How Far to the Left is Too Far?

[kaz]

I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative

Read a couple threads on this board and you can dispel that particular prejudice of yours as you'll realize that stupid is highly centralized in the left

Says the person who claims fascism is equivalent with socialism.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Um..no. You may want to Google the definition of the word "equivalent" since you don't know what it means. Showing again the stupid is on the left.

I said that fascism is socialism lite. Both are centrally planned economies. The difference is that in full socialism, industry is owned by government. In fascism, industry is technically owned by private citizens, but it is under the control of government. Government as to approve all their major decisions and they have to follow government policy.

When they are partially the same, but not the same, they are not "equivalent." Again, look it up to clear your ignorance.

The one who said they are the same is Hitler, who lead the Socialist Workers party in Germany. You can take it up with him.

 

[bedowin62]

Read a couple threads on this board and you can dispel that particular prejudice of yours as you'll realize that stupid is highly centralized in the left

Says the person who claims fascism is equivalent with socialism.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Um..no. You may want to Google the definition of the word "equivalent" since you don't know what it means. Showing again the stupid is on the left.

I said that fascism is socialism lite. Both are centrally planned economies. The difference is that in full socialism, industry is owned by government. In fascism, industry is technically owned by private citizens, but it is under the control of government. Government as to approve all their major decisions and they have to follow government policy.

When they are partially the same, but not the same, they are not "equivalent." Again, look it up to clear your ignorance.

The one who said they are the same is Hitler, who lead the Socialist Workers party in Germany. You can take it up with him.

exactly right of course. during the period leading up to WWII; NAZI Germany force Volkswagon, literally PEOPLE'S WAGON (hmmm who uses that "people's" term?) to make war machines instead of cars

fascism is capitalism at the end of a Socialist gun barrel

 

[jasonnfree]

Says the person who claims fascism is equivalent with socialism.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Um..no. You may want to Google the definition of the word "equivalent" since you don't know what it means. Showing again the stupid is on the left.

I said that fascism is socialism lite. Both are centrally planned economies. The difference is that in full socialism, industry is owned by government. In fascism, industry is technically owned by private citizens, but it is under the control of government. Government as to approve all their major decisions and they have to follow government policy.

When they are partially the same, but not the same, they are not "equivalent." Again, look it up to clear your ignorance.

The one who said they are the same is Hitler, who lead the Socialist Workers party in Germany. You can take it up with him.

exactly right of course. during the period leading up to WWII; NAZI Germany force Volkswagon, literally PEOPLE'S WAGON (hmmm who uses that "people's" term?) to make war machines instead of cars

fascism is capitalism at the end of a Socialist gun barrel

And mussolini said that "fascism should be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." We could find quotes all day long to bolster our arguments but in reality, both major parties are heading us in the same direction using slightly different means. China is becoming a player in this country. Getting contracts to build infrastructure in our country for instance. I thought communism was the enemy. Fox news is partly owned by a muslim. I though islam was the enemy. Almost every American is against corporations offshoring jobs. Both parties do it. Look at all the ceo's and anti labor types such as penny pritzker and jeffrey immelt that obama has appointed to positions of power. He's happy to be called a progressive and socialist. It takes the focus off what he is doing. I still vote democrat after holding my nose, but I think there's a 5-10 % difference between the two parties in reality.

 

[Dad2three]

You're not familiar with the Democrat's wealth redistribution schemes, are you?



LOL, that's a great example of exactly what the Democrats ... do ... with their endless anti-capitalist, anti-wealth rhetoric.

Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing

By David Cay Johnston


The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."


The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."



Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."

Newsweek

The founders were Marxist? Seriously? So you think they wanted government to maintain all land so individual people couldn't acquire land because government is the people so government owning the land is the people owning the land.

Dude, you're the Marxist, and that isn't what they meant.

Got it, YOU decide to make up your own definition and argue from there. Good job. How did your debate with yourself turnout?


