Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[francoHFW]

You'd make a great member of a lynch mob, angry old white dupe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You'd make a great Nazi. lol

ProggDuppe thinks McCarthy was in the House of Representatives running the HUAC a decade before he became Senator

Link to my mistake, liar?

I was talking about McCarthy, you posted some off-topic nonsense about Hollywood writers

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You notice how the Progs defend the Communists even more voraciously than do member of the old Politboro.

Have to give their master credit for training them so well

No evidence, ignorant chump of the greedy idiot rich.

Embrace your Inner Mao

 

[Agit8r]

Of course fascism and democracy are opposites:

 

[Wry Catcher]

Communist spies like Lauchlin Currie directed FDR to strangle Japan economically, thereby setting us on a collision course, when Japan's natural enemy was the USSR.

There's not much of a difference had Stalin himself been directly in control of the US War effort. FDR, on adivse of the Communist spies in his Administration, becameStalin's sock puppet

You're full of partisan shit. If you really believe the crap you post, you should offer evidence you're not a lying sack of shit. And by evidence I mean primary source documents from the time, not bull shit produced for profit by Beck, Coulter and your other mentors on the AM dial.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Communist spies like Lauchlin Currie directed FDR to strangle Japan economically, thereby setting us on a collision course, when Japan's natural enemy was the USSR.

There's not much of a difference had Stalin himself been directly in control of the US War effort. FDR, on adivse of the Communist spies in his Administration, becameStalin's sock puppet

You're full of partisan shit. If you really believe the crap you post, you should offer evidence you're not a lying sack of shit. And by evidence I mean primary source documents from the time, not bull shit produced for profit by Beck, Coulter and your other mentors on the AM dial.

Blacklisted by History The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy -- M Stanton Evans US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why does it even bother you that FDR did Stalin's bidding?

 

[Steinlight]

An overview of Antonescu:

Ion Victor Antonescu (Romanian pronunciation: [iˈon antoˈnesku] ( listen); June 15, 1882 – June 1, 1946) was a Romanian soldier and authoritarian politician who was convicted of war crimes. The Prime Minister and Conducător during most of World War II, he presided over two successive wartime dictatorships. A Romanian Army career officer who made his name during the 1907 peasants' revolt and the World War I Romanian Campaign, the antisemitic Antonescu sympathized with the far right and fascist National Christian and Iron Guard groups for much of the interwar period. He was a military attaché to France and later Chief of the General Staff, briefly serving as Defense Minister in the National Christian cabinet of Octavian Goga. During the late 1930s, his political stance brought him into conflict with King Carol II and led to his detainment. Antonescu nevertheless rose to political prominence during the political crisis of 1940, and established the National Legionary State, an uneasy partnership with the Iron Guard's leader Horia Sima. After entering Romania into an alliance with Nazi Germany and the Axis and ensuring Adolf Hitler's confidence, he eliminated the Guard during the Legionary Rebellion of 1941. In addition to leadership of the executive, he assumed the offices of Foreign Affairs and Defense Minister. Soon after Romania joined the Axis in Operation Barbarossa, recovering Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Antonescu also became Marshal of Romania.

An atypical figure among Holocaust perpetrators, Antonescu enforced policies independently responsible for the deaths of as many as 400,000 people, most of them Bessarabian, Ukrainian and Romanian Jews, as well as Romanian Romani. The regime's complicity in the Holocaust combined pogroms and mass murders such as the Odessa massacre with ethnic cleansing, systematic deportations to occupied Transnistria and widespread criminal negligence. The system in place was nevertheless characterized by singular inconsistencies, prioritizing plunder over killing, showing leniency toward most Jews in the Old Kingdom, and ultimately refusing to adopt the Final Solution as applied throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.

Ion Antonescu - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Just because you allied with Hitler doesn't make you a national socialist. For example, Finland, a democracy under attack from the USSR, aligned with the Axis powers.

True, but what is an undisputed fact is that ALL of the regimes I listed were either Fascist or Para-Fascist.

There were also Fascist allies that arguably were not Fascist, but I have not referenced those on this thread.

The key point being that we can build up an accurate impression of the true nature of Fascism not only by studying Hitler, but by studying other Fascist regimes.

After all - do you think anyone is going to seriously suggest that Franco or even Pinochet were NOT right wing?

See, but you are conceding my point by shifting to calling Franco and Antonescu "para-fascist" instead of fascist. Because the fact is, they weren't fascists, they didn't consider themselves such. Franco specifically distanced himself from Fascism and Antonescu went as far as to arrest members of the Fascist Iron Guard. Parafascist is a vague and meaningless term. It is subjective and means different things to different people. For example, the Social Democrats in Sweden call Sweden Democrats(a national conservative party) "neo-fascist", just on the basis of opposing mass immigration. So your claim isn't verifiable or debatable once you cross into calling people "parafascist".

