Back on topic, here's an interesting article about a facet of liberalism that ties in, I think.

Taltamir: I was referring to Hitler's contemporaries in Germany between the years 1933-1945.During that timeframe, if you were a party member and kept your mouth otherwise shut and said the right things in front of the right people, there were alot of benefits like a secure job, enough to eat (remeber that was the time after the great depression and huge reparationpayments following WW1) and a high living standard. If you were a good obedient little average citizen Joe - or in this instance Fritz/Hans or Kurt - you were able to lead a good life even.

I think that article is derogatory from its first sentence - fits right in with the usual language used in US politics.

I don't really see how this style is any different of that of what the writer accuses the liberals off. They're all the same, and unless people are actually willing to stop throwing insults at each other the trenchlines won't move in either way. Jesus..

That wasn't the issue here, though. Even if they resented it, it wasn't evil for them, in fact many enjoyed that time before WW2 as it brought stabilty and prosperity for the majority of people. It is a weird fact that they did not percieve the nazi ideology as evil nor that many thought that what the Nazi's were doing was not wrong.

It's difficult to wrap my head around that on a good day, but Hitler was great at advertising and propaganda and he managed to sell his twisted crap. He basically started in kindergarden to indoctrinate children. Is a child evil if he believes the twisted ideology he was brought up with and goes to the Gestapo to tell on his best friends parents because they criticized the regime, resulting in said parents to disappear for good in a KZ?

I don't believe the answer is that easy as you make it out to be. Evil or not evil depends more often than not on the perspective.

That isn't indoctrination. It is a very weird hymn but I don't actually saw any indoctrinating content or harmful ideology in that song. The style is a bit reminiscent of communist propaganda songs.. I can't deny that and I probably would not have chosen the personification on Obama like that myself had I been the teacher, but the central themes are all very american and not especially liberal: Equality, Standing strong together and being proud to be an American. The focussing on his accomplishments is strange and out of place but it is a far cry from the methods used by the Nazis for their Propaganda. They had their own ministry just for that.

I'm sure many said the same of the children singing the praise of Hitler in the 30's. It was probably, I'm sure, cute at the time. I'm not suggesting Obama is emulating Hitler, but the parallels are interesting. Different ideology same method.

Remember when I said someone can believe an evil ideology because they are stupid or ignorant, but not evil themselves? Does brainwashed count as a type of ignorant or should I amend my statement?

Not about a sitting president in the US. This is brand new here (and unprecedented).

Unless President Obama ordered the schoolchildren to write a song of that ilk about him it is harmless. Euphoria makes people do funny things like writing songs about issues they feel very strongly about. And evidently they went overboard with it as shown in writing a nursery ryme like song about the sitting president. I agree with you that it sounds very well strange to hear kids sing it..  like children in North Korea or China singing the praise of Mao, but it is not an official sanctioned and ordered Obama propaganda forced upon schools and kindergardens by the government. And that is the big difference, the motivation and organization behind it.

True. It still doesn't make it a threat.

It sounds like im contradicting myself, when I am really just trying to say that it's not propaganda, that the song itself was harmless and probably not borne out of some government sanctioned program to indoctrinate the youngest generation  but that the instrumentalization of children in that way for a political statement by their parents/teachers is unethical nontheless. But not evil.

Here's a link and an excerpt:

"In recent decades the NEA has greatly increased its visibility in party politics, endorsing almost exclusively Democratic Party candidates and contributing funds and other assistance to political campaigns. The NEA asserts itself "non-partisan", but critics point out that the NEA has endorsed and provided support for every Democratic Party presidential nominee from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama and has never endorsed any Republican or third party candidate for the presidency"

Does anyone want a single-minded, partisan, political activist entity teaching their children (besides Democrats)? Does that sound a little closer to NSDAP tactics for you?

DerKrieger had his precedents:

Of course, he'd be called a racist for having such opinions were he alive today.

Service jobs can and have compensated for loss of other jobs.  just as factories compensated for the loss of agriculture jobs during the industrial revolution, so service has now done the same.  The statist attitude that "we must keep everything the same because that is the way my daddy did it" is a wish by man, but hardly a worthy goal.

As long as a society is prospering, jobs and job seekers will find a happy meeting point.  Now you may not be making enough to buy a mercedes, but you sure can buy a VW on it.  And as you gain in experience, you will rise in compensation (that is why oldpeople make so much - not because they are greedy).

So what we are looking at is a temporary disequilibrium between jobs and workers.  Usually in a time of recession (like now).  In those times, people have a safety net - Unemployment Compensation.  In its purest form, the UC is funded by a tax on business and so the only role government plays is in holding the money and distributing it (and taking its agent fee).  So that is not really a government handout - you earned that as you worked (the tax is based on 2 main factors - the rate of layoffs in your industry and the total payroll of the company).

insisting that we must keep all jobs would mean we would have to retain all manufacturers of Buggy whips, even though there is minimal demand these days.  It is something the communists tried (before failing).  It never works.

But what about population growth you say?  Those extra people do require extra services, so the number of jobs has to increase.  More barbers, more hair stylists, chefs, waiters, waitresses, etc.  Andbefore slamming all those jobs as "mminimum wage dead end jobs" remember what they really are.  They are entry level jobs that are meant to provide work experience to young people so they eventually can get better jobs with more responsibility and experience.  Without them, there would be no way to train those people and so the labor pool would eventually retire and die.

capitalism is not perfect.  but it is better than anything else tried so far.  And it works as long as government allows it to.

The claim that all new jobs are no (or low) experience has been around for many years - and so far have not materialized.  Why? For the most part you are correct - people cant afford to make a careere out of them.  So they create jobs that did not exist before and make a bundle at them!  Cell Phones?  No where 30years ago (and technically "servicing" cell phones is a service job, albeit a highly technical one).

But it does require a growing economy.  Stagnant or declining economies do not have the money to spend on things they can do themselves (think about it, how many gardeners do you need if you are out of work?).

And I will try to go easy on the econ.  It was my major and I do love it.  But I am not so egotistical to think everyone does.