How Far to the Left is Too Far?

[Pheonixops]

Why, here come some lefties now!

"Vote Obama!"

Too funny and true!

 

[TheJedi]

Why, here come some lefties now!

"Vote Obama!"

Too funny and true!

I cannot tell form this post if you are brainwashed or simply brain dead.

Are you just ignorant or willfully ignorant? That is the real question.

 

[PeoplePower]

How did this even become a debate? I'd really like to know who the first person was to try to argue that Hitler was left-wing.



Hippies were left-wing. Can we all agree to that? Peace and love flower children are the leftest of left-wing, agreed? Adolf Hitler was the extreme opposite of inclusive, free-love, anti-war, peaceful hippie flower children, agreed?



If peacenik hippie flower children are the extreme left-wing and Hitler is the extreme opposite of hippie flower children, then Hitler is the extreme right-wing. That's how it works.

Love or hate has nothing to do with "right" or "left" wing.



Hitler was a socialist, that's why he was left wing.

He was a fascist, not a socialist. Kind of a difference.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[ScienceRocks]

How far is too far?
1. When you want to nationalize the private sector
2. When you want to raise the minimum wage above the ability of businesses to remain profitable. A minimum age is fine, but don't kill your economy.
3. When you want to give every man, woman and child welfare. Without a plan to feed, construct or maintain the rest of society.
4. When you want to ban corporations

I could list the opposite for how far right is too far?(Tea party) But that isn't the topic. Both are bad.

 

[Contumacious]

How Far to the Left is Too Far?.

We are already too far.

We went too far in 1913 when the "income" tax and federal reserve board were enacted.

.

 

[Peach]

.

Holy shit, here we go again with the "Hitler was a lefty/righty" horseshit.

Can't go two weeks around here without this silly argument.

He was neither. He was both. He was his own animal. He was the worst of everything.

Enough already.

.

A misunderstanding of the correlation of "Volk" and "Socialism". And yes, Hitler was at the point where the two extremes merge into one; authoritarian, totalitarian, mesmerizing "all"............ to the fearful.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How Far to the Left is Too Far?.

We are already too far.

We went too far in 1913 when the "income" tax and federal reserve board were enacted.

.

I think within your mind breaking up monopolies and educating our population is too far. You're such a savage.

 

[Contumacious]

How Far to the Left is Too Far?.

We are already too far.

We went too far in 1913 when the "income" tax and federal reserve board were enacted.

.

I think within your mind breaking up monopolies and educating our population is too far. You're such a savage.

Excuse me Dingle Berry, coercive monopolies do not occur in free economies. ONLY the government can grant that authority.


YOU are such a beast.

.

 

[TheJedi]

How Far to the Left is Too Far?.

We are already too far.

We went too far in 1913 when the "income" tax and federal reserve board were enacted.

in 1913, Democrats were actually what today's Republicans are.....Just saying. Between the late 1800's and 1936 the parties switched platforms to make up today's current dominant parties.

 

[kaz]

How did this even become a debate? I'd really like to know who the first person was to try to argue that Hitler was left-wing.

Hippies were left-wing. Can we all agree to that? Peace and love flower children are the leftest of left-wing, agreed? Adolf Hitler was the extreme opposite of inclusive, free-love, anti-war, peaceful hippie flower children, agreed?

If peacenik hippie flower children are the extreme left-wing and Hitler is the extreme opposite of hippie flower children, then Hitler is the extreme right-wing. That's how it works.

Love or hate has nothing to do with "right" or "left" wing.

Hitler was a socialist, that's why he was left wing.

That answer is so simplistic that it might as well have been said by a three-year-old.

Explain Socialism. Hippie flower children lived in "communes". Communists. Socialists. Hippie pinko peacenik anti-war leftists.

The opposite of Hitler. That's how it works.

Well dick head, you're the three year old with the crap that Hitler hated people, that's right wing. What a douche.

Socialism is centralized economic planning. European socialism isn't hate filled. On the other hand, there are hate groups who advocate socialism like the Soviets, Hitler and the Democratic party.

The hate has nothing to do with it being socialism.

 

[kaz]

How did this even become a debate? I'd really like to know who the first person was to try to argue that Hitler was left-wing.

Hippies were left-wing. Can we all agree to that? Peace and love flower children are the leftest of left-wing, agreed? Adolf Hitler was the extreme opposite of inclusive, free-love, anti-war, peaceful hippie flower children, agreed?

If peacenik hippie flower children are the extreme left-wing and Hitler is the extreme opposite of hippie flower children, then Hitler is the extreme right-wing. That's how it works.

Love or hate has nothing to do with "right" or "left" wing.

Hitler was a socialist, that's why he was left wing.

maybe he had characteristics of both sides.... right wing views on people and left wing views on how to run the place.... and he dressed up like a chick when he was alone.....and had Goring fuck him in the ass....just saying......

What does "right wing views on people" mean?

 

[kaz]

Explain Liberalism.

