Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.
— Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, March 25, 2010, on MSNBC.
Connect:
Regardless of how you feel politically; put that all aside. The tragedy today is just that. Do not use this as a way to spin, or fight on partisan lines.
I’m a fan of your articles,Jon. But I think you’re somewhat polarizing this as a way to blame Republicans.
Now I’m on the center, I can see the good for both sides and the bad, maybe you should try it?
Get real. There IS no “other side” to this. The far-right has been talking about “Second Amendment Solutions” for months if not years, and the likes of Murdoch and Clear Channel have been giving them a megaphone, with which to stir up the crazies.
There is no need for “balance” here – one side is completely in the wrong, and six people are dead.
Sorry Randall, you’re clearly right. Let’s get the lynch mob together a kill every Republican.
You’re out of your mind.
Check out the guy’s Youtube page:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10
His favorite books include The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. His videos are bizarre. You can’t blame Sarah Palin for this.
Kim, You are a moron.
“Dana Gash Calls Arizona Shooting a ‘Wake Up Call’ for ‘Both Parties’ to Tone Down Rhetoric”
I agree with whats his name. We should not fight this on party lines.
The rich did this. The rich invent what they cannot control, the rich are incompetent. The rich invented Conservatism – they had to – once the “lower” 98% got the right to vote. The rich will demonstrate the ultimate act of murder and treason if we do not get tough on them first – the rich would kill us all.
The rich got rid of American jobs, whining about taxes, then they fanned the flames. Every wealthy American is culpable in this – and in the acts to come – by the forces they create but which they do not feel responsible and are not competent to control.
Yes, anyone that doesn’t agree with you is a moron. I swear I’m seeing no difference anymore between dem and repub on how we talk to each other.
It’s disgusting, 3rd party here I come
It is fine to call it a unrelated incident but it isn’t.Abortion clinics have been bombed into submisssion,at a tea party rally a women was kicked in the head by tea-party people.The conservative media calls for the killing of opponents.The right wing is a hate group just like the Nazi’s in Germany and we will see much more of this behavior in coming years where many right wingers and Republican-tea-party thughs call for the murder of opponents.
http://hillbuzz.org/2011/01/08/my-congresswoman-voted-against-nancy-pelosi-and-is-now-dead-to-me-eerie-daily-kos-hit-piece-on-gabrielle-giffords-just-two-days-before-assassination-attempt-on-her/
I’m more hurt by the fact that the shooter was a leftwing anarchist, this will clearly be used against liberals througout the country.
The fact that he followed our Democratic and Liberal Framer Thomas Jefferson when it came to using gold and later founder of the Democratic Party Andrew Jackson, who also use gold and advocated it as currency. This will not hold well for us.
Dana Gash, Tell me what Dem uses Dangerous rhetoric ?
btw dana … Your looking FAT these days!
Kim…the truth of the matter is that the Tea Baggers have been preaching hate ever since the party’s inception. Period. Truth. I have experienced their hate during a visit to Texas where I was also called a Nazi because I am a progressive/liberal.
Words are as real as cold in January and they have their consequences. Tea Baggers have carried assault rifles to Obama’s campaign meetings and certainly Sarah “Lie Alot” Palin used crosshairs as her political symbol. The shooter (it has been written) followed closely the writings and opinions of the white surpremist group, American Renaissance.Need I say more? Are you still sitting there with a bag over your head. Tea Party Baggers started speaking of hatred and Fox Fantasy News promots hate among its followers. It is always the crazies of our society that respond to such suggestions. Words are power, be careful. Maybe this tragedy in which a precious nine year old child died…will rid the world of Tea Baggers and Sarah Palin, she needs to go home and be quiet for a while…maybe for twenty or thirty years. No, not long enough, maybe she will go away forever.
