Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Saigon]

Bush -

Name one country in Europe that has a socialist government.

Greece, France, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and on and on... Socialized health care, education, transportation, = socialism. Look what all the socialization got Greece? Totally broke.

"Socialism works fine until you run out of other peoples money"
- Margaret Thatcher

Oh dear.

My god man.....how can you possibly be this poorly informed?

What was that...ten guesses and you got tham ALL wrong?!?!

I guess there is no point asking how long David Cameron and the UK Conservative Party have been socialists, is there?!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What is it with you people and your consistent inability to take responsibility for your own behavior?

Buy your own contraceptives and where that doesn't work, raise your kids!

If you can't DO THAT, then you have no business engaging in intercourse.

You aren't entitled to other people's property to make your life easier... and it is not someone else's responsibility to raise your children.

What you don't seem to understand is that where you are incapable of taking responsibility for yourselves, then you aren't qualified for freedom. And it is as simple as THAT.

Yep, you want to control others, and thus really don't care to reduce the number of abortions. In fact, if there were zero abortions you would still want to control the sexual life of others - but deny you're an authoritarian. You'd make a 'good' Nazi.

Question

Fundamentally what is the difference between wanting to control people by keeping gay marriage illegal and wanting to control people by forcing them to do business with people they don't like?

Try to just straight up answer if it is possible. I don't want , or need, any deflection.

Keys, I see you thanked this post, but you MUST realize that the opposite is also true. You ARE trying to control people.

Let faggots get "married" who cares

Except it isn't about homosexuals getting married it is about government tyranny. If the people of a state dont want homosexual marriage it isnt the government's place to deny that state its tenth amendment right

Tapatalk

Crazy talk, if the people of a given state want to deny two people of different races the right to engage in a contract of marriage, isn't that an example of the tyranny of the majority?

The Libertarian movement is based on a foundation of shifting sand. Let's suppose State of A allows two men to marry; State B denies this right, and makes sexual activity between two men a felony.

Point?

.
.
.

Let's assume that the 'sex between them' deviates from the human physiological standard, thus that sex indicates that both suffer from a deviant species of reasoning, thus each suffer a mental disorder. At that point, it becomes clear that neither of them are worthy of the trust which is essential to a free culture.

You see scamp, trust is based upon truth and where two people have demonstrated their inability to accept the truth which rests in the bedrock of human physiology, then neither can be trusted to recognize the truth on anything else.

For instance, such an individual may see that it's 70 Degrees at 8:00am, 75 Degrees at 10:00am and 80 Degrees by 12:00pm and conclude, through their rejection of the truth common to natural cycles that it will be 175 degrees by 12:00pm tomorrow. Thus run around demanding public policy be changed to accommodate their abnormal reasoning.

OR... Perhaps they'll see someone driving a nice car, living in a nice house, assume that those people, being 'just like them', doing exactly what they've done and they don't have as nice a car or as nice a house, thus those that DO: do not 'deserve' those nice things, at which point they go scurrying about demanding public policy which requires everyone else to give up their nice stuff so that THEY can have nice things too... .

OR... They may see that THEY Live here... and that there's no reason that people in other countries shouldn't live here too! And that despite those other countries not having the same health standards, not believing in what our country is founded upon and sustained by, that THIS is no reason to not allow them to just walk in and start soakin' up the welfare, that we gave them 'because it wasn't fair to not give THEM stuff... how is it fair to not give everyone else stuff too?'.

Ya see scamp... if we let the purveyors of perverse reasoning just walk around, sooner or later we'll end up in a position wherein, perhaps, we're at war with a political cult posing as a religion, in the wake of a catastrophic failure of some twisted political 'feeling', and elect an adherent to the political cult, posing as a religion, who advocates for the same twisted political feelings. Who establishes policies outside of our Constitutional restrictions on his power, to allow those who broke our laws to get and stay here, to stay here and to bring their would-be 'families' with them, who also abuses his power to stop people from freely assembling, who abuses his power to frame innocent people of committing federal crimes so as to establish federal policies against their industry, who sets up our Diplomatic personnel for murder and uses the power of his office to conceal his crimes... .

