Glenn Beck is not fooling around anymore, he is attempting to incite violence

[Vast LWC]

Totalitarianism is a form of political governing, like Democracy.

Socialism is a form of economy, like capitalism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nationalist Socialism as a path to Totalitarian Utopia. See any familiar patterns here?

<Snip> (Edited: I'll just leave the link... If someone wants to see your original text they can go there or read it from your post.)

Hitler's Leftist Economic Policies

See, but here's the thing.

Hitler did indeed seize alot of businesses. I'm with you there.

But then, instead of incorporating them into the government, and distributing the profits equally to the people, which would be Socilalism,

...he joined them to other existing businesses, creating large cartels and monopolized corporations.
If a government takes a business and gives it to someone else, that is NOT socialism.

Socialism is when a government takes control of business and runs it themselves, re-distributing the wealth equally among the populace.

See the difference?

That's how socialists roll, Bubba.

And they don't redidtribute the wealth, they redistribute lack and misery.

What you wrote above, makes no sense, Dude. The Nazis did not own or manage the means of production. Big business did. That is corporatism, not socialism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nationalist Socialism as a path to Totalitarian Utopia. See any familiar patterns here?

<Snip> (Edited: I'll just leave the link... If someone wants to see your original text they can go there or read it from your post.)

Hitler's Leftist Economic Policies

See, but here's the thing.

Hitler did indeed seize alot of businesses. I'm with you there.

But then, instead of incorporating them into the government, and distributing the profits equally to the people, which would be Socilalism,

...he joined them to other existing businesses, creating large cartels and monopolized corporations.

If a government takes a business and gives it to someone else, that is NOT socialism.

Socialism is when a government takes control of business and runs it themselves, re-distributing the wealth equally among the populace.

See the difference?

No I don't. To Hitler Both the People and Businesses were the Property of the State. There was no recourse, separate from his will, without his consent . Nazi's were controlled through the State. Socialist's are controlled through the State. Through the Government. Totalitarian, different brands, thats all.

You really don't understand, do you? The Nazi party was an authoritarian right-wing terror organization that dominated the police and the military to enforce its will on the entire nation.

Now you show us the link of such a terror party with absolute police power to Obama and the Democratic Party. It probably would have been easier to do it with Bush and the GOP, but that is for another discussion.

 

[Vast LWC]

You really don't understand, do you? The Nazi party was an authoritarian right-wing terror organization that dominated the police and the military to enforce its will on the entire nation.

Now you show us the link of such a terror party with absolute police power to Obama and the Democratic Party. It probably would have been easier to do it with Bush and the GOP, but that is for another discussion.

YES. Exactly.

It would be much easier to link, say, the USSR with Obama, but not the Nazis.

 

[Oddball]

You really don't understand, do you? The Nazi party was an authoritarian right-wing terror organization that dominated the police and the military to enforce its will on the entire nation.

Really??

You mean just like the supposedly "far leftist" regimes of Stalin and Mao that dominated the police and the military to enforce their wills upon their respective entire nations?

Now you show us the link of such a terror party with absolute police power to Obama and the Democratic Party. It probably would have been easier to do it with Bush and the GOP, but that is for another discussion.

Easy....Obama and the Democrat Party, with the same police state apparatus that was abused by his predecessor, moving to expand on that collectivist authoritarian police state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You really don't understand, do you? The Nazi party was an authoritarian right-wing terror organization that dominated the police and the military to enforce its will on the entire nation.

Now you show us the link of such a terror party with absolute police power to Obama and the Democratic Party. It probably would have been easier to do it with Bush and the GOP, but that is for another discussion.

YES. Exactly.

It would be much easier to link, say, the USSR with Obama, but not the Nazis.

It would be easier to link Koder and others to a sanitorium than linking Obama to the Nazis.

I don't think they undestand that socialism is an economic system, not a political system.