Sorry you can't actually refute their own words....

 

[Dad2three]

Read a couple threads on this board and you can dispel that particular prejudice of yours as you'll realize that stupid is highly centralized in the left

Says the person who claims fascism is equivalent with socialism.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Um..no. You may want to Google the definition of the word "equivalent" since you don't know what it means. Showing again the stupid is on the left.

I said that fascism is socialism lite. Both are centrally planned economies. The difference is that in full socialism, industry is owned by government. In fascism, industry is technically owned by private citizens, but it is under the control of government. Government as to approve all their major decisions and they have to follow government policy.

When they are partially the same, but not the same, they are not "equivalent." Again, look it up to clear your ignorance.

The one who said they are the same is Hitler, who lead the Socialist Workers party in Germany. You can take it up with him.

Socialist workers party? lol

 

[PeoplePower]

Says the person who claims fascism is equivalent with socialism.





Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Um..no. You may want to Google the definition of the word "equivalent" since you don't know what it means. Showing again the stupid is on the left.



I said that fascism is socialism lite. Both are centrally planned economies. The difference is that in full socialism, industry is owned by government. In fascism, industry is technically owned by private citizens, but it is under the control of government. Government as to approve all their major decisions and they have to follow government policy.



When they are partially the same, but not the same, they are not "equivalent." Again, look it up to clear your ignorance.



The one who said they are the same is Hitler, who lead the Socialist Workers party in Germany. You can take it up with him.

Socialist workers party? lol

Titles do not equal meaning. You can call yourself whatever you want, your actions can be different.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[kaz]

mussolini said that "fascism should be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Show us your evidence that Italian business had control over Musselini and German business had control over Hitler.

It's obvious and shallow bull. You haven't ever set foot in a history class or read a book if you believe that. It amazes me how willing liberals are to look so completely and utterly moronic for the cause.

 

[kaz]

Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing

By David Cay Johnston


The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."


The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."



Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."

Newsweek

The founders were Marxist? Seriously? So you think they wanted government to maintain all land so individual people couldn't acquire land because government is the people so government owning the land is the people owning the land.

Dude, you're the Marxist, and that isn't what they meant.

Got it, YOU decide to make up your own definition and argue from there. Good job. How did your debate with yourself turnout?


Sorry you can't actually refute their own words....

My own definition of what? So the founding fathers were Marxists who's "own words" were they wanted all land controlled by the State because the people ARE the State. Yeah, their own words support they thought that. You're quite the debater, thanks for schooling me.

 

[kaz]

Says the person who claims fascism is equivalent with socialism.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Um..no. You may want to Google the definition of the word "equivalent" since you don't know what it means. Showing again the stupid is on the left.

I said that fascism is socialism lite. Both are centrally planned economies. The difference is that in full socialism, industry is owned by government. In fascism, industry is technically owned by private citizens, but it is under the control of government. Government as to approve all their major decisions and they have to follow government policy.

When they are partially the same, but not the same, they are not "equivalent." Again, look it up to clear your ignorance.

The one who said they are the same is Hitler, who lead the Socialist Workers party in Germany. You can take it up with him.

Socialist workers party? lol

That's what NAZI stands for in German. Ignorance I can cure with information.

"National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler"

Nazi - definition of Nazi by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[kaz]

Um..no. You may want to Google the definition of the word "equivalent" since you don't know what it means. Showing again the stupid is on the left.



I said that fascism is socialism lite. Both are centrally planned economies. The difference is that in full socialism, industry is owned by government. In fascism, industry is technically owned by private citizens, but it is under the control of government. Government as to approve all their major decisions and they have to follow government policy.



When they are partially the same, but not the same, they are not "equivalent." Again, look it up to clear your ignorance.



The one who said they are the same is Hitler, who lead the Socialist Workers party in Germany. You can take it up with him.