No, no... tolerating perverse reasoning is dangerous to the viability of our nation. It's a TERRIBLE IDEA!

See how that works?

 

[Bush92]

Idiot. Ever heard of Messerschmidt, Krupp, Porsche, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Toldt, Heinkel, etc etc, or Baron von Ribbentropp? OR for that matter Mitsubishi and Hirohito. That's RW totalitarianism or fascism. LW totalitarianism is communism- NO corporations or aristocratic titles. RW per se meaning small gov't and freedom is the New BS GOP propaganda, dupes. Socialism can just as easily be small gov't and freedom. Of course, you brainwashed chumpsw "think" socialism is communism...

So, no one on the right has the right to believe in a smaller government and you trot out state run business for war making machinery as your proof? RETARD!

We had smaller government, the Founders and authors of our Constitution found it wanting. Wanting a stronger central government while balancing the rights of the states, the Constitution is a document written by compromise, something the fringe of today have eschewed and most don't understand.

i would not equate a confederacy to smaller government as visioned today. The Founders certainly would not agree with the bloated, over bearing, wasteful, bureaucratic nightmare of a federal government we have today. The current federal government is in itself unconstitutional. Elastic clause has been allowed to be abused by liberal courts system.

 

[Saigon]

I do not understand how people in Europe today can tolerate the level of government control that is allowed by people living there. Have they no concept of liberty?

I believe we have much more liberty than in the US actually.

For one thing, we are allowed genuine choice at the ballot box, not just Dem or Gop.

I also see our excellent health & education systems as representing liberty.

We have many political parties in the U.S., but the two party system has led to generations of political stability. How can government control of education and health care lead to greater liberty for the people? They are mutually exclusive. Politics1 - Director of U.S. Political Parties

By producing better outcomes.

Hence, we have better economic mobility than you do. The American Dream is a myth. Here, it's more of a reality.

That is liberty.

 

[Bush92]

Bush -

Name one country in Europe that has a socialist government.

Greece, France, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and on and on... Socialized health care, education, transportation, = socialism. Look what all the socialization got Greece? Totally broke.

"Socialism works fine until you run out of other peoples money"
- Margaret Thatcher

Oh dear.

My god man.....how can you possibly be this poorly informed?

What was that...ten guesses and you got tham ALL wrong?!?!

I guess there is no point asking how long David Cameron and the UK Conservative Party have been socialists, is there?!

I got them ALL correct. UK does not have a true conservative party. Just left, far left, and extreme left. You sir, are so far to the left that you cannot even see the center.

 

[Bush92]

I do not understand how people in Europe today can tolerate the level of government control that is allowed by people living there. Have they no concept of liberty?

I believe we have much more liberty than in the US actually.

For one thing, we are allowed genuine choice at the ballot box, not just Dem or Gop.

I also see our excellent health & education systems as representing liberty.

We have many political parties in the U.S., but the two party system has led to generations of political stability. How can government control of education and health care lead to greater liberty for the people? They are mutually exclusive. Politics1 - Director of U.S. Political Parties

By producing better outcomes.

Hence, we have better economic mobility than you do. The American Dream is a myth. Here, it's more of a reality.

That is liberty.

How about Europe pay for more of its national defense and get involved on the world stage instead of waiting for United States to fight there battles for them? See how long your European economies could protect their socialist systems and defend themselves.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's very clear why the Right admires ignorance and denounces intellectuals, just look what they've accomplished.

ROFLMNAO!

I suppose I will never tire of the Intellectually Less Fortunate lamenting the denouncing of intellectualism.

Hysterical! (In every sense of the word)

 

[Bush92]

Islamic terrorism...help us USA. Russia...help us USA. China...help us USA. North Korea...help us USA.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Iceweasel -

Please stop spamming the thread.