They don't understand capitalistic dictatorships and socialistic democracies have abounded in the last 100 years. Capitalism automatically does not mean government by the people and socialism automatically does not mean government by the totalitarians.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You really don't understand, do you? The Nazi party was an authoritarian right-wing terror organization that dominated the police and the military to enforce its will on the entire nation.

Really??

You mean just like the supposedly "far leftist" regimes of Stalin and Mao that dominated the police and the military to enforce their wills upon their respective entire nations?

Now you show us the link of such a terror party with absolute police power to Obama and the Democratic Party. It probably would have been easier to do it with Bush and the GOP, but that is for another discussion.

Easy....Obama and the Democrat Party, with the same police state apparatus that was abused by his predecessor, moving to expand on that collectivist authoritarian police state.

Either you don't or you won't understand. The calculation still equates the same: you are wrong, Dude.

 

[Oddball]

You really don't understand, do you? The Nazi party was an authoritarian right-wing terror organization that dominated the police and the military to enforce its will on the entire nation.

Now you show us the link of such a terror party with absolute police power to Obama and the Democratic Party. It probably would have been easier to do it with Bush and the GOP, but that is for another discussion.

YES. Exactly.

It would be much easier to link, say, the USSR with Obama, but not the Nazis.

A collectivist authoritarian goon squad by any other name........

 

[Vast LWC]

Take Henry VIII for example.

He nationalized religion in England, but not for some "socialist" plan.

He did it because he wanted to steal all the Catholic Church's wealth and use it to secure his power base.

That's what Hitler was about, he wasn't a socialist, he was a greedy, control-freak, with a Napoleon complex, who wanted to rule the world, and kill all the "impure" people in it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You really don't understand, do you? The Nazi party was an authoritarian right-wing terror organization that dominated the police and the military to enforce its will on the entire nation.

Now you show us the link of such a terror party with absolute police power to Obama and the Democratic Party. It probably would have been easier to do it with Bush and the GOP, but that is for another discussion.

YES. Exactly.

It would be much easier to link, say, the USSR with Obama, but not the Nazis.

A collectivist authoritarian goon squad by any other name........

A distinction without a difference.

That's why NeoMarxists fits best, they culled the best parts from all of their favorite dictators.

 

[Oddball]

You really don't understand, do you? The Nazi party was an authoritarian right-wing terror organization that dominated the police and the military to enforce its will on the entire nation.

Really??

You mean just like the supposedly "far leftist" regimes of Stalin and Mao that dominated the police and the military to enforce their wills upon their respective entire nations?

Now you show us the link of such a terror party with absolute police power to Obama and the Democratic Party. It probably would have been easier to do it with Bush and the GOP, but that is for another discussion.

Easy....Obama and the Democrat Party, with the same police state apparatus that was abused by his predecessor, moving to expand on that collectivist authoritarian police state.

Either you don't or you won't understand. The calculation still equates the same: you are wrong, Dude.

I'm not misunderstanding anything.....And I'm not the one here picking flecks of pepper out of authoritarian piles of shit, in a lame attempt to draw a few paltry distinctions between Nazis and communists that don't add up to a hill of beans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You really don't understand, do you? The Nazi party was an authoritarian right-wing terror organization that dominated the police and the military to enforce its will on the entire nation.

Now you show us the link of such a terror party with absolute police power to Obama and the Democratic Party. It probably would have been easier to do it with Bush and the GOP, but that is for another discussion.

YES. Exactly.

It would be much easier to link, say, the USSR with Obama, but not the Nazis.

A collectivist authoritarian goon squad by any other name........

Not at all (sigh). You I can ignore from now on, Dude, because you are not only wrong you are also a yawn.

 

[Vast LWC]

You really don't understand, do you? The Nazi party was an authoritarian right-wing terror organization that dominated the police and the military to enforce its will on the entire nation.

Now you show us the link of such a terror party with absolute police power to Obama and the Democratic Party. It probably would have been easier to do it with Bush and the GOP, but that is for another discussion.