Just because Franco and Pinochet were right wing, doesn't mean they were fascist. Also, just because one is a fascist, doesn't mean they are necessarily national socialist.

And you seem to have entirely conceded on the point I made about national socialism or for that matter fascism not emerging in stable conservative societies.

 

[Steinlight]

Many ameican conservatives, and now even libertarians, dont believe in democracy

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

Rural Americans like Democracy less than urban Americans.

If they did like Democracy, they'd be against the idea of the Electoral College, and the Senate.

Rural Americans prefer a Consititutional Republic, to a Democracy.

Or at least that's what they say any time one of their presidential candidates loses the popular vote in an election, but wins the election

Is supporting a constitutional republic over a democracy a bad thing? Do you disagree?

Well....a "constitutional republic" has come to simply be a justification for adjusting the popular vote based on geographical proximity. If your particular geographic location doesn't put your single vote in an inferior state...why have that adjustment?

But a Consitutional Republic is a form of government, where the decisions of elected representatives are subject to judicial review, based on the constitution. I'm not seeing much about an electoral college and a senate within the definition

What do you mean, "not seeing much"? You will have to be clearer. The United States was the first Constitutional Republic, and has always had an electoral college and senate.

 

[Steinlight]

Many ameican conservatives, and now even libertarians, dont believe in democracy

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

Rural Americans like Democracy less than urban Americans.

If they did like Democracy, they'd be against the idea of the Electoral College, and the Senate.

Rural Americans prefer a Consititutional Republic, to a Democracy.

Or at least that's what they say any time one of their presidential candidates loses the popular vote in an election, but wins the election

Is supporting a constitutional republic over a democracy a bad thing? Do you disagree?

If it is a prelude to suppressing the vote, you're damn right it is. As I posted above, we are a nation of laws, laws written by representatives of the people and thus a democratic republic as long as voting is unfettered - an unlikely proposition given the make up of the one undemocratic institution with nearly absolute power, the Supreme Court.

Our Constitution is based on "suppressing the vote", with its built in checks and balances and requiring such a high threshold to not only pass laws but amend the Constitution. And that is a rather good thing. The Founders recognized that freedom and voting are two separate things. They recognized having a society based on the rule of the 51% can give way to large tyrannical government that undermines our natural rights. Voting is not a right, is a privilege that carries great responsibility, that should be used to safeguard our natural rights and provide stability and continuity to the society. Voting isn't good in of itself and shouldn't be the be all and end all of a government. Thank God we have a Supreme Court, that ideally should keep the excesses of our system in check.

 

[Steinlight]

You notice how the Progs defend the Communists even more voraciously than do member of the old Politboro.

Have to give their master credit for training them so well

No evidence, ignorant chump of the greedy idiot rich.

Well if the "idiot rich" are "robbing you", than how low does that make you?

 

[kaz]

The Supreme Court (do you know the Supreme Court is the only court in are nation not to have a Code of Ethics?).

It's certainly notthe only one without ethics though.

Really, that's not my understanding - please enlighten me.

If I could enlighten a liberal then you would have to buy my book to find out how I do it. I'm more likely to learn to levitate elephants. The problem is you don't want to be enlightened, you want free stuff and to be unburdened of your personal responsibility.

 

[toxicmedia]

Many ameican conservatives, and now even libertarians, dont believe in democracy

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

Rural Americans like Democracy less than urban Americans.

If they did like Democracy, they'd be against the idea of the Electoral College, and the Senate.

Rural Americans prefer a Consititutional Republic, to a Democracy.

Or at least that's what they say any time one of their presidential candidates loses the popular vote in an election, but wins the election

Is supporting a constitutional republic over a democracy a bad thing? Do you disagree?

Well....a "constitutional republic" has come to simply be a justification for adjusting the popular vote based on geographical proximity. If your particular geographic location doesn't put your single vote in an inferior state...why have that adjustment?

But a Consitutional Republic is a form of government, where the decisions of elected representatives are subject to judicial review, based on the constitution. I'm not seeing much about an electoral college and a senate within the definition

What do you mean, "not seeing much"? You will have to be clearer. The United States was the first Constitutional Republic, and has always had an electoral college and senate.

Many ameican conservatives, and now even libertarians, dont believe in democracy

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

Rural Americans like Democracy less than urban Americans.

If they did like Democracy, they'd be against the idea of the Electoral College, and the Senate.