Well I have done enough looking into the tea-party to know that its first inception was to protest Bush’s stimulus. Where I lived in Boston, the tea-party wasn’t this partisan group, it was filled with democrats,republicans all people fed up with Federal spending and that was fine by me. I was too. So no we cannot say since its “inception” and be truthful about it.
Fox News being what they are saw a marketing scheme for this and jumped on it. Sure, tea-party are not what they were before but you’re not going to tell me that we on the left don’t have fringe followers either. Did leftwing fringe groups not attack the Discovery Channel? There are as many crazies for the right as there are for the left.
My husband tells me that both sides are “full of shit, due to the emotion and human element, that we are not yet evolved enough to understand the intentions of what this country is, was etc” I’m going to start listening to him more now
I’ve read about the shooters ties with the racist group, but it doesn’t at all connect him to the GOP or the Tea-Party. We know that the tea-party is a fraud now but they have many people of different ethnic divisons. That is just the truth, there are black and hispanic tea-partiers.
The group the American Renaissance believes that our government is controlled by zionists and this group is very anti-semetic (I’m jewish and my husband is half jewish, I’m pretty offended by the idea of this but what can I do?)
Well we cannot connect them to the GOP and the Tea-Party in that respect as the GOP and Tea-Party are supporters of Israel. If you can draw the conclusion that the shooter was part of this white power group and yes, he could have been. Then we can also draw the conclusion that he attacked both parties equally as the GOP would have been zionists in the shooter eyes.
The kid was crazy, people snap. I can’t blame a group of people for the actions of one nutcase and I won’t. I’m not partisan enough for that, sorry.
And of course you’re not a nazi for being a liberal or a progressive. When people connect you with that its because the original Progressive movement had similar connections to Nazi’s. They are polarized events starting with eugenics, Margaret Sanger and he feelings toward black Americans hell even horror author H.P Lovecraft who was a Progressive wrote in the support of despotic ideals in the New Deal.
Look we cannot just compare everything someone says in opposition to our views as something right wing. There is some truth to it, some. There are good ideas on all sides just like there are bad ideas.
Thanks, Kim. I blame Palin for political malpractice. Publishing the crosshairs map was a huge political risk. Just think how the public would feel about her now if Rep. Giffords had died. Releasing the map was poor judgment. It was either an irresponsible and amateurish move or a deliberate, dangerously provocative one.
Palin also knew there was video of Giffords criticizing her about the map. “Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district,” Gifford said in March, “and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”
By getting out too soon with “condolences” and scrubbing the site, Palin is certainly signaling she is in damage control.
Whether she has blood on her hands here is another issue. No one knows what was in Loughner’s head, and we may never know. And even if we find out he was politically motivated, it’s unlikely to make much difference in the long run. Palin has a way of sloughing off accountability. The more she’s attacked, the more she can claim victimhood, a quality her followers apparently find inspiring.
But one point: Nazis were right-wing fascists, the opposite of liberal. They started out as anti-communists in the late 1920s. In the 1930s, after Hitler appointed himself dictator, he had communists, writers, professors and other liberals exterminated. Nazis were also the ultimate white supremacists, which is a faction of conservatism that is still alive and kicking today.
Hmm, I really think thats a stretch and as a Jew its commonplace that communism was just as evil toward my people as National Socialism.
I went and looked and found this text, maybe you can help everyone better understand this?
Fascism vs Nazism
Nazism is considered to be one form of fascism. Though both Nazism and fascism reject the ideologies of liberalism, Marxism and democracy, these two are different in many aspects. It is hard to make a perfect differentiation between the two.
Nazism and Fascism have their origin in the 20th century. While fascism was in vogue between 1919 and 1945, Nazism became popular from 1933 to 1945.
Fascism is a term that was originally referred to the fascists of Italy under Mussolini. Nazism on the other hand, referred as National Socialism, is in an ideological concept of the Nazi Party or the National Socialist German Workers’ Party of Adolf Hitler.
