Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[bripat9643]

see sig, last line. You do the intellectual typing, I'll do the insults and short answers...keep up the good work.

Do as you like. I block all signatures. Just drop that moronic phrase, please.

The USA is the only modern country in the world where full time workers live in poverty and have no health care (750k bankruptcies a year, most HAVE insurance - crap insurance!)After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?
Pubs have blocked EVERYTHING since 2/4/2010- don't be duped...again. Stimulus worked-ran out in 2010.
Total Pub Propaganda BS: ACORN, Kenyan Muslim Marxist,Tides, Mosque, Death Panel, lose your doctor, huge costs, DEBT CRISIS, Obama Recession, stimulus failed, Barney Frank, Nazi Soros, Nazi socialists, Volt suqs, Iran making bomb etc etc.
I'm sorry- dupes are lovely people- but I can't take their lazy, ignorant, careless, stupid politics a minute longer. Sorry

The US sucks but give it a rest anyway. Americans are dumb as dog-shit, and they like it that way.

They aren't half as dumb as Europeans.

Actually, Europeans aren't so provincial, monolingual, anti-intellectual, selfish...hater dupes bring down our average. Of course, after a year or so you miss our pleasant, exuberant Americans.

They are obviously stupid since they fall for all the same scams that morons like you fall for.

 

[francoHFW]

Like health care for all, good infrastructure, inexpensive universities,paid parental leave, good cheap day care, living wage, one month paid vacation or more, low murder rates, better upward mobility fer chrissake, hater dupe? Jeebus you're a chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP...

 

[bripat9643]

Like health care for all, good infrastructure, inexpensive universities,paid parental leave, good cheap day care, living wage, one month paid vacation or more, low murder rates, better upward mobility fer chrissake, hater dupe? Jeebus you're a chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP...

When did the government produce any of those?

See what I mean about falling for scams?

 

[Unkotare]

Americans are dumb as dog-shit, and they like it that way.

Speak for yourself, dog-shit.

 

[thanatos144]

It is funny. We done ignore what Nazi stiid fir and we are the dumb as dog shit ones?the Delusions of a progressive ate very very disturbing.

Tapatalk

 

[Iceweasel]

Try to follow this Eddie: There have been two Republican parties, the first under Jefferson, but over the years it changed its name a few times, but became the Democratic party of today.
There was also a conservative party, the Federalists, but that party died after trying to make it a crime to criticize the government. The period after its demise became known as the Era of Good Feelings. But then a new conservative party came on the scene, the Whig party, and that died too, and finally another conservative party tried to make it using the name of the old Jefferson party, Republican, but few were fooled, it was just another conservative party like the two that had died. It may still be around whining, changing labels and claiming Truman was a Republican.

Where's the candy cane house and the wicked witch? The lefties are the label changers, just like this fairy tale.

 

[Iceweasel]

Congrats- the only "history" book ever to say Hitler was a socialist. Recognized universally as absolute drivel, outside of Beckbots or whatever...

You put history in quotes. So you can decide what's legitimate history and what isn't? Congrats, what a liberal.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bush is a liberal Republican, not a conservative.

So why did the conservatives LOVE him then?

Is he left wing or right wing?

Seems everyone was so confident about Bush being left wing, yet no one wanted to explain how he was loved by the right.....

anyone care to explain?

 

[Iceweasel]

Seems everyone was so confident about Bush being left wing, yet no one wanted to explain how he was loved by the right.....

anyone care to explain?

Bush was a fiscal liberal and social conservative. I never understood the leftwing hate since they got about all the spending they wanted and then some.

I don't know about "love" from the right but he is a man of integrity, whether you agree with him or not, and was a 'what you see is what you get' kind of guy. I never heard him blame others for the situation he was in and he was in plenty, with 9/11, Katrina, housing market crash, bank crash and dot.com bubble busting early on.

obama would be in diapers sucking his thumb at this point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seems everyone was so confident about Bush being left wing, yet no one wanted to explain how he was loved by the right.....

anyone care to explain?