Honestly, you arrive on a thread in which you had never heard of three of the politicians being discussed, you have never been to the countries they come from, do not speak the languages of those countries, have never studied these topics and flat out refuse to read books on these topics.

And you expect what - respect? That people will listen to you?

What value do you think your opinion of Stroessner has here?

ROFLMNAO!

I just adore the sweeter Ironies... .

 

[bripat9643]

What is it with you people and your consistent inability to take responsibility for your own behavior?

Buy your own contraceptives and where that doesn't work, raise your kids!

If you can't DO THAT, then you have no business engaging in intercourse.

You aren't entitled to other people's property to make your life easier... and it is not someone else's responsibility to raise your children.

What you don't seem to understand is that where you are incapable of taking responsibility for yourselves, then you aren't qualified for freedom. And it is as simple as THAT.

Yep, you want to control others, and thus really don't care to reduce the number of abortions. In fact, if there were zero abortions you would still want to control the sexual life of others - but deny you're an authoritarian. You'd make a 'good' Nazi.

Question

Fundamentally what is the difference between wanting to control people by keeping gay marriage illegal and wanting to control people by forcing them to do business with people they don't like?

Try to just straight up answer if it is possible. I don't want , or need, any deflection.

Keys, I see you thanked this post, but you MUST realize that the opposite is also true. You ARE trying to control people.

Let faggots get "married" who cares

Except it isn't about homosexuals getting married it is about government tyranny. If the people of a state dont want homosexual marriage it isnt the government's place to deny that state its tenth amendment right

Tapatalk

Crazy talk, if the people of a given state want to deny two people of different races the right to engage in a contract of marriage, isn't that an example of the tyranny of the majority?

If they deny blind people a license to drive, is that tyranny of the majority?

The Libertarian movement is based on a foundation of shifting sand. Let's suppose State of A allows two men to marry; State B denies this right, and makes sexual activity between two men a felony.

What do either of those examples have to do with libertarianism?

 

[Iceweasel]

Well like I said I think socialism/leftism was very popular in Germany at the time. Hitler was just trying to draw people in, disrupt genuine leftist /socialist partys with empty rhetoric. The night of the long knives reinforces that idea. Hitler despised democracy and said so. His thugs routinely attacked parties of the true left and communists. His government enforced the labor laws the industrialists wanted. I hardly think that makes it a leftest socio-economic system. He probably would not have agreed with ideas of small government either so I guess that does separate him from at least the rhetoric of US "conservatives".

It isn't just rhetoric for the right but I'll have to stick with the evidence and not your conclusions. The evidence is that they did indeed implement many socialist policies. It's in their doctrines.

The industrialists wanted more worker rights, more payed vacations, worker control, government interference, etc? Bull.

I don't see socialism as democratic, especially the kind they established. Where's the conflict?

Hitler probably wouldn't have agreed with small government? You are really going out on a limb there.

 

[bripat9643]

Almost goes without saying that Fascism and Nazism were right wing, reactionary, bottom up, populist movements.

I agree they were closer to right-wing then left wing. Always been irritated by the term reactionary...what does it mean really? Bottom up?....no. Populist?...no, that would be the equivalent of calling them socialist really.

The beauty of these boards is that there doesn't have to be any scholarship of note. Tie an opinion to politics and start a chant, soon others will pick up the chant and the chant becomes believable for a few.
How do historians, political scientists, and other Social Scientists, those that teach in our universities, define and place Nazism, as socialist or fascist?

If they are in universities they are likely spinning it to avoid any association with socialism. While enjoying fucking the students out of a LOT of money.

I agree a lot of students are getting a raw deal at universities today.