Socialist workers party? lol

Titles do not equal meaning. You can call yourself whatever you want, your actions can be different.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You mean like Obama saying he's a "Christian?"

Hitler thinking he's a socialist doesn't mean anything. Interesting. What about that Hitler said he's a socialist and then the German government controlled the German industry. Does that mean anything? A self proclaimed socialist controlling industry? Are we hitting any intelligence in there yet?

 

[Dad2three]

The founders were Marxist? Seriously? So you think they wanted government to maintain all land so individual people couldn't acquire land because government is the people so government owning the land is the people owning the land.

Dude, you're the Marxist, and that isn't what they meant.

Got it, YOU decide to make up your own definition and argue from there. Good job. How did your debate with yourself turnout?


Sorry you can't actually refute their own words....

My own definition of what? So the founding fathers were Marxists who's "own words" were they wanted all land controlled by the State because the people ARE the State. Yeah, their own words support they thought that. You're quite the debater, thanks for schooling me.

Got it, you AGAIN get to define the words (Marxists) and then run that said premise was what the Founders WANTED... lol

Yeah, thanks *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

Um..no. You may want to Google the definition of the word "equivalent" since you don't know what it means. Showing again the stupid is on the left.

I said that fascism is socialism lite. Both are centrally planned economies. The difference is that in full socialism, industry is owned by government. In fascism, industry is technically owned by private citizens, but it is under the control of government. Government as to approve all their major decisions and they have to follow government policy.

When they are partially the same, but not the same, they are not "equivalent." Again, look it up to clear your ignorance.

The one who said they are the same is Hitler, who lead the Socialist Workers party in Germany. You can take it up with him.

Socialist workers party? lol

That's what NAZI stands for in German. Ignorance I can cure with information.

"National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler"

Nazi - definition of Nazi by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Yeah, I bet all intelligent thinking people thought/think he was a a socialist and for the workers, lol

That Hitler wasn't a socialist became apparent within weeks of becoming Chancellor of Germany when he started arresting socialists and communists

 

[Dad2three]

Socialist workers party? lol

Titles do not equal meaning. You can call yourself whatever you want, your actions can be different.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You mean like Obama saying he's a "Christian?"

Hitler thinking he's a socialist doesn't mean anything. Interesting. What about that Hitler said he's a socialist and then the German government controlled the German industry. Does that mean anything? A self proclaimed socialist controlling industry? Are we hitting any intelligence in there yet?

Listen, because right wingers WANT to put Hitler as a socialist, even though one of the first things he did once coming into power was arrest socialists , doesn't make it true


Hitler and socialism



An entirely US-centric argument, spurred on by certain batty ideologues and infamous websites, claims that Adolf Hitler was not the far-right, anti-communist nationalist that everyone else remembers him to be, but rather an egalitarian socialist.


...For this argument to be even close to being solvent (fans of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, we're looking at you), good chunks of history need to be thrown out the window:

That the 96-member Social Democratic Party of Germany was Hitler's main opposition in the Reichstag, and the only political party that attempted to halt the laws that established him as dictator and brought down the Weimar Republic. In fact, all of the ideological predecessors of today's conservative and classically liberal parties voted unanimously for the law, while the SPD voted unanimously against despite the presence of SA 'guards' in the building.

That the first political groups targeted during the Nazi ascendancy were pacifists, trade unions and communists;
and

That the Strasserites, the only strand of Nazism that could be referred to as left-wing (ie. pro-working class in nature), were all killed off (with a handful of conservative dissidents) in what we all know as the Night of the Long Knives


Hitler and socialism - RationalWiki

I KNOW, HE HAD SOCIALISTS IN HIS NAME, lol

 

[Peach]

Titles do not equal meaning. You can call yourself whatever you want, your actions can be different.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You mean like Obama saying he's a "Christian?"

Hitler thinking he's a socialist doesn't mean anything. Interesting. What about that Hitler said he's a socialist and then the German government controlled the German industry. Does that mean anything? A self proclaimed socialist controlling industry? Are we hitting any intelligence in there yet?

