So much for Republicans being at the forefront of civil rights in the 60

[boedicca]

Again ---- actual link to this "racism" of his?

Or is this another myth-meme like "Hitler was a leftist" and "FDR caused Ebola"?

Hitler was a leftist...moron.

The Progs always try to Spin Hitler as being a "rightist".

The Nazi Party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party"...not exactly the equivalent of Free Market Capitalists and Limited Government Constitutionalists.

Just sayin'.

Ain't no "spin" needed --- this was established before we were born. Fascism is a far-right thing, always was.

The NSDAP already had the trendy term "socialist" in it when HItler joined. He objected to it but went along for its marketing power. You know, like licensing your name to a company that gouges you for personal vitamins based on a urine sample.

But if you really think the name is the essence, go look at the ingredients in a box of Grape Nuts.

/offtopic

No, it is not. Just because Progs spun it that way doesn't make it so.

The various isms of Socialism/Marxism/Commuism/Fascism etc. share a common ideology of Authoritarian control in which the individual is de facto owned by the State. That is the opposite of Individual Rights proected by Limited Government.

There is no "Authoritarian" prerequisite in either communism OR socialism. Matter of fact Hitler's first "guests" at Dachau were exactly that element.

Sorry, there's too much known history to rewrite this whole thing. But go ahead and essplain to the class how "democratic" the German Democratic Republic was because hey ---- it's in the name.

"I went to a concert but when it started I walked out".

"Why?"

"The band was Ten Thousand Maniacs but 99,994 of them didn't show up".

You are just flat out wrong, but I admire your determination to be so.

 

[Pogo]

Hitler was a leftist...moron.

The Progs always try to Spin Hitler as being a "rightist".

The Nazi Party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party"...not exactly the equivalent of Free Market Capitalists and Limited Government Constitutionalists.

Just sayin'.

Ain't no "spin" needed --- this was established before we were born. Fascism is a far-right thing, always was.

The NSDAP already had the trendy term "socialist" in it when HItler joined. He objected to it but went along for its marketing power. You know, like licensing your name to a company that gouges you for personal vitamins based on a urine sample.

But if you really think the name is the essence, go look at the ingredients in a box of Grape Nuts.

/offtopic

No, it is not. Just because Progs spun it that way doesn't make it so.

The various isms of Socialism/Marxism/Commuism/Fascism etc. share a common ideology of Authoritarian control in which the individual is de facto owned by the State. That is the opposite of Individual Rights proected by Limited Government.

There is no "Authoritarian" prerequisite in either communism OR socialism. Matter of fact Hitler's first "guests" at Dachau were exactly that element.

Sorry, there's too much known history to rewrite this whole thing. But go ahead and essplain to the class how "democratic" the German Democratic Republic was because hey ---- it's in the name.

"I went to a concert but when it started I walked out".

"Why?"

"The band was Ten Thousand Maniacs but 99,994 of them didn't show up".

Yeah....except the Socialist, in national socialist, was real....the government controlled every aspect of the economy .......so go ahead and keep trying to protect socialism from it's mass murdering truth....

Socialism is an economic framework Dumbo. It's got zero to do with "murder", mass or otherwise. That would be "authoritarianism".

 

[boedicca]

Hitler was a leftist...moron.

The Progs always try to Spin Hitler as being a "rightist".

The Nazi Party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party"...not exactly the equivalent of Free Market Capitalists and Limited Government Constitutionalists.

Just sayin'.

Ain't no "spin" needed --- this was established before we were born. Fascism is a far-right thing, always was.

The NSDAP already had the trendy term "socialist" in it when HItler joined. He objected to it but went along for its marketing power. You know, like licensing your name to a company that gouges you for personal vitamins based on a urine sample.

But if you really think the name is the essence, go look at the ingredients in a box of Grape Nuts.

/offtopic

No, it is not. Just because Progs spun it that way doesn't make it so.

The various isms of Socialism/Marxism/Commuism/Fascism etc. share a common ideology of Authoritarian control in which the individual is de facto owned by the State. That is the opposite of Individual Rights proected by Limited Government.

There is no "Authoritarian" prerequisite in either communism OR socialism. Matter of fact Hitler's first "guests" at Dachau were exactly that element.

Sorry, there's too much known history to rewrite this whole thing. But go ahead and essplain to the class how "democratic" the German Democratic Republic was because hey ---- it's in the name.

Yeah....except the Socialist, in national socialist, was real....the government controlled every aspect of the economy .......so go ahead and keep trying to protect socialism from it's mass murdering truth....

