectuals whose mythic thinking envisioned a joyous bee hive kibbutzisch living. Of course they would be exempt from the travails.
Stalin starved 30 million of his people in the famine of the 1930's - fellow Commies. Cambodia and North Korea are other paradises. The leaders lived in luxury in their dachas with unlimited
benefits. These human offals only want to get into power. Then the useful idiots will be dealt with expeditiously.
As for the college text books that make comparative studies they really are a starting point. [ much like learing Uechi from articles in Karate Magazines] During the Cold War which eventually landed on the trash heap of history due to Ronald Regan ["is Topos an, Ugh, gasp, conservative, Yeech! What an intellectually limited cretan!" - (grin+++)] the Intel community would read Pravda and Izvestia [glad we need no longer translations - hated Cyryllic- just read the NY & LATimes among others today]. Why?: to know what the enemy was thinking.
Willim of Occam, for whom the eponymous OCCAM's RAZOR was named [ aside: Occam's Razor was NOT a subsidiary of Gillette - a smart a%^ed answer that my philosophy professor found un funny]
stated that among the many solutions to a problem, the simplest is the correct one. In the context of our discussion, for folks who want to incinerate us, our families, and country, Old Bill's razor points to a direct solution: speed them to their Nervana as expeditously as possible before they can do us.
Preemtion & Action over Mythic Thinking [ dervived from Ernst Cassirer]
Van understands this in his monumental efforts on the limits &realities of self-defense; and we all are the beneficiaries of his wisdom.
A little search in well researched studies will lead to a figure on the number of Communists Lenin killed.
He had a most wonderful phrase "Useful Idiots" for those
dewy eyed mincing intellectuals whose mythic thinking envisioned a joyous bee hive kibbutzisch living. Of course they would be exempt from the travails.
Stalin starved 30 million of his people in the famine of the 1930's - fellow Commies. Cambodia and North Korea are other paradises. The leaders lived in luxury in their dachas with unlimited
benefits. These human offals only want to get into power. Then the useful idiots will be dealt with expeditiously.
As for the college text books that make comparative studies they really are a starting point. [ much like learing Uechi from articles in Karate Magazines] During the Cold War which eventually landed on the trash heap of history due to Ronald Regan ["is Topos an, Ugh, gasp, conservative, Yeech! What an intellectually limited cretan!" - (grin+++)] the Intel community would read Pravda and Izvestia [glad we need no longer translations - hated Cyryllic- just read the NY & LATimes among others today]. Why?: to know what the enemy was thinking.
Willim of Occam, for whom the eponymous OCCAM's RAZOR was named [ aside: Occam's Razor was NOT a subsidiary of Gillette - a smart a%^ed answer that my philosophy professor found un funny]
stated that among the many solutions to a problem, the simplest is the correct one. In the context of our discussion, for folks who want to incinerate us, our families, and country, Old Bill's razor points to a direct solution: speed them to their Nervana as expeditously as possible before they can do us.
Preemtion & Action over Mythic Thinking [ dervived from Ernst Cassirer]
Van understands this in his monumental efforts on the limits &realities of self-defense; and we all are the beneficiaries of his wisdom.
Re: AAAhmed46
Topos wrote:Indeed Hitler wanted to kill Communists. So did Lenin & Stalin. And they were more successful. Stalin had Comrade Trotsky [of the galloping trots? {grin}] assassinated in Mexico in the early 1940's.
A little search in well researched studies will lead to a figure on the number of Communists Lenin killed.
He had a most wonderful phrase "Useful Idiots" for those
dewy eyed mincing intellectuals whose mythic thinking envisioned a joyous bee hive kibbutzisch living. Of course they would be exempt from the travails.
Stalin starved 30 million of his people in the famine of the 1930's - fellow Commies. Cambodia and North Korea are other paradises. The leaders lived in luxury in their dachas with unlimited
benefits. These human offals only want to get into power. Then the useful idiots will be dealt with expeditiously.
As for the college text books that make comparative studies they really are a starting point. [ much like learing Uechi from articles in Karate Magazines] During the Cold War which eventually landed on the trash heap of history due to Ronald Regan ["is Topos an, Ugh, gasp, conservative, Yeech! What an intellectually limited cretan!" - (grin+++)] the Intel community would read Pravda and Izvestia [glad we need no longer translations - hated Cyryllic- just read the NY & LATimes among others today]. Why?: to know what the enemy was thinking.
Willim of Occam, for whom the eponymous OCCAM's RAZOR was named [ aside: Occam's Razor was NOT a subsidiary of Gillette - a smart a%^ed answer that my philosophy professor found un funny]
stated that among the many solutions to a problem, the simplest is the correct one. In the context of our discussion, for folks who want to incinerate us, our families, and country, Old Bill's razor points to a direct solution: speed them to their Nervana as expeditously as possible before they can do us.
