Conservatives oppose change.

This means that conservatives have been, among other things, monarchists and the Tories in the American revolution. Conservatives have opposed suffrage for women, child labor laws, and emancipation of slaves. This according to your definition.

You expect me to argue this...don't you? Well I will not. Many conservatives probably have been opposed to suffrage, labor laws and emancipation - but not all conservatives. Conservatism cuts across a wide swath of the populace - including rich and poor, north and south. For each conservative that opposed suffrage, a considerable number more found slavery an abomination - because they were from the north and likely came from homes with no slaves.

You have gathered a group of characteristics that you like and have defined them as conservative. You have done, from the other pole, exactly what you accuse the researchers of doing.

I put in a modifier. I clearly stated:

"Traditional views and values means different things to different people but basically..."

The authors, and subsequently Robert, have used the most contorted logic to paint Chairman Mao and Stalin as conservatives. Anyone who was conservative prior to their rise to power was likely horrified by their actions and brutality - regardless of their social rank or financial status. They were reformers and revolutionaries - the antithesis of conservatives.

And so help me, if you hang Nazis over on the Left one more time by virtue of parsing the party name instead of examining their behavior, I will insist that there is only one party in this country that understands democracy, based on parsing the names of the major parties. It will make as much sense.

Nice try. Names mean something. The Nazis were National Socialists. That their version of socialism was nationalistic instead of Marxist was the difference. In 1923, when Gustav Ritter von Karl (Bavarian State Commmisioner) was making a speech at the Munich Bürgerbräukellar Hitler and several hundred of his goons surrounded the beer hall, Hitler jumped up on the beer hall table, fired a revolver into the ceiling and shouted, "The National Revolution has begun!" after leading the three Bavarian officials out of the hall at gunpoint he shouted to the assembled, "The Bavarian Ministry is removed!" After the ministry were released mistakenly by the morphine laced Göring, they fled to set up police to quell the disturbances but Hitler brought 3000 back with him including his mouthpieces Göring and WWI General Ludendorff - and a shootout occurred when Hitler shouted to the police brandishing his revolver, "Surrender!" The Nazis were crushed and Hitler was sentenced to 5 years in jail - where he wrote Mein Kampf.

In Mein Kampf Hitler wites of "spiritual terror which Nazism must exert...particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such attacks." Yes, Lenin could have said it and who could tell the difference?

Is this conservatism I ask you? Can you honestly tell me you believe Hitler was a conservative?!? Sure, Hitler claimed a belief in God - but whose God no one knows. The Führer was the new symbolic Jesus - much as Lenin, Mao and Stalin were the new icons whose likeness was repeated everywhere and everyone was told to idolize.

This next quote from Hitler's Mein Kampf - I have always felt was taken up by the liberal attack machine:

"Nazism must unleash a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked person breaks down. This is a tactic based on precise calculations of human weaknesses and its result will lead to success with almost mathematical certainty."

Can we see the media adopt this tactic and write up a thousand and one articles weekly on Bush and Iraq which are negative? Heck, even Don is unknowingly imitating the tactic with endless barrages of criticism knowing it will wear down the public and win "converts".

The mentally fit can easily withstand such bombardment - but the casual intellects can be slowly twisted around like a pretzel and turn against those they once supported - especially if they feel the "masses" have also turned. Part of the medias goal with daily bombardment is to give the impression that more people hate Bush and dislike him than actually do. Much as there focus on every minor mishap is made to give the illusion that Iraq is worse off than it was prior to the US invasion.

All Nazi tactics. All quite deplorable and yet adopted by the liberal media to fulfill their imitation of Goebbels.

The puppet minds on the left, particularly the unworldly youths parrot and repeat the slanders - that Bush is an idiot, that Bush thinks he's King, Bush is a chimp or whatever piece of hate propaganda has captured their childlike humor or imagination. Rallying the masses is an art. The reporters and journalists consider themselves artists.

Mao, Stalin and Hitler all tore apart the social structures of the rich. They tried to appeal to the lowest instincts with class warfare. Which party today employs this archaic, yet effective, policy of class warfare?

Hmmm.

I'm waiting...

Uhhh humm.

Yes...

You'll have to speak up my dear...

Oh yes....DEMOCRATS.

Yes, Nazis have been linked to conservatives by the very folks who are using tactics from straight out of Mein Kampf!

Yet so few, sadly, are literate sufficiently in history or literature to catch them at their own private joke. Joe Q. Public is despised and laughed at by these liberal elitists behind their back - for their stupidity and ignorance - all while the journalists pose as "everyman".

You may have succumbed to the endless liberal indoctrination and word association bit as well - as has Robert. However, Nazis and communists (of the Russian or Chinese variety) were never and never will be conservatives.

That report is just another tactic, another bit, of the endless game of subversion, slander and
indoctrination the left bombards upon the public daily in their subconscious tribute to Adolf Hitler.

SDAI-Tech1