I agree that you're a moron

Hitler was originally an agent for the Conservative German military hierarchy. He was paid to infiltrate one of the workers parties existing shortly after WWI, the (DAP). The German economy was in dire condition. Leftist parties were very popular. It seems Hitler was probably tasked to manipulate his party to oppose and disrupt the other parties. He became its leader and changed the name to NSDAP adding National and Socialist. This probably was done to draw members of both an existing nationalist party and various leftist/socialist parties. As someone else posted here the night of the long knives largely purged those who led a wing who actually believed the Socialist part of the rhetoric. Having created their Frankenstein the Conservatives probably lost some control over Hitler as he gained power, but he never really worked in the interest of the left.

Nothing you posted proves Hitler was a right-winger.

If you have to resort to name-calling you probably don't really have an argument.
Wasnt really trying to prove he was a right-winger.....just that he was a tool of right wingers, and really never did anything to advance the left.

He certainly didn't make the left look good, but since he advanced the power of the Nazis and took over the government, he certainly did advance the left. He advanced them right into total dictatorial control of Germany. How more "advanced" can you get?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...we have better economic mobility than you do. The American Dream is a myth. Here, it's more of a reality.

That is liberty.

And THAT is nonsense, which stems, as it must, from the Advocacy of Foreign Ideas HOSTILE to American principle. And THAT is why those who are NOT US CITIZENS should NEVER BE ALLOWED TO DECEITFULLY POSE AS US CITIZENS on internet forums, as such is a FRAUDULENT MEANS TO INFLUENCE THE IGNORANT.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well like I said I think socialism/leftism was very popular in Germany at the time. Hitler was just trying to draw people in, disrupt genuine leftist /socialist partys with empty rhetoric. The night of the long knives reinforces that idea. Hitler despised democracy and said so. His thugs routinely attacked parties of the true left and communists. His government enforced the labor laws the industrialists wanted. I hardly think that makes it a leftest socio-economic system. He probably would not have agreed with ideas of small government either so I guess that does separate him from at least the rhetoric of US "conservatives".

It isn't just rhetoric for the right but I'll have to stick with the evidence and not your conclusions. The evidence is that they did indeed implement many socialist policies. It's in their doctrines.

The industrialists wanted more worker rights, more payed vacations, worker control, government interference, etc? Bull.

I don't see socialism as democratic, especially the kind they established. Where's the conflict?

Hitler probably wouldn't have agreed with small government? You are really going out on a limb there.

Socialism is NOT democratic... Socialism needs to be SEEN as Democratic, while it undermines the tenets of democracy, through the illicit acquisition, then use of the illicitly acquired power.

One need look no farther than the obama cult to see that THEIR FIRST POLICY INITIATIVE once in power, was to begin a program (Fast and Furious) to SET-UP the US FireArms industry to MAKE IT APPEAR AS THOUGH THE US FIREARMS INDUSTRY WAS INTENTIONALLY SELLING GUNS TO DRUG CARTELS AND GANGS.
WHEN IN TRUTH IT WAS THE SOCIALISTS INTENTIONALLY SELLING GUNS TO THE DRUG CARTEL AND GANGS, AS A MEANS TO FRAUDULENTLY INFLUENCE THE PUBLIC, AS THEY CONSPIRED WITH THE MEDIA TOWARD ESTABLISHING POLICY TO SHUT DOWN THAT INDUSTRY AND IN THE PROCESS THE MEANS OF THE US CITIZEN TO EFFECTIVELY DEFEND ITSELF FROM: GUESS WHO!

And that is TYPICAL of the Ideological Left... and that is why it is foolish to allow them anywhere near power or public influence of ANY KIND!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yep, you want to control others, and thus really don't care to reduce the number of abortions. In fact, if there were zero abortions you would still want to control the sexual life of others - but deny you're an authoritarian. You'd make a 'good' Nazi.

Question

Fundamentally what is the difference between wanting to control people by keeping gay marriage illegal and wanting to control people by forcing them to do business with people they don't like?

Try to just straight up answer if it is possible. I don't want , or need, any deflection.

Keys, I see you thanked this post, but you MUST realize that the opposite is also true. You ARE trying to control people.