Fascism believes in the “corporatism” of all elements in society to form an “Organic State”. They were not racial and had no strong opinion of any race. For Fascists, the state was the most important element. The Doctrine of Fascism, which is the authoritative document of the fascism, emphasis on nationalism, corporatism, totalitarianism and militarism. According to this Doctrine the State is all embracing and no human or spiritual value exists beyond it.
But Nazism emphasised on racism. While fascism considered state as important, Nazism considered “Aryanism” as more important. The Nazism doctrine believed in the superiority of the Aryan race.
While fascism was based on certain political ideology, Nazism was blindly based on racial hatred.
Nazism considered class based society as enemy and stood for unifying the racial element. But fascism wanted to preserve the class system. The fascists almost accepted the concept of social mobility, while Nazism was against it.
Nazism considered state as a means for the advancement of the master race. But fascism considered state to be a form of nationalism. Fascists considered nationalism as something related to national culture as opposed to other cultures.
Coming to the etymology, fascist comes from fascio, an Italiam word, meaning a union of bundle. Nazi comes from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which is the German language name of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
Summary
1.Fascism is a term that was originally referred to the fascists of Italy under Mussolini. Nazism on the other hand, referred as National Socialism, is in an ideological concept of the Nazi Party.
2.For Fascists, the state was the most important element. But Nazism emphasised on racism.
3.While fascism considered state as important, Nazism considered “Aryanism” as more important
Read more: Difference Between Fascism and Nazism | Difference Between | Fascism vs Nazism
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism/#ixzz1AZQe4wvM
also here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1079778/the_differences_between_fascism_and.html
http://www.cwporter.com/fascdiff.htm
http://stopbadscience.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/difference-between-national-socialism-and-fascism/
You’re going against the grain of conventional wisdom it seems, Jon.
Can you retort any of these articles?
I think most historians would point to the fact that Hitler “corporatized” (nationalized) German private industry as thoroughly as Mussolini did Italian industry as one piece of evidence among many that Hitler governed with a fascist model. In terms of political philosophy and objectives, there were nuanced differences between fascism and Nazism, but in effect both styles of government were authoritarian, used brutality to suppress dissent and viewed human life as cheap. We could add military fascism in Franco’s Spain and later Pinochet’s Chile, Saddam’s Iraq and Myanamar today in with them.
All of these governments were and are right wing by the standards of their day — evidence of this is that they replaced the free press with government propaganda, rounded up and tortured and executed their critics, who were mostly liberal writers and academics.
It’s despicable today, not to mention ahistorical, that Beck and his ilk are attempting to salve the guilty and hateful consciences of their right-wing followers by recasting these authoritarians as liberals. That is the opposite of the truth.
That said, the left-wing extreme that is similar to fascism is statism. That is what the Soviet Union practiced — and, yes, Stalin killed more people, including more Jews, than Hitler. It’s the form of government in North Korea today, too.
Well to counter your point about Palin’s crosshairs what about the Daily Koz? The did the same thing Palin did, don’t you think?
Have you seen the link? I posted earlier?
I mean no disrespect, btw, just think we can talk this out rather than shoot it out.
Thank you, Jon, I was about to jump on that point by Kim who seems to have conveniently organized a different reflection of Nazi beginnings. And, I highly resent the stupidity of which Kim throws around the word, Nazi and connects it with Liberals. I think she is watching the shadows at the back of the cave not knowing that it is a reflection…
Again, thanks for the clarification, Jon.
Conventional wisdom says otherwise Jethrow,
“The far Left is especially keen that the term “socialism” should belong to them, and not to the ideas of the Third Reich, so they perpetuate the term “fascism” to describe National Socialism. Stalin started this by calling the Nazis “fascists” while, oddly enough, the democratic West was keen not to confuse the two ideologies, and political analysts kept them conceptually apart. When reading about WWII events, it used to be easy to tell if the speaker or writer was inspired by communism. If he or she talked about Nazis as “fascists”, then the argument or point of view had in all probability originated in communist circles.