Listen, because right wingers WANT to put Hitler as a socialist, even though one of the first things he did once coming into power was arrest socialists , doesn't make it true


Hitler and socialism



An entirely US-centric argument, spurred on by certain batty ideologues and infamous websites, claims that Adolf Hitler was not the far-right, anti-communist nationalist that everyone else remembers him to be, but rather an egalitarian socialist.


...For this argument to be even close to being solvent (fans of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, we're looking at you), good chunks of history need to be thrown out the window:

That the 96-member Social Democratic Party of Germany was Hitler's main opposition in the Reichstag, and the only political party that attempted to halt the laws that established him as dictator and brought down the Weimar Republic. In fact, all of the ideological predecessors of today's conservative and classically liberal parties voted unanimously for the law, while the SPD voted unanimously against despite the presence of SA 'guards' in the building.

That the first political groups targeted during the Nazi ascendancy were pacifists, trade unions and communists;
and

That the Strasserites, the only strand of Nazism that could be referred to as left-wing (ie. pro-working class in nature), were all killed off (with a handful of conservative dissidents) in what we all know as the Night of the Long Knives


Hitler and socialism - RationalWiki

I KNOW, HE HAD SOCIALISTS IN HIS NAME, lol

You post history, all many see is the word "socialist" and begin the knee jerk reaction.

 

[kaz]

Got it, YOU decide to make up your own definition and argue from there. Good job. How did your debate with yourself turnout?


Sorry you can't actually refute their own words....

My own definition of what? So the founding fathers were Marxists who's "own words" were they wanted all land controlled by the State because the people ARE the State. Yeah, their own words support they thought that. You're quite the debater, thanks for schooling me.

Got it, you AGAIN get to define the words (Marxists) and then run that said premise was what the Founders WANTED... lol

Yeah, thanks *shaking head*

I'm not defining Marxist, the Communist Manifesto does that.

 

[kaz]

Socialist workers party? lol

That's what NAZI stands for in German. Ignorance I can cure with information.

"National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler"

Nazi - definition of Nazi by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Yeah, I bet all intelligent thinking people thought/think he was a a socialist and for the workers, lol

That Hitler wasn't a socialist became apparent within weeks of becoming Chancellor of Germany when he started arresting socialists and communists

And putting other socialists in power. The war in Europe wasn't between vanilla and chocolate, it was a war between flavors of vanilla.

And being "for the workers" is irrelevant, Stalin was as for the workers as Hitler was.

 

[kaz]

Titles do not equal meaning. You can call yourself whatever you want, your actions can be different.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You mean like Obama saying he's a "Christian?"

Hitler thinking he's a socialist doesn't mean anything. Interesting. What about that Hitler said he's a socialist and then the German government controlled the German industry. Does that mean anything? A self proclaimed socialist controlling industry? Are we hitting any intelligence in there yet?

Listen, because right wingers WANT to put Hitler as a socialist, even though one of the first things he did once coming into power was arrest socialists , doesn't make it true

I'm not a right winger, I'm a liberarian. And I am not saying Hitler was a socialist, I said he's a fascist. I said Hitler said he was a socialist. He did. You're not doing very well with the facts, are you?

Hitler and socialism

An entirely US-centric argument, spurred on by certain batty ideologues and infamous websites, claims that Adolf Hitler was not the far-right, anti-communist nationalist that everyone else remembers him to be, but rather an egalitarian socialist.


...For this argument to be even close to being solvent (fans of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, we're looking at you), good chunks of history need to be thrown out the window:

That the 96-member Social Democratic Party of Germany was Hitler's main opposition in the Reichstag, and the only political party that attempted to halt the laws that established him as dictator and brought down the Weimar Republic. In fact, all of the ideological predecessors of today's conservative and classically liberal parties voted unanimously for the law, while the SPD voted unanimously against despite the presence of SA 'guards' in the building.