Preemtion & Action over Mythic Thinking [ dervived from Ernst Cassirer]
Van understands this in his monumental efforts on the limits &realities of self-defense; and we all are the beneficiaries of his wisdom.
Im not saying communism is a good system that works.
Im just saying it's different from nazism.
Hell SOCIALISM and communism are different.
I mean sweden is a democratic socialist country, i have yet to read about horrible acts done in thier name.
Not the best system...not a bad system either...
My point is that, i have yet to read about socialist Sweden murdering thirty million people in the name of democratic socialism.
Topos,
I'm not sure where you're going with your posts, but all I was attempting earlier was to point out the fundamental differences between three commonly referenced ideologies. Discussing the details of what happened in practice when these ideologies have been applied to the governance of states could take years. The number of communists killed under either leader just goes to show how impractical these regimes were.
What has been termed Nazism, National Socialism (Nationalsozialismus) if you prefer, is generally considered an ultraconservative ideology...using the definition of conservativism as a "political philosophy that necessitates a defense of established values". This is what National Socialism built its appeal on, to the extreme, during its rise to power. Again, in practical application the Nazi ideologies became perverted after Hitler's rise to power, particularly during WWII, but the general definition I provided of Nazism as an ideology is correct.
I'm not sure where you're going with your posts, but all I was attempting earlier was to point out the fundamental differences between three commonly referenced ideologies. Discussing the details of what happened in practice when these ideologies have been applied to the governance of states could take years. The number of communists killed under either leader just goes to show how impractical these regimes were.
What has been termed Nazism, National Socialism (Nationalsozialismus) if you prefer, is generally considered an ultraconservative ideology...using the definition of conservativism as a "political philosophy that necessitates a defense of established values". This is what National Socialism built its appeal on, to the extreme, during its rise to power. Again, in practical application the Nazi ideologies became perverted after Hitler's rise to power, particularly during WWII, but the general definition I provided of Nazism as an ideology is correct.
Glenn
The reference to Eva Braun as a possible co-host was simply to put her in the same type of grouping with Walters and O'Donnel as people who support ridiculous idea's no matter what the detailed philosophy is on Nazi's or Communist's. They both are ignorant idea's of how to go about things. So really it doesn't matter to me what the detailed theory is on either ideology. All I need to know for me is that they are both failed and ridiculous ideologies like the ideologies Walter's and O' Donnel support.
This is why Eva Braun would fit right in. Because no matter what they're official political affiliation it's all failed garbage.
I've seen many scholars with not an ounce of common sense. Your basic egghead who can do calculus but cannot cross the street without getting run over by a car. I prefer good old common sense any day to that scholarly type. I like the young bread of Uechi student that you find today personally because I've seen all hard workers that love the art and actually lift weights and work out while practicing the art and not just discuss the art as if it's an old Van Gogh painting.
Plus the young will one day become the old and I like to think personally of all the experience they will have and the things that they will have to share and pass on to the next generation through hard work and sweat and the benefit of seeing all the influences out there.
Don't take the Eva Braun co-host idea to heart and that serious it simply means they are in the same pairing of people who support failed idea's and theories and people for that matter. Bad idea's = garbage no matter what the exact definition and these people support garbage and always have and most likely always will in my view and this is what makes them one in the same to me.
Sounds like John Kerry Talking about the young Uechi students to me lol..Study out there young Uechi students so you don't end up In Iraq lol...I'd let the young Uechi students believe in what they wish to believe in and come up with their own conclusions to things and I think they'll be more than fine..
Jeff
This is why Eva Braun would fit right in. Because no matter what they're official political affiliation it's all failed garbage.
I've seen many scholars with not an ounce of common sense. Your basic egghead who can do calculus but cannot cross the street without getting run over by a car. I prefer good old common sense any day to that scholarly type. I like the young bread of Uechi student that you find today personally because I've seen all hard workers that love the art and actually lift weights and work out while practicing the art and not just discuss the art as if it's an old Van Gogh painting.
Plus the young will one day become the old and I like to think personally of all the experience they will have and the things that they will have to share and pass on to the next generation through hard work and sweat and the benefit of seeing all the influences out there.
Don't take the Eva Braun co-host idea to heart and that serious it simply means they are in the same pairing of people who support failed idea's and theories and people for that matter. Bad idea's = garbage no matter what the exact definition and these people support garbage and always have and most likely always will in my view and this is what makes them one in the same to me.
Sounds like John Kerry Talking about the young Uechi students to me lol..Study out there young Uechi students so you don't end up In Iraq lol...I'd let the young Uechi students believe in what they wish to believe in and come up with their own conclusions to things and I think they'll be more than fine..
Jeff
Jeff