Bush was a fiscal liberal and social conservative. I never understood the leftwing hate since they got about all the spending they wanted and then some.

I don't know about "love" from the right but he is a man of integrity, whether you agree with him or not, and was a 'what you see is what you get' kind of guy. I never heard him blame others for the situation he was in and he was in plenty, with 9/11, Katrina, housing market crash, bank crash and dot.com bubble busting early on.

obama would be in diapers sucking his thumb at this point.

You sound like liberals just want spending no matter what. It sounds like you just take in the propaganda and accept it without thinking.

I don't think Bush was fiscally liberal, I think he wanted he to have his wars and needed money for this.

This begs the question why so many right wingers support him. Do they actually know what they're supporting?

I know why liberals don't support Bush. There's so much wrong with what he does that liberals just couldn't support him. The reason he spent the money was for right wing purposes. The war on Islam/terror/whatever was all designed to give the right more chances at winning.

I doubt Bush was even in control of any of it.

But 9/11 turned into expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both totally unnecessary. Katrina could have not been so bad.

Would the right be criticising Obama had he chosen not to spend loads of money and increase the federal budget by more than double and not having gone to Iraq and Afghanistan? Sure they would.

They're complaining that Obama didn't go into Syria. Fiscal conservatives too. Why? Because they don't have much of a clue of what they're doing and they get told Hitler was left wing and they want to believe it too.

 

[thanatos144]

When progressives get their way millions die. I mean hell history proves it with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, FDR, and LBJ.

Tapatalk

 

[Iceweasel]

You sound like liberals just want spending no matter what. It sounds like you just take in the propaganda and accept it without thinking.

I've thought about it for 40 years. Libs love to spend your money, it's what they do. They know how best to spend your money, but they hate spending their own. Tax and spend liberals isn't a term made up without reason.

I don't think Bush was fiscally liberal, I think he wanted he to have his wars and needed money for this.

This begs the question why so many right wingers support him. Do they actually know what they're supporting?

Many libs voted in Democrats that voted for and funded the wars so you're wearing blinders. For conservatives, Bush was a LOT better than Gore or Kerry.

I know why liberals don't support Bush. There's so much wrong with what he does that liberals just couldn't support him. The reason he spent the money was for right wing purposes. The war on Islam/terror/whatever was all designed to give the right more chances at winning.

I doubt Bush was even in control of any of it.

Democrats were in on it so your theory doesn't hold up. What funding did liberals not get anyway?

But 9/11 turned into expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both totally unnecessary. Katrina could have not been so bad.

Would the right be criticising Obama had he chosen not to spend loads of money and increase the federal budget by more than double and not having gone to Iraq and Afghanistan? Sure they would.

They're complaining that Obama didn't go into Syria. Fiscal conservatives too. Why? Because they don't have much of a clue of what they're doing and they get told Hitler was left wing and they want to believe it too.

obama has spent much more than the wars cost. So when libs bitch about the Bush spending it's more proof that they are simply propagandizing. It's what they do.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Weren't Nazis a left-wing thing?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You sound like liberals just want spending no matter what. It sounds like you just take in the propaganda and accept it without thinking.

I've thought about it for 40 years. Libs love to spend your money, it's what they do. They know how best to spend your money, but they hate spending their own. Tax and spend liberals isn't a term made up without reason.

I don't think Bush was fiscally liberal, I think he wanted he to have his wars and needed money for this.

This begs the question why so many right wingers support him. Do they actually know what they're supporting?

Many libs voted in Democrats that voted for and funded the wars so you're wearing blinders. For conservatives, Bush was a LOT better than Gore or Kerry.

I know why liberals don't support Bush. There's so much wrong with what he does that liberals just couldn't support him. The reason he spent the money was for right wing purposes. The war on Islam/terror/whatever was all designed to give the right more chances at winning.

I doubt Bush was even in control of any of it.

Democrats were in on it so your theory doesn't hold up. What funding did liberals not get anyway?

But 9/11 turned into expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both totally unnecessary. Katrina could have not been so bad.