The history is pretty telling. All the Authoritarianisms are incredibly lethal to their subject populations.

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

 

[2aguy]

The Progs always try to Spin Hitler as being a "rightist".

The Nazi Party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party"...not exactly the equivalent of Free Market Capitalists and Limited Government Constitutionalists.

Just sayin'.

Ain't no "spin" needed --- this was established before we were born. Fascism is a far-right thing, always was.

The NSDAP already had the trendy term "socialist" in it when HItler joined. He objected to it but went along for its marketing power. You know, like licensing your name to a company that gouges you for personal vitamins based on a urine sample.

But if you really think the name is the essence, go look at the ingredients in a box of Grape Nuts.

/offtopic

No, it is not. Just because Progs spun it that way doesn't make it so.

The various isms of Socialism/Marxism/Commuism/Fascism etc. share a common ideology of Authoritarian control in which the individual is de facto owned by the State. That is the opposite of Individual Rights proected by Limited Government.

There is no "Authoritarian" prerequisite in either communism OR socialism. Matter of fact Hitler's first "guests" at Dachau were exactly that element.

Sorry, there's too much known history to rewrite this whole thing. But go ahead and essplain to the class how "democratic" the German Democratic Republic was because hey ---- it's in the name.

Yeah....except the Socialist, in national socialist, was real....the government controlled every aspect of the economy .......so go ahead and keep trying to protect socialism from it's mass murdering truth....

Socialism is an economic framework Dumbo. It's got zero to do with "murder", mass or otherwise. That would be "authoritarianism".

Socialists have murdered close to 100 million people.....the concentration of power over the means of production, socialism....allows evil people to murder.....and the socialists have done it since 1917.........

Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative)

Mussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.

Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.

To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).

I’ve read Hitler’s Mein Kampf (all online here) and can quote the following from Volume 2:

Chapter VII:

In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist] meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water.


Chapter 4:

The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life. 



If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.

Chapter XII:

The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.


Some other quotes:

Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930:

I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.


On this, see Alan Bullock, Hitler: a Study in Tyranny, pp.156-7; and Graham L. Strachan “MANUFACTURED REALITY: THE ‘THIRD WAY’”

Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian, said:

We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.


F.A. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom (p. 168) said:

The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. …. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine

 

[boedicca]

The Progs always try to Spin Hitler as being a "rightist".

The Nazi Party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party"...not exactly the equivalent of Free Market Capitalists and Limited Government Constitutionalists.

Just sayin'.

Ain't no "spin" needed --- this was established before we were born. Fascism is a far-right thing, always was.

The NSDAP already had the trendy term "socialist" in it when HItler joined. He objected to it but went along for its marketing power. You know, like licensing your name to a company that gouges you for personal vitamins based on a urine sample.

But if you really think the name is the essence, go look at the ingredients in a box of Grape Nuts.

/offtopic

No, it is not. Just because Progs spun it that way doesn't make it so.

The various isms of Socialism/Marxism/Commuism/Fascism etc. share a common ideology of Authoritarian control in which the individual is de facto owned by the State. That is the opposite of Individual Rights proected by Limited Government.

There is no "Authoritarian" prerequisite in either communism OR socialism. Matter of fact Hitler's first "guests" at Dachau were exactly that element.

Sorry, there's too much known history to rewrite this whole thing. But go ahead and essplain to the class how "democratic" the German Democratic Republic was because hey ---- it's in the name.

Yeah....except the Socialist, in national socialist, was real....the government controlled every aspect of the economy .......so go ahead and keep trying to protect socialism from it's mass murdering truth....

Socialism is an economic framework Dumbo. It's got zero to do with "murder", mass or otherwise. That would be "authoritarianism".

B'loney. Socialism cannot work without authoritarian political structures.

 

[Avatar4321]

Is this your way of denying the fact it was Democrats that were the villains of the civil rights movement in the '60s?

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Lyndon Johnson LED the civil rights movement of the 60's. Barry Goldwater LED the opposition to it.

Johnson's opposition to civil rights is the only reason it happened in the 60s rather than the 50s he lead the filibuster blocking it for years. And his policies alone are responsible for the decimation of black families and the blight in inner cities throughout the nation.

Johnson is so evil he makes trump look like a child boy.

 

[Pogo]

Ain't no "spin" needed --- this was established before we were born. Fascism is a far-right thing, always was.

The NSDAP already had the trendy term "socialist" in it when HItler joined. He objected to it but went along for its marketing power. You know, like licensing your name to a company that gouges you for personal vitamins based on a urine sample.