Confusion also arises, for the public, because both National Socialism and fascism are dictatorial and anti-democratic.”
http://stopbadscience.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/difference-between-national-socialism-and-fascism/
Debate that, Jon and Jethrow.
And nowhere did I connect nazis or liberals, they are very different and you’re spinning my words. C’mon now, leave that to Fox News.
I don’t buy the equivalence of Palin’s map, which was all over the news, especially on Fox, after it was released and was even criticized by conservatives, and the DailyKos map, which I’d never heard of until yesterday.
Also, there are very few liberal gun nuts, so the Kos piece didn’t have the dog whistle quality that Palin’s did. There was a definite “wink-wink” quality to Palin’s map that the Kos ad didn’t have.
Also, I think Sharron Angle deserves some of the heat here. After all, she called “Second Amendment remedies” should tea party candidate lose their races in November, as the one who ran against Giffords did.
yeah, i agree with you there Jon, but as an old lefty…I am a supporter of the right to bear arms. More so that the fact I am Jewish and have seen what governments do ( nazi germany, fascist italy and communist russia for example )when they have gun control. Many Jews are pro 2nd amendment.
Being pro 2nd Amendment is different from being a nut who owns guns. There are very few liberals with paranoid gun fetishes.
That source about the origins of Nazism is anti-factual. Interestingly, the History Channel covered this in a show last week. This is how Wikipedia describes it:
Socialism, believe it or not, was a popular concept in Europe back then, so Hitler used the word in the branding, even though it was false advertising. Sort of like Fox “News.”
So what you’re saying is all the links posted are wrong but wikipedia is correct?
And at no time have you addressed the intent of the articles for what they were doing; describing the differences between Fascism and National Socailism. Which had nothing to do with what you posted about the Nazi party.
I mean I guess we might as well say your source is as invalid as the articles I posted as Wikipedia is edited by its users and has a history of being anti-factual, because of the it is edited.
Check out this link:
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html
http://www.educator2educator.com/index.php/site/topic/wikipedia_should_we_allow/
And this one is my favorite
“Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research.”
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation/2305Also from the horses mouth :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use
from their own site wikipedia says not to use wikepedia
“Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible source.”
So would you consider rereading my sources and re researching your sources as they are really looking a little untrue.
Also the History Channel tends to inaccurate and even the Huffington Post called them out on it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/kennedy-tv-series-causing_n_464656.html
And even in the historical community use of the History Channel is not seen as having accurate information
http://www.historum.com/history-films-television/861-history-channel.html
All I’m saying, and No I’m not arguing with you but it does seem like a lot of people on this site never cite their sources and if we’re going to use history for anything, please provide the source and not the commentary.
Also if we are going to use Wiki and believe it, the above quote Jon provided says Hitler attcked Capitalists too, so I gues we can’t call capitalists Nazi’s anymore ( commentary )
But I did find the source for your quote Jon, here:
In July 1919, Hitler was appointed a Verbindungsmann (police spy) of an Aufklärungskommando (Intelligence Commando) of the Reichswehr, both to influence other soldiers and to infiltrate a small party, the German Workers’ Party (DAP). During his inspection of the party, Hitler was impressed with founder Anton Drexler’s anti-semitic, nationalist, anti-capitalist and anti-Marxist ideas, which favoured a strong active government, a “non-Jewish” version of socialism and mutual solidarity of all members of society. Drexler was impressed with Hitler’s oratory skills and invited him to join the party. Hitler joined DAP on 12 September 1919 and became the party’s 55th member…
Here Hitler met Dietrich Eckart, one of the early founders of the party and member of the occult Thule Society. Eckart became Hitler’s mentor, exchanging ideas with him, teaching him how to dress and speak, and introducing him to a wide range of people. Hitler thanked Eckart by paying tribute to him in the second volume of Mein Kampf. To increase the party’s appeal, the party changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers Party (abbreviated NSDAP).
this came from this website :http://pigeonproject.com/2009/06/02/adolf-hitlers-entry-into-politics/
I’ve posted it onto history forums and I suppose we will find out how accurate it is.
