This bias keystrokin' he's making seems a helluva lot safer than using a gun to make his point.

As a matter of fact, I am working on an illustrated children's book! It's a touching tale of a young athlete overcoming adversity to become a celebrated runner. Thanks for the encouragement.

I was trying to figure that out?! It makes no difference since nuts are crazy and in a class all their own but I've been hearing this argument all day.

Hitler and the Nazi's are generally considered to be far-right, the name they chose notwithstanding. The only people who claim otherwise nowadays are right wing apologists for far right.

But you know that, right?

I love how Right-Wingers try to 'define' things away. Another example:

"Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman", as if the world never changes, advances, becomes enlightened, or otherwise progresses.

this is a common mistake. While Hitler's party named themselves the National Socialist Party they were as Socialist as the People's Republic of China is a Republic. Nazism is an extension of Facism, a far conservative movement. Facism and Socialism are actually, by definition, opposites. Socialism is when the Government runs the Corporations, and Facism is when the Corporations run the Government. Socialists were actually one of the groups rounded up and put to death in the Holocaust, so saying Nazis are Socialist is an affront to their deaths. As for Robert Byrd, while he is a Democrat, he is also a conservative. The Democratic party was the conservative party until the 1920s and in many regions of the south it took much longer for the change to happen

It's funny and sad he actually had no clue. He really thought the Nazi's were liberals.

See what happens when you start to throw around names when you have no idea of the meaning.

Does this mean in Fox world so called Socialist Nazi's are the same as what they consider Liberal Socialist.

Now that explains the Obama is like Hitler talk.

You Uneducated idiots.

Hey, sophie and squiggy: Like, duh? Facists, of which Nazis are the extreme variety, are about as far right as you can get. Didn't you pick that up in your GED curriculum?

Take a few minutes and read themightyseven's description, above. Then maybe go rethink your usual political comments.

These comments are hilarious. Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Fascist, Right, Left all have meanings that are difficult to pin on one group. So let's just define people on what they believe rather than lump them all into one group. Just because some one shoots up an abortion clinic or halocaust museum does not mean they belong to a right-wing group, just as muslim extremists do not belong to right wing groups. They belong to the insane group of people.

Both Hitler and Stalin favored strong government control of society. They both killed millions in order to achieve that. Who cares what side of the political spectrum they were on? Their insane policies had devastating effects on mankind.

I am a libertarian. Not liberal, left, conservative, right, capitalist, socialist. Everyone should be free to form their own groups of like minded people, but don't force me to join your group. If what I advocate is considered conservative by some, such as conserving the U.S. Constitution, then so be it. What's yours is yours, and mine is mine. Don't ask me to pay your doctor bill, and I won't ask you to pay mine. I hardly think these are extreme beliefs, but to the current administration, they might be. They conflict with "redistributing the wealth", which completely ignores how wealth was created in the first place.

We work for the government almost a third of the year (to pay our taxes, or to pay for corporations' taxes).

Left, Right, yada yada, ARE YOU FREE?

Themightysven has got it right. To call the Nazis left is to misunderstand entirely what they were doing and why. This is what comes of only reading labels, without digging into the details.

No, sorry, themightysven, connie47.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

There was plenty of state intervention and control. Hardly right-wing, free-market philosophies. To say Fascism is the opposite of Socialism is like saying Red is the opposite of Yellow. It's a false dichotomy. There's also Capitalism, Communism, and Anarchy.

The U.S. started with Capitalism and Anarchy and now, with the never ending growth of government, we're somewhere between Fascism and Socialism.

Want proof? Bush/Obama: corporate favors, new entitlements. Same old story.

In 1930's America the folks who supported the Nazi cause here were from the right and the people who supported the Communists here came from the left...It was the leftist Abraham Lincoln brigade, who went to Spain to fight against the Nazi supported right wing Spanish government during the Spanish civil war, it's historical fact, you can look it up... Read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell, a great book for an entertaining historical breakdown of the contemporary political movements...The theoretical superiority of the white Aryan race was the foundation of the Nazi idea and the people who support that concept today are still from the right just as it was in 1930's America....But you don't have to be a Nazi if you like Rush Limbaugh.

abigdeal,

So-called leftists were persecuted under Hitler. His strong military nationalism is, when taken to the lengths that he did, an extreme right-wing ideology.

The extremes on either side should be marginalized and are equally dangerous. The extreme left has to claim Stalin, the extreme right Hitler.

Connie47,

1) Hitler was very socialist, which is communism but with private property. Not Right.
2) Hitler was only directly responsible for 10-20 million people, mostly during war. If you add up all of the deaths of communist regimes, it's well over 100 million, and most of that was police action or devastating economic policies that caused starvation. A perfect example is North Korea. There's no equivalent on "the Right" today.
3) There are other possibilities than a hybrid Fascist/Socialist Nazi regime and a Communist Soviet regime. So to look at it one dimensionally with those at the opposite ends of the scale is to be very closed minded.