But if you really think the name is the essence, go look at the ingredients in a box of Grape Nuts.

/offtopic

No, it is not. Just because Progs spun it that way doesn't make it so.

The various isms of Socialism/Marxism/Commuism/Fascism etc. share a common ideology of Authoritarian control in which the individual is de facto owned by the State. That is the opposite of Individual Rights proected by Limited Government.

There is no "Authoritarian" prerequisite in either communism OR socialism. Matter of fact Hitler's first "guests" at Dachau were exactly that element.

Sorry, there's too much known history to rewrite this whole thing. But go ahead and essplain to the class how "democratic" the German Democratic Republic was because hey ---- it's in the name.

"I went to a concert but when it started I walked out".

"Why?"

"The band was Ten Thousand Maniacs but 99,994 of them didn't show up".

Yeah....except the Socialist, in national socialist, was real....the government controlled every aspect of the economy .......so go ahead and keep trying to protect socialism from it's mass murdering truth....

Socialism is an economic framework Dumbo. It's got zero to do with "murder", mass or otherwise. That would be "authoritarianism".

Socialists have murdered close to 100 million people.....the concentration of power over the means of production, socialism....allows evil people to murder.....and the socialists have done it since 1917.........

Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative)

No Spunkles, authoritarianism is what's killed and enslaved and coerced people. I don't see Denmark committing mass murder.

Dumbass.

/offtopic

 

[Pogo]

Ain't no "spin" needed --- this was established before we were born. Fascism is a far-right thing, always was.

The NSDAP already had the trendy term "socialist" in it when HItler joined. He objected to it but went along for its marketing power. You know, like licensing your name to a company that gouges you for personal vitamins based on a urine sample.

But if you really think the name is the essence, go look at the ingredients in a box of Grape Nuts.

/offtopic

No, it is not. Just because Progs spun it that way doesn't make it so.

The various isms of Socialism/Marxism/Commuism/Fascism etc. share a common ideology of Authoritarian control in which the individual is de facto owned by the State. That is the opposite of Individual Rights proected by Limited Government.

There is no "Authoritarian" prerequisite in either communism OR socialism. Matter of fact Hitler's first "guests" at Dachau were exactly that element.

Sorry, there's too much known history to rewrite this whole thing. But go ahead and essplain to the class how "democratic" the German Democratic Republic was because hey ---- it's in the name.

Yeah....except the Socialist, in national socialist, was real....the government controlled every aspect of the economy .......so go ahead and keep trying to protect socialism from it's mass murdering truth....

Socialism is an economic framework Dumbo. It's got zero to do with "murder", mass or otherwise. That would be "authoritarianism".

B'loney. Socialism cannot work without authoritarian political structures.

Yuh huh. Who's the Führer of Denmark then?

 

[Pogo]

Is this your way of denying the fact it was Democrats that were the villains of the civil rights movement in the '60s?

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Lyndon Johnson LED the civil rights movement of the 60's. Barry Goldwater LED the opposition to it.

Johnson's opposition to civil rights is the only reason it happened in the 60s rather than the 50s he lead the filibuster blocking it for years. And his policies alone are responsible for the decimation of black families and the blight in inner cities throughout the nation.

Johnson is so evil he makes trump look like a child boy.

When did LBJ lead a filibuster?
I know he killed one in 1964 and had killed another in 1957 as Senate Majority Leader, for which he earned the enmity of the Southern PTB. I'm not aware of one he "led a filibuster" on.

 

[2aguy]

No, it is not. Just because Progs spun it that way doesn't make it so.

The various isms of Socialism/Marxism/Commuism/Fascism etc. share a common ideology of Authoritarian control in which the individual is de facto owned by the State. That is the opposite of Individual Rights proected by Limited Government.

There is no "Authoritarian" prerequisite in either communism OR socialism. Matter of fact Hitler's first "guests" at Dachau were exactly that element.

Sorry, there's too much known history to rewrite this whole thing. But go ahead and essplain to the class how "democratic" the German Democratic Republic was because hey ---- it's in the name.

Yeah....except the Socialist, in national socialist, was real....the government controlled every aspect of the economy .......so go ahead and keep trying to protect socialism from it's mass murdering truth....

Socialism is an economic framework Dumbo. It's got zero to do with "murder", mass or otherwise. That would be "authoritarianism".

B'loney. Socialism cannot work without authoritarian political structures.

Yuh huh. Who's the Führer of Denmark then?

Moron....