Also with a little more research I’ve found a site that backs up only one point from Jon’s first comment was the only connection National Socialism has with Fascism is they are Anti-Democratic and “the idea of struggle”
in this case for the Nazi’s it was about a greater Germania or a move back to a pure Germany, only of nordic men and women.
Interesting
I don’t put my trust in any source without verifying but if two sources generally agree, then it’s usually a safe bet, plus I’m a history geek and have been interested in WWII since I was kid in the 1960s. I pasted that bit from Wikipedia because I didn’t really have time to write up my version at the moment.
Point is, Hitler was hired by the govt’s secret police in the 1920s to infiltrate political movements so the govt. could monitor them and shut them down. He found one he liked, because of the reasons stated there, particularly their anti-Jewish sentiments, and so joined it. As his group became a little more successful they deceptively changed the name to include “Socialist” to make it have a broader appeal.
Glenn Beck and others are trying to rewrite history to make the Nazis liberals. That’s just anti-factual. It’s pointless to try to make our current-day politics sync up with the politics of the past — for example, in 1865, Republicans were, by today’s standards, liberal radicals bent on upsetting the current order (slavery) and Democrats were status quo-loving conservatives — but there is no way to reconfigure the history of Nazism to make Nazis liberals. That is, to put it plainly, a vile and dirty lie that besmirches the memory of the liberal artists, writers, academics and others whom the Nazis killed — smart, decent people who died because of what they believed.
Thousands of the liberals fled the Nazis in the 1930s, and many of them moved here. Albert Einstein, Hedy Lamarr and Marlene Dietrich, to name a few.
http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/dmeier/Holocaust/hitler.html
here is that site.
Well it seems as if the website Jon pulled the Nazi Origin quote from is a collective of information that may or may not be true and the website the article is on states that
“If you would like to contribute and have your own section, feel free to get in touch.
Everything that is written and featured in this website may not be a 100% historically correct, however, what is?”
So much like Wikipedia the site can be updated by anyone with a computer and an agenda.
If you guys wanna live by the ” who cares whats accurate because history never is” mantra, thats fine but don’t push it as fact.
http://pigeonproject.com/about-2/
Kim – Which facts about Hitler’s rise to power are you disputing? I will find iron-clad sources for you.
Oh I know Jon, but you shouldn’t do that. You confuse people and everything you said I’ll have to look up now and hold you to it.
You also forgot to mention Ludwig von Mises a Liberal Jew whose work influenced Libertarianism in America along with the works of F.A Hayek
check this out: The Socialist Roots of Naziism
Friedrich A. Hayek1
Fried’s Ende des Kapitalismus is perhaps the most characteristic product of this group of Edelnazis, as they were known in Germany, and is particularly disquieting because of its resemblance to so much of the literature which we see in England and the United States today, where we can watch the same drawing-together of the socialists of the Left and the Right and nearly the same contempt of all that is liberal in the old sense. “Conservative Socialism” (and, in other circles, “Religious Socialism”) was the slogan under which a large number of writers prepared the atmosphere in which “National Socialism” succeeded. it is “conservative socialism” which is the dominant trend among us now. Had the war against the Western powers “with the weapons and spirit of economic organization ” not almost succeeded before the real war began?
1. Hayek, F. A. The Road to Serfdom. University of Chicago Press, 1944 pp 183-198
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html
ALSO
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?_r=1&hp
““As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,” the former classmate, Caitie Parker, wrote in a series of Twitter feeds Saturday. “I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive.”
“He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was ‘stupid & unintelligent,’ ” she wrote. ”
Interesting
People go over to the dark side. Ronald Reagan was an active liberal Democrat, president of his union, in the 1940s. Then look what happened.