Lets discuss why the left wingers never say anything about derogatory about commie tyrants.

[Moonglow]

You have things kind of fucked up here. What usually happens is that some jackass will compare some democratic politician or policy to one of history's great villains and then we will make fun of you for being stupid. You want to make a topic specifically about these figures then you will probably get the desired response.

But trump really is like hitler, isnt he?

They both had bad hairdos...

 

[Mac1958]

Good gawd.

Hitler & the Nazis were their own specific kind of evil.

This stuff is so silly.
.

 

[Moonglow]

You have things kind of fucked up here. What usually happens is that some jackass will compare some democratic politician or policy to one of history's great villains and then we will make fun of you for being stupid. You want to make a topic specifically about these figures then you will probably get the desired response.

Both ends of the spectrum compare the other to Hitler and/or the Nazis pretty regularly here.

That's about as big an insult to millions who suffered as it can get.

The two ends of the spectrum are very similar in that way, and in other ways.
.

Says the partisan hack.

Hitler was a socialist. That is a fact. Oh, that for some mysterious reason, offends the left. They get batshit crazy about that claim.

I wonder they get so offended by anyone reporting that FACT. Any theories?

If Hitler was a socialist, why was one of the first things he did was locking up socialists?

Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist? Debunking a Historical Myth

Fascism is just a national version of socialism. A sub-group, if you will.

So is a democratic monarchy..

 

[bripat9643]

You have things kind of fucked up here. What usually happens is that some jackass will compare some democratic politician or policy to one of history's great villains and then we will make fun of you for being stupid. You want to make a topic specifically about these figures then you will probably get the desired response.

Both ends of the spectrum compare the other to Hitler and/or the Nazis pretty regularly here.

That's about as big an insult to millions who suffered as it can get.

The two ends of the spectrum are very similar in that way, and in other ways.
.

I hardly ever make direct comparisons to Hitler, because it's stupid, but I do call out fascism when I see it because the potential is there in any movement built on fear and loathing.

You obviously don't call it out because you post it regularly.

 

[Theowl32]

Lol, yeap. They are pissed and of course deny hitler was a socialist.

Poor little left wingers.

 

[bripat9643]

Lol, yeap. They are pissed and of course deny hitler was a socialist.

Poor little left wingers.

If they admit Hitler was a socialist, then they are admitting that all the major mass murderers of the 20th Century were socialists.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Lol, yeap. They are pissed and of course deny hitler was a socialist.

Poor little left wingers.

I'm not a liberal. I am a conservative. And this "Hitler was a socialist" argument is so unbelievably ahistorical (to use a word currently in vogue in DC), it's hilarious. The arguments I've seen people make to back this up begin with the "National Socialist" moniker and end with stuff like Hitler's statements that he was just the voice of the people. My goodness, President Trump calls himself a "Republican" but isn't. He says he is just the voice of the people too. But he is as far from a Nazi as you can get, despite some totalitarian tendencies.

Anyone who makes this "the Nazis were socialists" should read some books.

 

[bripat9643]

Lol, yeap. They are pissed and of course deny hitler was a socialist.

Poor little left wingers.

I'm not a liberal. I am a conservative. And this "Hitler was a socialist" argument is so unbelievably ahistorical (to use a word currently in vogue in DC), it's hilarious. The arguments I've seen people make to back this up begin with the "National Socialist" moniker and end with stuff like Hitler's statements that he was just the voice of the people. My goodness, President Trump calls himself a "Republican" but isn't. He says he is just the voice of the people too. But he is as far from a Nazi as you can get, despite some totalitarian tendencies.

Anyone who makes this "the Nazis were socialists" should read some books.

What total bullshit. The argument that Hitler was a socialist is pure economics.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Lol, yeap. They are pissed and of course deny hitler was a socialist.

Poor little left wingers.

I'm not a liberal. I am a conservative. And this "Hitler was a socialist" argument is so unbelievably ahistorical (to use a word currently in vogue in DC), it's hilarious. The arguments I've seen people make to back this up begin with the "National Socialist" moniker and end with stuff like Hitler's statements that he was just the voice of the people. My goodness, President Trump calls himself a "Republican" but isn't. He says he is just the voice of the people too. But he is as far from a Nazi as you can get, despite some totalitarian tendencies.

Anyone who makes this "the Nazis were socialists" should read some books.

What total bullshit. The argument that Hitler was a socialist is pure economics.

Read some books.

 

[bripat9643]

Lol, yeap. They are pissed and of course deny hitler was a socialist.

Poor little left wingers.