YES. Exactly.

It would be much easier to link, say, the USSR with Obama, but not the Nazis.

A collectivist authoritarian goon squad by any other name........

But, Hitler was not a collectivist, as he did not believe in the "collective" part.

 

[Oddball]

Take Henry VIII for example.

He nationalized religion in England, but not for some "socialist" plan.

He did it because he wanted to steal all the Catholic Church's wealth and use it to secure his power base.

That's what Hitler was about, he wasn't a socialist, he was a greedy, control-freak, with a Napoleon complex, who wanted to rule the world, and kill all the "impure" people in it.

Yeah...I guess that "National Socialist Worker's Party" thingy was all just a far-right wing semantic ruse.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Take Henry VIII for example.

He nationalized religion in England, but not for some "socialist" plan.

He did it because he wanted to steal all the Catholic Church's wealth and use it to secure his power base.

That's what Hitler was about, he wasn't a socialist, he was a greedy, control-freak, with a Napoleon complex, who wanted to rule the world, and kill all the "impure" people in it.

Why does that sounds so familiar? Oh, right!

"Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create 'classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,' but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible." -- Obama's Final Solution Health Care Adviser

 

[Oddball]

But, Hitler was not a collectivist, as he did not believe in the "collective" part.

Uh-huh.... That whole "Duetchland for Deutchlanders" thingy was really just another one of his semantic ruses, huh??

 

[JakeStarkey]

Take Henry VIII for example.

He nationalized religion in England, but not for some "socialist" plan.

He did it because he wanted to steal all the Catholic Church's wealth and use it to secure his power base.

That's what Hitler was about, he wasn't a socialist, he was a greedy, control-freak, with a Napoleon complex, who wanted to rule the world, and kill all the "impure" people in it.

Henry VIII realized that with Anne out of the way, he could go after Jane as well. He needed that Catholic loot to hand out to Suffolk and his other supporters. Henry was a terror on gouty legs. Oh, my mistake -- that's Dick Cheney!

 

[Intense]

<Snip> (Edited: I'll just leave the link... If someone wants to see your original text they can go there or read it from your post.)



See, but here's the thing.

Hitler did indeed seize alot of businesses. I'm with you there.

But then, instead of incorporating them into the government, and distributing the profits equally to the people, which would be Socilalism,

...he joined them to other existing businesses, creating large cartels and monopolized corporations.
If a government takes a business and gives it to someone else, that is NOT socialism.

Socialism is when a government takes control of business and runs it themselves, re-distributing the wealth equally among the populace.

See the difference?

That's how socialists roll, Bubba.

And they don't redidtribute the wealth, they redistribute lack and misery.

What you wrote above, makes no sense, Dude. The Nazis did not own or manage the means of production. Big business did. That is corporatism, not socialism.

The Nazi's Owned Big Business,the means of production , and the people. Thats Totaliatarian. Socialism is a path to Totalitarianism.

 

[Oddball]

Not at all (sigh). You I can ignore from now on, Dude, because you are not only wrong you are also a yawn.

Ah yes....Yet another dreary self-declarer of victories.

Talk about a yawn.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm not misunderstanding anything.....And I'm not the one here picking flecks of pepper out of authoritarian piles of shit, in a lame attempt to draw a few paltry distinctions between Nazis and communists that don't add up to a hill of beans.

Ahh, but you're missing the point.

The Obama administration only reflects the USSR or the Chinese from a collectivist standpoint, and not in anywhere close to the extreme measures in either of those two nations.

From a political standpoint, rather than an economic one, he is NOT a totalitarian.

He is not, for instance, trying to consolidate power over the populace to a single individual or a small group, which is the very definition of a totalitarian movement.

Thus, as I said, he, and all liberals really, are simply trying to move closer to forms of governments like in modern France or Sweden.

Socialist Democracies.

But again, he's not trying to move the country all the way to the level of France, just a bit closer.