Denmark: Not As Socialist (Nor As Successful) As You Think

Next, some perspective. Denmark still qualifies as a market economy today despite its high taxes and large welfare state for a number of important reasons. As Brøns-Petersen points out, property rights are well-protected, the currency is sound, international trade is relatively free, and the regulation of business, labour, and credit is light. There are few restrictions on hiring and firing, there's no legislated minimum wage, and taxpayers are not called upon to bail out their banks.

 

[Bush92]

Donald Trump, the new leader of the Republican Party, vilifying John Lewis, a black man who actually fought for civil rights in the 60's.

So you can't criticized him after his inane comments because he was part Civil Rights Movement? How did his big loudmouth ass get that immunity?

Trump believes Obama was not a legitimate president. Lewis believes Trump is not legitimate.

Go ahead. Say they're both full of shit.

Where did trump claim Obama was illegitimate?

Uh -- HELLO ... have you been sleeping under a rock?

---- or is this now an "unevent" that never happened and has since been condemned to the Memory Hole, which of course has never existed?

I saw a "Certificate of Live Birth" but no "birth certificate " from a hospital.

 

[boedicca]

No, it is not. Just because Progs spun it that way doesn't make it so.

The various isms of Socialism/Marxism/Commuism/Fascism etc. share a common ideology of Authoritarian control in which the individual is de facto owned by the State. That is the opposite of Individual Rights proected by Limited Government.

There is no "Authoritarian" prerequisite in either communism OR socialism. Matter of fact Hitler's first "guests" at Dachau were exactly that element.

Sorry, there's too much known history to rewrite this whole thing. But go ahead and essplain to the class how "democratic" the German Democratic Republic was because hey ---- it's in the name.

Yeah....except the Socialist, in national socialist, was real....the government controlled every aspect of the economy .......so go ahead and keep trying to protect socialism from it's mass murdering truth....

Socialism is an economic framework Dumbo. It's got zero to do with "murder", mass or otherwise. That would be "authoritarianism".

B'loney. Socialism cannot work without authoritarian political structures.

Yuh huh. Who's the Führer of Denmark then?

The government has a lot of controls on individual behavior (just try owning a car as an average citizen). Soft authoritarianism is still Authoritarism.

 

[Pogo]

I'm like the foreman on a ditch digging crew.

 

[mudwhistle]

Donald Trump, the new leader of the Republican Party, vilifying John Lewis, a black man who actually fought for civil rights in the 60's.

I guess John Lewis gets a pass on being an asshole for the rest of his life.

So, he marched with MLK 56 years ago and that means it's okay for him to encourage people to murder cops and burn down businesses?

 

[paperview]

This is a good day for this quote:

"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.

All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The "best man" at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

....

On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist.
His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand" -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Donald Trump, the new leader of the Republican Party, vilifying John Lewis, a black man who actually fought for civil rights in the 60's.

So because democrats beat him fifty years ago in their fight against civil rights, no one can respond yo him when he attacks them?

And what exactly about trumps response villified anyone?

If you're grandfather was a serial killer, are you responsible for his crimes?

 

[Pogo]

Donald Trump, the new leader of the Republican Party, vilifying John Lewis, a black man who actually fought for civil rights in the 60's.

I guess John Lewis gets a pass on being an asshole for the rest of his life.

So, he marched with MLK 56 years ago and that means it's okay for him to encourage people to murder cops and burn down businesses?

Once AGAIN ------------------------- link?

How exactly do y'all live in this bubble? I mean how do you even GET INTO a Bubble? It can't have a door --- there's nothing to screw hinges on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Donald Trump, the new leader of the Republican Party, vilifying John Lewis, a black man who actually fought for civil rights in the 60's.

I guess John Lewis gets a pass on being an asshole for the rest of his life.

So, he marched with MLK 56 years ago and that means it's okay for him to encourage people to murder cops and burn down businesses?

He said he didn't think Trump was legitimate. That's the same thing Trump said about Obama.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Donald Trump, the new leader of the Republican Party, vilifying John Lewis, a black man who actually fought for civil rights in the 60's.

So what does him fighting for civil rights have to do with this controversy?

I don't recall Trump posting anything against civil rights.....please share

 

[buckeye45_73]

Donald Trump, the new leader of the Republican Party, vilifying John Lewis, a black man who actually fought for civil rights in the 60's.

This:

View attachment 106878

When Trump gets beaten up fighting for civil rights, get back to us.

Same standard should apply to you.....so go fuck yourself......

And getting your ass beaten for a cause does not make you immune to criticism.