Rural Americans prefer a Consititutional Republic, to a Democracy.

Or at least that's what they say any time one of their presidential candidates loses the popular vote in an election, but wins the election

Is supporting a constitutional republic over a democracy a bad thing? Do you disagree?

If it is a prelude to suppressing the vote, you're damn right it is. As I posted above, we are a nation of laws, laws written by representatives of the people and thus a democratic republic as long as voting is unfettered - an unlikely proposition given the make up of the one undemocratic institution with nearly absolute power, the Supreme Court.

Our Constitution is based on "suppressing the vote", with its built in checks and balances and requiring such a high threshold to not only pass laws but amend the Constitution. And that is a rather good thing. The Founders recognized that freedom and voting are two separate things. They recognized having a society based on the rule of the 51% can give way to large tyrannical government that undermines our natural rights. Voting is not a right, is a privilege that carries great responsibility, that should be used to safeguard our natural rights and provide stability and continuity to the society. Voting isn't good in of itself and shouldn't be the be all and end all of a government. Thank God we have a Supreme Court, that ideally should keep the excesses of our system in check.

Thus the term "leadership"

But picking our leaders should be something that 100% of the population can do.

 

[toxicmedia]

Many ameican conservatives, and now even libertarians, dont believe in democracy

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

Rural Americans like Democracy less than urban Americans.

If they did like Democracy, they'd be against the idea of the Electoral College, and the Senate.

Rural Americans prefer a Consititutional Republic, to a Democracy.

Or at least that's what they say any time one of their presidential candidates loses the popular vote in an election, but wins the election

Is supporting a constitutional republic over a democracy a bad thing? Do you disagree?

Well....a "constitutional republic" has come to simply be a justification for adjusting the popular vote based on geographical proximity. If your particular geographic location doesn't put your single vote in an inferior state...why have that adjustment?

But a Consitutional Republic is a form of government, where the decisions of elected representatives are subject to judicial review, based on the constitution. I'm not seeing much about an electoral college and a senate within the definition

What do you mean, "not seeing much"? You will have to be clearer. The United States was the first Constitutional Republic, and has always had an electoral college and senate.

Not seeing much aout the electoral college and for that matter the senate...within the definition of Constitutional Republic.

 

[bripat9643]

Many ameican conservatives, and now even libertarians, dont believe in democracy

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

ever heard conservatives bleat out the saying "we're a republic not a democracy" now sometimes tacked on with "democracy = mob rule".....there is my evidence

Gasoline is great stuff for making your car go, but it sucks for drinking. Democracy is great when government has to make a decision, the problem is that all government decisions are imposed on us by force. government sucks, so we should keep it's control over our lives to the absolute minimum possible.

Liberals, on the other hand, think government should run everything. That's how we know they are all insane.

 

[toxicmedia]

Many ameican conservatives, and now even libertarians, dont believe in democracy

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

ever heard conservatives bleat out the saying "we're a republic not a democracy" now sometimes tacked on with "democracy = mob rule".....there is my evidence

Gasoline is great stuff for making your car go, but it sucks for drinking. Democracy is great when government has to make a decision, the problem is that all government decisions are imposed on us by force. government sucks, so we should keep it's control over our lives to the absolute minimum possible.

Liberals, on the other hand, think government should run everything. That's how we know they are all insane.

Liberals don't think government should run everything...who told you that?.....Rush, O'Reilly?...

 

[Iceweasel]

Not seeing much aout the electoral college and for that matter the senate...within the definition of Constitutional Republic.

The Electoral College - Origin and History
by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

• was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
• contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
• believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
• felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").

How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?

Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

 

[Steinlight]

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

Rural Americans like Democracy less than urban Americans.

If they did like Democracy, they'd be against the idea of the Electoral College, and the Senate.

Rural Americans prefer a Consititutional Republic, to a Democracy.

Or at least that's what they say any time one of their presidential candidates loses the popular vote in an election, but wins the election

Is supporting a constitutional republic over a democracy a bad thing? Do you disagree?

Well....a "constitutional republic" has come to simply be a justification for adjusting the popular vote based on geographical proximity. If your particular geographic location doesn't put your single vote in an inferior state...why have that adjustment?

But a Consitutional Republic is a form of government, where the decisions of elected representatives are subject to judicial review, based on the constitution. I'm not seeing much about an electoral college and a senate within the definition

What do you mean, "not seeing much"? You will have to be clearer. The United States was the first Constitutional Republic, and has always had an electoral college and senate.

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

Rural Americans like Democracy less than urban Americans.

If they did like Democracy, they'd be against the idea of the Electoral College, and the Senate.