Classic liberals believe in freedom and acceptance of difference.

Today, classic liberals are called libertarians.

The people who call themselves liberals today are actually authoritarian leftists. They have nothing in common with classic liberals, not in any way at all.

I know we can go back and forth on the Liberal/Libertarian/Classical Liberal; the fact is that the main root of those philosophy is Liberalism. I simply refer to myself as a Liberal, though Libertarians and I agree on many points.

What politician is referring to themselves as a Liberal these days? I do see people from George Wallace to Rush Limbaugh , as well as people who have similar mindsets, calling people they disagree with "LIBRULS!" in a disparaging manner.

On your last point, I already addressed that. They are referring to the people who call themselves liberals.

When you are advocating government say out of people's lives and let them make their own choices, you are being a liberal. When you are advocating redistribution of wealth, you are being an authoritarian leftist. There is no overlap.

 

[kaz]

How did this even become a debate? I'd really like to know who the first person was to try to argue that Hitler was left-wing.



Hippies were left-wing. Can we all agree to that? Peace and love flower children are the leftest of left-wing, agreed? Adolf Hitler was the extreme opposite of inclusive, free-love, anti-war, peaceful hippie flower children, agreed?



If peacenik hippie flower children are the extreme left-wing and Hitler is the extreme opposite of hippie flower children, then Hitler is the extreme right-wing. That's how it works.

Love or hate has nothing to do with "right" or "left" wing.



Hitler was a socialist, that's why he was left wing.

He was a fascist, not a socialist. Kind of a difference.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

There is only a slight difference. In full socialism, industry is directly owned by the government.

In fascism, industry is technically owned by individuals, but it is controlled by government. That's how it worked under Hitler. Fascism for that reason is referred to as Socialism Lite. There is no functional difference and fascism always leads to socialism.

Hitler knew it was the same, which is why his party called themselves the socialist party.

Fascism has nothing to do with hating gays or Jews. The fascists of Europe did that, but they weren't being fascists when they did it. A Democrat eating a pizza doesn't make it Democrat to eat pizza.

 

[Lovebears65]

The richest 1% of Americans have made 95% of the economic gains during Obama's time as President, proof that Socialists have taken Capitalism away from the wealthy 1% job creators.
Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Fucking idiots.

you do know there are more rich democrats then republicans.. More Democrats than Republicans on Top 10 Richest Members of Congress List | Washington Free Beacon

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

 

[jillian]

The richest 1% of Americans have made 95% of the economic gains during Obama's time as President, proof that Socialists have taken Capitalism away from the wealthy 1% job creators.
Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Fucking idiots.

you do know there are more rich democrats then republicans.. More Democrats than Republicans on Top 10 Richest Members of Congress List | Washington Free Beacon

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

the wealth doesn't matter it's what POLICIES they support. but it would actually take thought to understand that.

they ALL need money to run for office.

it's so cute watching rightwingnuts at play.

 

[Siete]

Classic liberals believe in freedom and acceptance of difference.

Today, classic liberals are called libertarians.

The people who call themselves liberals today are actually authoritarian leftists. They have nothing in common with classic liberals, not in any way at all.

I know we can go back and forth on the Liberal/Libertarian/Classical Liberal; the fact is that the main root of those philosophy is Liberalism. I simply refer to myself as a Liberal, though Libertarians and I agree on many points.

What politician is referring to themselves as a Liberal these days? I do see people from George Wallace to Rush Limbaugh , as well as people who have similar mindsets, calling people they disagree with "LIBRULS!" in a disparaging manner.

On your last point, I already addressed that. They are referring to the people who call themselves liberals.

When you are advocating government say out of people's lives and let them make their own choices, you are being a liberal. When you are advocating redistribution of wealth, you are being an authoritarian leftist. There is no overlap.

When you are advocating government say out of people's lives and let them make their own choices, you are being a liberal ...

does that mean Republicans want the Government to be in their life and make choices for them ??

 

[RKMBrown]

The left doesn't care about factual history of fascism. The left wants government to run everything and hate the Jews like the fascists did, but will still claim Nazis were right wing. Nazi......National Socialist. Deal with it. Hopefully, education will wake you up.

Just because they called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party doesn't mean they are. Their polices were all far right wing.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wrong.

This is a common mistake people make. There are millions of issues and hundreds of millions of people in this country.

For each of these million issues each individual will have particular view points. For the most part almost every single person in this country has a completely different set of view points on the issues.

On the issue of liberty over government tyranny one may prefer tyranny over liberty to secure a small amount of security. That is an authoritarian view vs. a libertarian view.

On the issue this country regarding re-distribution of income and other forms of property one may prefer marxist / communist / socialist systems over the independence and personal responsibility.

On the issue of abortion one may prefer defending a mothers right to kill her child over the child's right to burden her mother for a few months.