I'm not a liberal. I am a conservative. And this "Hitler was a socialist" argument is so unbelievably ahistorical (to use a word currently in vogue in DC), it's hilarious. The arguments I've seen people make to back this up begin with the "National Socialist" moniker and end with stuff like Hitler's statements that he was just the voice of the people. My goodness, President Trump calls himself a "Republican" but isn't. He says he is just the voice of the people too. But he is as far from a Nazi as you can get, despite some totalitarian tendencies.

Anyone who makes this "the Nazis were socialists" should read some books.

What total bullshit. The argument that Hitler was a socialist is pure economics.

Read some books.

I've read tons of them on this subject alone. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. That much is plain.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Lol, yeap. They are pissed and of course deny hitler was a socialist.

Poor little left wingers.

I'm not a liberal. I am a conservative. And this "Hitler was a socialist" argument is so unbelievably ahistorical (to use a word currently in vogue in DC), it's hilarious. The arguments I've seen people make to back this up begin with the "National Socialist" moniker and end with stuff like Hitler's statements that he was just the voice of the people. My goodness, President Trump calls himself a "Republican" but isn't. He says he is just the voice of the people too. But he is as far from a Nazi as you can get, despite some totalitarian tendencies.

Anyone who makes this "the Nazis were socialists" should read some books.

What total bullshit. The argument that Hitler was a socialist is pure economics.

Read some books.

I've read tons of them on this subject alone. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. That much is plain.

Read some better books.

 

[bripat9643]

Lol, yeap. They are pissed and of course deny hitler was a socialist.

Poor little left wingers.

I'm not a liberal. I am a conservative. And this "Hitler was a socialist" argument is so unbelievably ahistorical (to use a word currently in vogue in DC), it's hilarious. The arguments I've seen people make to back this up begin with the "National Socialist" moniker and end with stuff like Hitler's statements that he was just the voice of the people. My goodness, President Trump calls himself a "Republican" but isn't. He says he is just the voice of the people too. But he is as far from a Nazi as you can get, despite some totalitarian tendencies.

Anyone who makes this "the Nazis were socialists" should read some books.

What total bullshit. The argument that Hitler was a socialist is pure economics.

Read some books.

I've read tons of them on this subject alone. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. That much is plain.

Read some better books.

I am reading the better books, numskull. You obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[EverCurious]

Related reading -

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

 

[Dim Bulb]

I'm not a liberal. I am a conservative. And this "Hitler was a socialist" argument is so unbelievably ahistorical (to use a word currently in vogue in DC), it's hilarious. The arguments I've seen people make to back this up begin with the "National Socialist" moniker and end with stuff like Hitler's statements that he was just the voice of the people. My goodness, President Trump calls himself a "Republican" but isn't. He says he is just the voice of the people too. But he is as far from a Nazi as you can get, despite some totalitarian tendencies.

Anyone who makes this "the Nazis were socialists" should read some books.

What total bullshit. The argument that Hitler was a socialist is pure economics.

Read some books.

I've read tons of them on this subject alone. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. That much is plain.

Read some better books.

I am reading the better books, numskull. You obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

I think it's "numbskull" isn't it?

 

[bripat9643]

What total bullshit. The argument that Hitler was a socialist is pure economics.

Read some books.

I've read tons of them on this subject alone. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. That much is plain.

Read some better books.

I am reading the better books, numskull. You obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

I think it's "numbskull" isn't it?

It can be spelled both ways.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Related reading -

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

Mises. QED.

 

[bripat9643]

Related reading -

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

Mises. QED.

What part of this didn't you understand?

"The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership."​

 

[Dim Bulb]

Read some books.

I've read tons of them on this subject alone. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. That much is plain.

Read some better books.

I am reading the better books, numskull. You obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

I think it's "numbskull" isn't it?

It can be spelled both ways.

I didn't know that. I'd also like to say that this post by you is one of the few I've seen you make without hurling a personal insult of some kind. Well done! Keep it up!

 

[Avatar4321]

Putin

 

[IsaacNewton]

I do have so many of them on ignore. Ever notice how they don't or they always qualify their statements if they do criticize them. Ever hear or see them rail against that stupid slope in North Korea? How fidel? How about stalin? Ever hear them criticize Pol Pot or Mao? Neither have I.

Oh, but Bush, or Trump, or Thomas Jefferson (he owned slaves), or George Washington (he owned slaves), or any perceived white American conservative republican, well they don't shut the fuck up do they?

But mass murdering commie tyrants......they tap dance gingerly around the criticism. Nothing derogatory. Nothing insulting. Nothing.

What does that mean to you?

Commie tyrant number one, Ronald Reagan. An absolute criminal who had 130 of his administration charged/indicted/convicted of crimes while in office. Reagan used the Constitution as toilet paper and was guilty of high crimes and should still be in prison.

Mentioned.