Rural Americans prefer a Consititutional Republic, to a Democracy.

Or at least that's what they say any time one of their presidential candidates loses the popular vote in an election, but wins the election

Is supporting a constitutional republic over a democracy a bad thing? Do you disagree?

If it is a prelude to suppressing the vote, you're damn right it is. As I posted above, we are a nation of laws, laws written by representatives of the people and thus a democratic republic as long as voting is unfettered - an unlikely proposition given the make up of the one undemocratic institution with nearly absolute power, the Supreme Court.

Our Constitution is based on "suppressing the vote", with its built in checks and balances and requiring such a high threshold to not only pass laws but amend the Constitution. And that is a rather good thing. The Founders recognized that freedom and voting are two separate things. They recognized having a society based on the rule of the 51% can give way to large tyrannical government that undermines our natural rights. Voting is not a right, is a privilege that carries great responsibility, that should be used to safeguard our natural rights and provide stability and continuity to the society. Voting isn't good in of itself and shouldn't be the be all and end all of a government. Thank God we have a Supreme Court, that ideally should keep the excesses of our system in check.

Thus the term "leadership"

But picking our leaders should be something that 100% of the population can do.

Well, the Framers would disagree, they granted no "right to vote" in the Constitution, they like me viewed it as a privilege and a responsibility, not as a right. But that gets into a whole conversation on positive and negative rights. The Bill of Rights is a list of negative rights(right to practice religion free from government persecution, freedom from unwarranted searches etc) , things the state can't do, not positive rights(or things owed to you by the state, which would include the right to vote).

 

[Steinlight]

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

Rural Americans like Democracy less than urban Americans.

If they did like Democracy, they'd be against the idea of the Electoral College, and the Senate.

Rural Americans prefer a Consititutional Republic, to a Democracy.

Or at least that's what they say any time one of their presidential candidates loses the popular vote in an election, but wins the election

Is supporting a constitutional republic over a democracy a bad thing? Do you disagree?

Well....a "constitutional republic" has come to simply be a justification for adjusting the popular vote based on geographical proximity. If your particular geographic location doesn't put your single vote in an inferior state...why have that adjustment?

But a Consitutional Republic is a form of government, where the decisions of elected representatives are subject to judicial review, based on the constitution. I'm not seeing much about an electoral college and a senate within the definition

What do you mean, "not seeing much"? You will have to be clearer. The United States was the first Constitutional Republic, and has always had an electoral college and senate.

Not seeing much aout the electoral college and for that matter the senate...within the definition of Constitutional Republic.

Which definition? A Constitutional Republic by definition is a Republic that governs within the confines of a constitution.

The senate and electoral college are institutions proscribed within our Constitution. So I don't know what you aren't seeing.

 

[kaz]

Many ameican conservatives, and now even libertarians, dont believe in democracy

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

ever heard conservatives bleat out the saying "we're a republic not a democracy" now sometimes tacked on with "democracy = mob rule".....there is my evidence

Gasoline is great stuff for making your car go, but it sucks for drinking. Democracy is great when government has to make a decision, the problem is that all government decisions are imposed on us by force. government sucks, so we should keep it's control over our lives to the absolute minimum possible.

Liberals, on the other hand, think government should run everything. That's how we know they are all insane.

Liberals don't think government should run everything...who told you that?.....Rush, O'Reilly?...

Liberals

 

[toxicmedia]

Rural Americans like Democracy less than urban Americans.

If they did like Democracy, they'd be against the idea of the Electoral College, and the Senate.

Rural Americans prefer a Consititutional Republic, to a Democracy.

Or at least that's what they say any time one of their presidential candidates loses the popular vote in an election, but wins the election

Is supporting a constitutional republic over a democracy a bad thing? Do you disagree?

Well....a "constitutional republic" has come to simply be a justification for adjusting the popular vote based on geographical proximity. If your particular geographic location doesn't put your single vote in an inferior state...why have that adjustment?

But a Consitutional Republic is a form of government, where the decisions of elected representatives are subject to judicial review, based on the constitution. I'm not seeing much about an electoral college and a senate within the definition

What do you mean, "not seeing much"? You will have to be clearer. The United States was the first Constitutional Republic, and has always had an electoral college and senate.

Not seeing much aout the electoral college and for that matter the senate...within the definition of Constitutional Republic.

Which definition? A Constitutional Republic by definition is a Republic that governs within the confines of a constitution.

The senate and electoral college are institutions proscribed within our Constitution. So I don't know what you aren't seeing.

A constitutional republic is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed: and is controlled by Law; and is representative in its nature.

Is there any part of the constitution that cannot be changed?