Would the right be criticising Obama had he chosen not to spend loads of money and increase the federal budget by more than double and not having gone to Iraq and Afghanistan? Sure they would.

They're complaining that Obama didn't go into Syria. Fiscal conservatives too. Why? Because they don't have much of a clue of what they're doing and they get told Hitler was left wing and they want to believe it too.

obama has spent much more than the wars cost. So when libs bitch about the Bush spending it's more proof that they are simply propagandizing. It's what they do.

You've thought about it for 40 years and just assume that they like spending money. So Bush is a lib because he spends money?

It's kind of like a very round about argument that you could use to prove anything. Because white is black, therefore black is white.

What is true is that many on the left want the govt to step into some/many/all situations where the govt can. Some would spend badly, there are a lot of politicians who seem to fail to see the bigger picture and will spend wildly without thinking at all about the real consequences. I'm not going to deny this. But to say they're all on the left is not true.

Oh, Bush was better because no only did he raise federal spending by more than 100% he also managed to get thousands of Americans killed and potentially 1 million people killed in general. Well done to him.

But the defence of Bush, the defence of his wars, the defence of his policies and then to attack him for these very same policies seems absurd. Yes, Democrats helped, which also brings me back to the point I've made a lot that the two main parties are generally controlled by big money and do their bidding without too much regard for anything else.

I'm not defending Obama for spending. What does this have to do with Obama? We're talking here about whether big spending govt is left wing or not just left wing. We're not talking about Obama. Is this really all you have to try and deflect the argument away from what we're talking about?

 

[g5000]

Weren't Nazis a left-wing thing?

And Marxists are right wing.

 

[Iceweasel]

You've thought about it for 40 years and just assume that they like spending money. So Bush is a lib because he spends money?

Spent too much money. And I said fiscal liberal, social conservative. You have demonstrated a marked inability to receive anything that you don't already believe.

What is true is that many on the left want the govt to step into some/many/all situations where the govt can. Some would spend badly, there are a lot of politicians who seem to fail to see the bigger picture and will spend wildly without thinking at all about the real consequences. I'm not going to deny this. But to say they're all on the left is not true.

I didn't. Many Republicans are big government big spenders too. Conservatives all them RINOs.

Oh, Bush was better because no only did he raise federal spending by more than 100% he also managed to get thousands of Americans killed and potentially 1 million people killed in general. Well done to him.

But the defence of Bush, the defence of his wars, the defence of his policies and then to attack him for these very same policies seems absurd. Yes, Democrats helped, which also brings me back to the point I've made a lot that the two main parties are generally controlled by big money and do their bidding without too much regard for anything else.

I'm not defending Obama for spending. What does this have to do with Obama? We're talking here about whether big spending govt is left wing or not just left wing. We're not talking about Obama. Is this really all you have to try and deflect the argument away from what we're talking about?

The thread is about Hitler, fascism and the right. I didn't bring up Bush and it isn't a deflection to point out the fact that most of the Democrats in office were on the same page, until it became politically expedient to oppose the wars.
Left wingers are for big government which means big spending. I don't see how you can massage it out of plain sight.

 

[francoHFW]

Congrats- the only "history" book ever to say Hitler was a socialist. Recognized universally as absolute drivel, outside of Beckbots or whatever...

You put history in quotes. So you can decide what's legitimate history and what isn't? Congrats, what a liberal.

Read something that's not drivel from Murdoch, the Kochs, Beck, etc,and their bought off shills. The whole world otherwise think you're nuts.

 

[Iceweasel]

Congrats- the only "history" book ever to say Hitler was a socialist. Recognized universally as absolute drivel, outside of Beckbots or whatever...

You put history in quotes. So you can decide what's legitimate history and what isn't? Congrats, what a liberal.

Read something that's not drivel from Murdoch, the Kochs, Beck, etc,and their bought off shills. The whole world otherwise think you're nuts.

The whole world knows leftists are a bunch of lying smear mongers.

 

[bripat9643]

Bush is a liberal Republican, not a conservative.

So why did the conservatives LOVE him then?

Is he left wing or right wing?