That the first political groups targeted during the Nazi ascendancy were pacifists, trade unions and communists;
and

That the Strasserites, the only strand of Nazism that could be referred to as left-wing (ie. pro-working class in nature), were all killed off (with a handful of conservative dissidents) in what we all know as the Night of the Long Knives


Hitler and socialism - RationalWiki

I KNOW, HE HAD SOCIALISTS IN HIS NAME, lol

Socialists own industry. Hitler left industry technically in private hands, but he controlled it in every way instructing them what to make and when to make it and forcing them to have all decisions approved.

Again, he was not a full socialist, he was one step removed, a fascist. However, fascism always results in socialism. He realized that, which is why he just called himself a socialist. He just liked the ruse of pretending Germans still owned industry. If a car you paid for has your name on the title, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and they have the keys, who's care is it really?

 

[Peach]

You mean like Obama saying he's a "Christian?"

Hitler thinking he's a socialist doesn't mean anything. Interesting. What about that Hitler said he's a socialist and then the German government controlled the German industry. Does that mean anything? A self proclaimed socialist controlling industry? Are we hitting any intelligence in there yet?

Listen, because right wingers WANT to put Hitler as a socialist, even though one of the first things he did once coming into power was arrest socialists , doesn't make it true

I'm not a right winger, I'm a liberarian. And I am not saying Hitler was a socialist, I said he's a fascist. I said Hitler said he was a socialist. He did. You're not doing very well with the facts, are you?

Hitler and socialism

An entirely US-centric argument, spurred on by certain batty ideologues and infamous websites, claims that Adolf Hitler was not the far-right, anti-communist nationalist that everyone else remembers him to be, but rather an egalitarian socialist.


...For this argument to be even close to being solvent (fans of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, we're looking at you), good chunks of history need to be thrown out the window:

That the 96-member Social Democratic Party of Germany was Hitler's main opposition in the Reichstag, and the only political party that attempted to halt the laws that established him as dictator and brought down the Weimar Republic. In fact, all of the ideological predecessors of today's conservative and classically liberal parties voted unanimously for the law, while the SPD voted unanimously against despite the presence of SA 'guards' in the building.

That the first political groups targeted during the Nazi ascendancy were pacifists, trade unions and communists;
and

That the Strasserites, the only strand of Nazism that could be referred to as left-wing (ie. pro-working class in nature), were all killed off (with a handful of conservative dissidents) in what we all know as the Night of the Long Knives


Hitler and socialism - RationalWiki

I KNOW, HE HAD SOCIALISTS IN HIS NAME, lol

Socialists own industry. Hitler left industry technically in private hands, but he controlled it in every way instructing them what to make and when to make it and forcing them to have all decisions approved.

Again, he was not a full socialist, he was one step removed, a fascist. However, fascism always results in socialism. He realized that, which is why he just called himself a socialist. He just liked the ruse of pretending Germans still owned industry. If a car you paid for has your name on the title, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and they have the keys, who's care is it really?

Fascism results in socialism? Care to dredge up some examples, (most like from Drudge.) Here is a country with "socialist" in the name, part of what ISIS seeks to unite, and no neither al Qaeda, nor its progeny, are "liberal":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba'ath_Party_–_Syria_Region

 

[g4racer]

In defense of the extreme right. They see everything that does agree with them as socialist. It is always judged from the point of the observer.
So, how far to the left is too far? It is the mirror image of how far to the right is too far.

You are too far when you can not accept the possibility that a person that disagrees with you may be right.

 

[RKMBrown]

In defense of the extreme right. They see everything that does agree with them as socialist. It is always judged from the point of the observer.
So, how far to the left is too far? It is the mirror image of how far to the right is too far.

You are too far when you can not accept the possibility that a person that disagrees with you may be right.

How far to the left is to far, is like asking how much liberty you are willing to give up for a small amount of security.