On the issue of religion in schools one may prefer to teach government centrist religion or Atheism over Buddhism, Judeo Christian, and Islamic beliefs, or one may hold fast to the silly belief that teachers can teach without imparting political/religious convictions in their teaching.

On the issue of drugs one may prefer to support jailing Americans who sell or consume un-proscribed drugs to ensure a monopoly on prescribed drugs for American drug companies, or one may prefer to support jailing Americans who sell or consume un-proscribed drugs and also support moving the drug enterprise to government ownership.

On the issue of wars in the middle east, one may be a war hawk, or a dove, or something in between.

On the issue of gay marriage, one may support it or not.

Either way one may vote republican or democrat and still disagree with the party they voted on for a great many of these issues. Further, even within the parties themselves there is great disagreement on the issues.

Thus this whole left vs. right thing is total bullshit. It is simply being used as a wedge to split this country in two.

 

[RKMBrown]

The richest 1% of Americans have made 95% of the economic gains during Obama's time as President, proof that Socialists have taken Capitalism away from the wealthy 1% job creators.
Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Fucking idiots.

you do know there are more rich democrats then republicans.. More Democrats than Republicans on Top 10 Richest Members of Congress List | Washington Free Beacon

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

the wealth doesn't matter it's what POLICIES they support. but it would actually take thought to understand that.

they ALL need money to run for office.

it's so cute watching rightwingnuts at play.

Wealth doesn't matter? Cool, so we can stop this whole wealth redistribution and demonizing of profit campaign of the left that is designed to collapse the upper middle class and create a marxist society with wealthy czars leading the poor working class?

 

[GreenBean]

The richest 1% of Americans have made 95% of the economic gains during Obama's time as President, proof that Socialists have taken Capitalism away from the wealthy 1% job creators.
Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Fucking idiots.

you do know there are more rich democrats then republicans.. More Democrats than Republicans on Top 10 Richest Members of Congress List | Washington Free Beacon

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

the wealth doesn't matter it's what POLICIES they support. but it would actually take thought to understand that.

they ALL need money to run for office.

it's so cute watching rightwingnuts at play.

the wealth doesn't matter it's what POLICIES they support. but it would actually take thought to understand that.

By that you must mean the policies of the New Slavery - The Welfare State ? I think you might be onto something Silly Jilly.

The New Slavery
Enslaves all equally Black and White
To this very day, a large majority of African Americans continue to support the Democratic party which continues to enslave Blacks under an increasingly sophisticated methodology. The type of slavery has changed, it was once forced servitude where now it is a slavery to handouts.

E.W. Jackson of Virginia, Black Politician, Republican Party candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, stated ...

...slavery did not destroy black families, but government welfare programs launched in the 1960s caused them to deteriorate....

Walter Williams, economist, philosopher, columnist, professor at George Mason University, and Black Republican was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal and discussed research he conducted which led him to the conclusion that the government welfare state killed the black family, not slavery or racism.

Even .... when slaves often weren't permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do,.... And that is to destroy the black family.

I think it's important for people to understand the ideas of scarcity and decision-making in everyday life so that they won't be ripped off by politicians," he says. "Politicians exploit economic illiteracy. The State Against Blacks - Wall Street Journal

........ He also found that Republicans don't respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that's not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don't respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.

It doesn't take a multivariate correlation to conclude that these two things are tightly related: If politicians care almost exclusively about the concerns of the rich, it makes sense that over the past decades they've enacted policies that have ended up benefiting the rich. And if you're not rich yourself, this is a problem. First and foremost, it's an economic problem because it's siphoned vast sums of money from the pockets of most Americans into those of the ultrawealthy. At the same time, relentless concentration of wealth and power among the rich is deeply corrosive in a democracy, and this makes it a profoundly political problem as well.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15110...andoned_the_middle_class_in_favor_of_the_rich

 

[PeoplePower]

Love or hate has nothing to do with "right" or "left" wing.



Hitler was a socialist, that's why he was left wing.

He was a fascist, not a socialist. Kind of a difference.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

There is only a slight difference. In full socialism, industry is directly owned by the government.

In fascism, industry is technically owned by individuals, but it is controlled by government. That's how it worked under Hitler. Fascism for that reason is referred to as Socialism Lite. There is no functional difference and fascism always leads to socialism.

Hitler knew it was the same, which is why his party called themselves the socialist party.

Fascism has nothing to do with hating gays or Jews. The fascists of Europe did that, but they weren't being fascists when they did it. A Democrat eating a pizza doesn't make it Democrat to eat pizza.

This is actually not true. There are
MANY differences between Fascists and Socialists. For one, fascists are nationalist, while socialists are internationalists. Fascism is militaristic, whole socialism is peace loving. Fascism is homophobic and for "traditional family values." Socialism is areligious and doesn't care about said values. Fascism believes In a super-patriotic state with one party dictatorial rule. They believe that in order for a country to prosper, it must constantly be at war. Socialism on the other hand gives all access to resources by means of a brotherhood like governor and quality.

There's also many other differences.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com