It's more helpful to visualize the differences between radical right and radical left to picture these worldviews as NOT existing on an A-to-B line (like a number line) but instead, to picture the worldviews as a circle, with far left and far right almost directly next to each-other. Both viewpoints are totallitarian/have some sort of dictator at the helm, both viewpoints vilify that-which-is-different from the "pary line", both are obsessed with nationalism and patriotism (be it "Mother Russia etc." or "Father Germany" etc.)

abigdeal,

You're way too myopic and defensive about the extreme right. If we all agree that only people left of center are evil, will you be happy? Sorry, but we can't do that. Calling people closed minded is the pot calling the kettle black.

Hilter wasn't far right, he was far left.

connie47,

When DHS and this "reporter" claim my views (smaller government, individual rights) are extremist just because some nutjob who doesn't even share any of my views shoots up a Holocaust museum, you're damn right I'm going to defend my views against the truly evil ones, especially when big governments of all kinds have killed far, far more people than these extremist groups.

The DHS could have lumped in all forms of extremism as its target, and then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It was divisive.

KateTheGreat- you're right, but a circle is a little confusing since the far Right becomes the far Left. I think the Political Compass is a better way to visualize the political "spectrum" since it uses two dimensions: Economics and Freedom (fiscal and social). If your believe your way is the right way for everyone, then you're authoritarian. If you believe everyone's way is the right way, then you're libertarian. But you need some level of government control to keep the peace. Hopefully as a peace keeper of last resort. There's no reason why private citizens can't be peace keepers.

www.politicalcompass.org

Nice try, entirely unconvicing though. read and comprehend the responses to your own uninformed post.

Hilter accomlished what he did by merging church and state just like the far-right fascism movement in America led by Antonin Scalia perpetuated since the 1930s worldwide.
Right-wing all the way

abigdeal,

Nobody has claimed that your ideas (smaller government and individual rights) are extremist. The fact that you think they did is, to me, bizarre. It also means no exchange of ideas is possible, so bye and have a nice day.

connie,

Wake up. Here are the exact words from the DHS memo:

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."


"rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority"

Most everyday conservatives are in that group.

It's divisive. Have a nice day.

Pussies that can't do anything? How about The Marshall Plan, the GI Bill, the Student Loan Program, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid for indigents, Unemployment Compensation? All of these were "done" by "lib'ruls" with strenuous opposition from Rethugs.

Even welfare reform was under Clinton. Reagan or Bush 41 never put forth a program for that. Republicans have been engaged in name-calling and cheap sloganeering for 60 years without doing a goddamn thing.

Even the God With Feet of Clay, Ronald Reagan, never submitted a balanced budget, but Clinton did. He was the first prez since Ike to begin to pay down the national debt.

They are both...I guess the term is "smarter" then that, though I don't consider either particularly intelligent. They do not say such things explicitly, you can't get away with that any more. Instead they use the old Nixon "Southern Strategy" where you say everything except what you are getting at. They use cues that these types pick up on instead of saying directly racist or extremist things.

O'Riley would never say "assassinate Tiller" but he will say its justifiable, he will call Tiller a murderer who in effect deserves the death penalty ect.

Glenn Beck will never say shoot 3 cops in front of your house, but he will play into the paranoia of someone who would. He will tell them the authorities are coming to take your guns and put you in a FEMA prison camp.

Are they responsible for the actions of those who take their rhetoric seriously? Maybe, maybe not. Either way it is irresponsible to feed into such paranoia. The equating of Obama with a nazi on Malkin's site is just one of many examples.

Like the old adage from the supreme court about the limits of protected speech goes, "you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre".

You must not be listening very closely. The bile those guys spew is unbelievable. You cant simply disagree with them.. even if you're in their party. Its all "Hes a traitor, Hes a murderer, Hes a fascist..." The language is so inflammatory its no wonder it drives people with a questionable hold on sanity to do these kinds of things. The people who call into those shows are scary.. I mean, what exactly is a "Dittohead..?" It doesnt sound like something particularly favorable to me, but its what Rush's listeners identify themselves as.. It may be these crazy people pulling the trigger.. but its people like Rush who are loading the gun, .

On a side note: He used a handgun during this shooting, a weapon that was ILLEGAL to own in DC before the conservative appointed justices overturned the law.. because clearly MORE guns make us MORE safe..... I wonder how many more people are going to die in DC before they realize their mistake.

austinite,

get your facts straight, he used 22-caliber rifle. so you cannot blame that on conservatives, unless of course you think that even a 22 should be outlawed. (by the way that is what the nazis in Germany did, made it illegal to own any gun)

And why is an idiotic white supremicist psycho somehow a conservative? Robert Byrd was a KKK Exhulted Cylops.

And as others have stated, where was the outrage when the converted Muslim killed the US servicemen outside the recruiting office. And I man the outrage agains the hard-core left wing for inciting him to kill our servicemen.

We should all be outraged that nutjobs kill because they are nutjobs and they kill!!!