Seems everyone was so confident about Bush being left wing, yet no one wanted to explain how he was loved by the right.....

anyone care to explain?

He wasn't loved by the right. Conservatives deplored a lot of what Bush did in office, especially when it came to growing government. The only thing they supported him on was cutting taxes and the Iraq war.

 

[francoHFW]

You sound like liberals just want spending no matter what. It sounds like you just take in the propaganda and accept it without thinking.

I've thought about it for 40 years. Libs love to spend your money, it's what they do. They know how best to spend your money, but they hate spending their own. Tax and spend liberals isn't a term made up without reason.

I don't think Bush was fiscally liberal, I think he wanted he to have his wars and needed money for this.

This begs the question why so many right wingers support him. Do they actually know what they're supporting?

Many libs voted in Democrats that voted for and funded the wars so you're wearing blinders. For conservatives, Bush was a LOT better than Gore or Kerry.

I know why liberals don't support Bush. There's so much wrong with what he does that liberals just couldn't support him. The reason he spent the money was for right wing purposes. The war on Islam/terror/whatever was all designed to give the right more chances at winning.

I doubt Bush was even in control of any of it.

Democrats were in on it so your theory doesn't hold up. What funding did liberals not get anyway?

But 9/11 turned into expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both totally unnecessary. Katrina could have not been so bad.

Would the right be criticising Obama had he chosen not to spend loads of money and increase the federal budget by more than double and not having gone to Iraq and Afghanistan? Sure they would.

They're complaining that Obama didn't go into Syria. Fiscal conservatives too. Why? Because they don't have much of a clue of what they're doing and they get told Hitler was left wing and they want to believe it too.

obama has spent much more than the wars cost. So when libs bitch about the Bush spending it's more proof that they are simply propagandizing. It's what they do.

Thanks for your misinformed bs. Real prosperity without corrupt bubble/busts happens under Dems duh, Bush was a TOTAL catastrophe, the cost of averting a full blown depression has been 6-7 TRILLION. The whole deficit is almost all assistance for Pub victims- STILL 400 billion a year. Change the channel, functional moron.

 

[Iceweasel]

You sound like liberals just want spending no matter what. It sounds like you just take in the propaganda and accept it without thinking.

I've thought about it for 40 years. Libs love to spend your money, it's what they do. They know how best to spend your money, but they hate spending their own. Tax and spend liberals isn't a term made up without reason.

I don't think Bush was fiscally liberal, I think he wanted he to have his wars and needed money for this.

This begs the question why so many right wingers support him. Do they actually know what they're supporting?

Many libs voted in Democrats that voted for and funded the wars so you're wearing blinders. For conservatives, Bush was a LOT better than Gore or Kerry.

I know why liberals don't support Bush. There's so much wrong with what he does that liberals just couldn't support him. The reason he spent the money was for right wing purposes. The war on Islam/terror/whatever was all designed to give the right more chances at winning.

I doubt Bush was even in control of any of it.

Democrats were in on it so your theory doesn't hold up. What funding did liberals not get anyway?

But 9/11 turned into expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both totally unnecessary. Katrina could have not been so bad.

Would the right be criticising Obama had he chosen not to spend loads of money and increase the federal budget by more than double and not having gone to Iraq and Afghanistan? Sure they would.

They're complaining that Obama didn't go into Syria. Fiscal conservatives too. Why? Because they don't have much of a clue of what they're doing and they get told Hitler was left wing and they want to believe it too.

obama has spent much more than the wars cost. So when libs bitch about the Bush spending it's more proof that they are simply propagandizing. It's what they do.

Thanks for your misinformed bs. Real prosperity without corrupt bubble/busts happens under Dems duh, Bush was a TOTAL catastrophe, the cost of averting a full blown depression has been 6-7 TRILLION. The whole deficit is almost all assistance for Pub victims- STILL 400 billion a year. Change the channel, functional moron.

LOL, you are way out there, Space Captain.

The Republicans had Clinton over a barrel if that's the economic era you are referring to. Look into it.

It cost us 7 trillion to not go into a depression? Bwwwaaahaaahaha.