Let faggots get "married" who cares

Except it isn't about homosexuals getting married it is about government tyranny. If the people of a state dont want homosexual marriage it isnt the government's place to deny that state its tenth amendment right

Tapatalk

Crazy talk, if the people of a given state want to deny two people of different races the right to engage in a contract of marriage, isn't that an example of the tyranny of the majority?

If they deny blind people a license to drive, is that tyranny of the majority?

The Libertarian movement is based on a foundation of shifting sand. Let's suppose State of A allows two men to marry; State B denies this right, and makes sexual activity between two men a felony.

What do either of those examples have to do with libertarianism?

TRYANNY? Ya want to talk about tyranny? FINE!

I've been demanding to start as a Running back for the Fins... I don't even get a CALL BACK! No one returns my letters and they won't even let me on the field for a tryout.

It's TYRANNY I TELL YA! Where's my $35 Million Contract? Where's MY POSSY? I WANT MY RING BITCHES!

 

[bripat9643]

I do not understand how people in Europe today can tolerate the level of government control that is allowed by people living there. Have they no concept of liberty?

Have you ever been to Europe? Have you ever spoken with a European? What is your concept of liberty?

Liberty is the absence of government control over your life. In other words, it's the opposite of the Democrat agenda.

 

[Saigon]

Bush -

Name one country in Europe that has a socialist government.

Greece, France, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and on and on... Socialized health care, education, transportation, = socialism. Look what all the socialization got Greece? Totally broke.

"Socialism works fine until you run out of other peoples money"
- Margaret Thatcher

Oh dear.

My god man.....how can you possibly be this poorly informed?

What was that...ten guesses and you got tham ALL wrong?!?!

I guess there is no point asking how long David Cameron and the UK Conservative Party have been socialists, is there?!

I got them ALL correct. UK does not have a true conservative party. Just left, far left, and extreme left. You sir, are so far to the left that you cannot even see the center.

I have to say, Bush, it really makes me laugh that you can dismiss the politics of 20 countries as being far left without ever asking yourself whether it just might be you that is far right?

It also makes me laugh that you can make the laugh-out-loud claim that the UK Conservative Party (and a dozen other conservative parties) is not conservative without it ever occuring to you that maybe it is the GOP that is not truly conservative?

Is it any wonder you find the term 'fascism' so hard to understand, when you don't seem to entirely understand 'conservative' either?

 

[bripat9643]

Bripat -

I have read more on this topic than you have, and by some distance.

Try and post with a little common sense.

You have to excuse me if I'm not impressed with your pretensions of intellectual superiority. What you have read is almost entirely left-wing propaganda. Reading bullshit doesn't enlighten much.

 

[bripat9643]

I do not understand how people in Europe today can tolerate the level of government control that is allowed by people living there. Have they no concept of liberty?

I believe we have much more liberty than in the US actually.

For one thing, we are allowed genuine choice at the ballot box, not just Dem or Gop.

I also see our excellent health & education systems as representing liberty.

Government healthcare and education are the opposite of liberty. They are the machinery of totalitarianism.

 

[Saigon]

btw. Can we try to stick to the topic of fascism in general and not get too sidetracked into discussing other topics?

As interesring as Libertarianism, EU defence policies and the Founding Fathers are - they're not really our topic here.

I would also suggest everyone ignore the obvious trolls and spamming.

 

[bripat9643]

I do not understand how people in Europe today can tolerate the level of government control that is allowed by people living there. Have they no concept of liberty?

I believe we have much more liberty than in the US actually.

For one thing, we are allowed genuine choice at the ballot box, not just Dem or Gop.

I also see our excellent health & education systems as representing liberty.

We have many political parties in the U.S., but the two party system has led to generations of political stability. How can government control of education and health care lead to greater liberty for the people? They are mutually exclusive. Politics1 - Director of U.S. Political Parties

By producing better outcomes.

Hence, we have better economic mobility than you do. The American Dream is a myth. Here, it's more of a reality.

That is liberty.

Government education and government healthcare do not produce better outcomes.