I have never heard Olbermann call someone a "killer." Or better yet, a "baby killer." In fact, he's usually demeaning the wingnuts for their hypocrisy and meanspritedness. Since you know so little about history, it's useless to explain that Beck and his ilk are insane. The recent Washington Times columnist who called President Obama a "Muslim" is also in this category.

This is not free speech. It is criminal speech. Wingnuts like to compare all of this to the opprobrium aimed at Shrub as "hate speech." Bush was not hated, merely despised. Hate is too strong a word to describe a failure who never ceased to disappoint.

As for the .22 rifle used by the terrorist. If you've ever read the warning on an ammunition box, you'll know it is lethal up to a mile. I have done a great deal of target shooting, so I know what I'm saying.

In light of this rash of right wing terror attacks, the considerable cost of maintaining security for President Obama is a pittance. I remember the assassinations of the sixties. We never want to see them repeated. Until the wingnut commentators get this in their heads, they are culpable for ANY act of terrorism in this country.

As for the deranged Muslim terrorist in Little Rock, he is the product of eight years of cowardly policies of the Cheney presidency.

Hey Zero: If you watch & listen to O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity, and you can't see how they're using cheap sloganeering and demagoguery, then go take a Critical Thinking 101 course, or at the very least read the above answers to your post. Especially politico83's.

Hey Zero, you then must have missed the Oklahoma City Bombing by Timothy McVeigh, which Rush and the Right wing media encited by their anti- goverment rhetoric.

Theopitt
The DC gun ban required that all RIFLES be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked. And the Supreme Court overturned the law to the extent that handguns became legal. Yes, it was the Supreme Court that diminished the gun law of the District of Columbia over the votes of its citizens. There is always outrage when something likes this shooting happens; but none when a majority democratic vote is canceled. I believe your argument that Byrd was KKK has been answered elsewhere.

So does that sound like a Nazi gun ban to you??? If there ever were such a thing.

But... we did hold a lot of them accountable. Many many many black panther members went to jail, just for being affiliated with the group, not even for any proven actions. In fact, a lot of innocent people who weren't affiliated with those groups ended up getting bagged and tagged at other peaceful demonstrations just because those groups had a presence. In one fateful and sad instance innocent protesters at a college were shot and killed.

First Amendment-----remember?

Sorry USEBURNERS, missed the part about when Jane Fonda shot someone...do tell it again..

No actually, the one attack against those recruiters was the one attack in a good long while. I guarantee that any time there are these attacks they'll be highly publicized and politicized. The attack against the recruiters was from a different group and so covered by different reports.

The difference here is that typically these reports go unreported because they aren't politicized. This report about right wing extremist groups was politicized by the right claiming it was an attack on them, despite there being a similar report on the left months earlier. If not for the right bringing it up you'd have never heard about this report.

what?

religion = right-wing?

is that sarcasm or ignorance? do tell.

OK, why is anti-abortion right wing?

That's why this article and the DHS report are meaningless crap. Just because Hitler thought of himself as right-wing in contrast to Stalin, does not make anti-semitism or hate in general a right-wing position.

And Stalin just because he was on the Left, doesn't make him liberal. Extremism is extremism! It's not liberal OR conservative! It's crazy.

Perhaps these nuts claimed they were with the Right, but the Right does not claim to be with them.

And I cannot believe how above (several messages above) the claim is made, yet again, that the Muslim convert who killed the Servicemen was the fault of Bush. I am sorry, but I cannot see the intellectual honesty in saying it was the fault of 8 years of Bush policy that caused this man to kill innocent men, then why not naturally say the policies of the current administration caused Von Brunn to kill.

But of course no one on this site will. No matter what bad happens for the next decade, many will blame Bush or conservatives.

theoPitt:
let me explain it to you. 8 years of bush policy antagonized the entire muslim world and put us in an very unpopular (on both sides) war and furthered tension between the US and the middle east. the muslim convert (another terrible, and unfortunately overlooked story) explicitly told police that he intended to "kill as many people in the Army as he could...because of what they had done to Muslims in the past". as stupid of a justification this is, it's clear that it was a direct response to the war.

in what way did the policies of the current administration cause von brunn to open fire on a holocaust museum? von brunn was a white supremacist and conspiracy theorist who believes that blacks and jews were uprooting and poisoning america. so obama caused this attack not by his policies but because... he's black? really? that's your argument? obama is actually at fault for this ignorance-fueled attack because of his race?

that's pretty stupid.

I agree that returning veterans often to struggle and feel alienated and disillusioned when returning home from the otherworldly experience they have had. And event still, there has been ALMOST NO incidents of them committing terror, and there has been NO successful recruitment by other terror groups that we know of whatsoever. So casting aspersions on returning soldiers in the absence of ANY evidence is defamatory and disgusting - by our own government officials.

Gandolf-

You miss the point, the aspersions were not cast on the soldiers. Read the memo not the talking points. It's not about the likelihood of soldiers being recruited it's about the intent of these groups. These groups have a real intent, they are taking real actions to recruit returning soldiers. We need to protect them and provide them support that shows them that they are appreciated. That's the real intent of the memo.