What does the current iteration of conservatives have in common with fascism?

[Agit8r]

...the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

It's like Adolph Hitler was the 20th century version of George Bush!

Except for the whole Holocaust thing...

Wait, didn't Bush nationalize airport security?

The Iraqi people would disagree.

Factually it was Congress that created TSA.

And Bush signed it.

 

[The Rabbi]

...the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

It's like Adolph Hitler was the 20th century version of George Bush!

Except for the whole Holocaust thing...

Wait, didn't Bush nationalize airport security?

Yeah, he did. He also created more govt, HS. O came along after that and nationalized healthcare. Theyre both doucheheads.

And there is the whole subsidized airline insurance that started around that same time. And the Freddie and Fannie stuff...

Suffice to say that Bush isn't right wing enough for today's "conservatives"

Bush wasn't a conservative. That's been proven over and over.

 

[Agit8r]

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

It's like Adolph Hitler was the 20th century version of George Bush!

Except for the whole Holocaust thing...

Wait, didn't Bush nationalize airport security?

Yeah, he did. He also created more govt, HS. O came along after that and nationalized healthcare. Theyre both doucheheads.

And there is the whole subsidized airline insurance that started around that same time. And the Freddie and Fannie stuff...

Suffice to say that Bush isn't right wing enough for today's "conservatives"

Bush wasn't a conservative. That's been proven over and over.

So why bring him up?

 

[The Rabbi]

...the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

It's like Adolph Hitler was the 20th century version of George Bush!

Except for the whole Holocaust thing...

Wait, didn't Bush nationalize airport security?

The Iraqi people would disagree.

Factually it was Congress that created TSA.

And Bush signed it.

So?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's like Adolph Hitler was the 20th century version of George Bush!

Except for the whole Holocaust thing...

Wait, didn't Bush nationalize airport security?

Yeah, he did. He also created more govt, HS. O came along after that and nationalized healthcare. Theyre both doucheheads.

And there is the whole subsidized airline insurance that started around that same time. And the Freddie and Fannie stuff...

Suffice to say that Bush isn't right wing enough for today's "conservatives"

Bush wasn't a conservative. That's been proven over and over.

So why bring him up?

To demonstrate your stupidity and ignorance.
My work here is done.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah, he did. He also created more govt, HS. O came along after that and nationalized healthcare. Theyre both doucheheads.

In the Bolshevik mind, you oppose Obama, hence you are required to defend Bush. It's binary thinking. There are party members and infidels. All infidels are Republicans, all Republicans support Dubya.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Iraqi people would disagree.

Factually it was Congress that created TSA.

When has Agit8ter ever concerned himself with facts?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Iraqi people would disagree.

Factually it was Congress that created TSA.

When has Agit8ter ever concerned himself with facts?

"Fact" to him is whatever supports his idea. "Lie" is whatever doesn't.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I like the definition I found in the title. It was called national socialism.

A concern about national defense? Seriosly. I don't know any country who isn't concerned about their national defense. The fact that Donald wants to depart from the role of defending other countries then I would say that the fact you used to base you conclusion on is totally bogus to begin with.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Some bullet points to consider:

• Powerful and Continuing Expressions of Nationalism
• Disdain for the Importance of Human Rights
• Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
• The Supremacy of the Military/Avid Militarism
• Rampant Sexism
• A Controlled Mass Media
• Obsession with National Security
• Religion and Ruling Elite Tied Together
• Power of Corporations Protected
• Power of Labor Suppressed or Eliminated
• Disdain and Suppression of Intellectuals and the Arts
• Obsession with Crime and Punishment
• Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
• Fraudulent Elections

What is Fascism?

Thanks to "Jim Bowie" for his suggestion that this post on a different thread be posted on its own. Now, I fully expect many responses will be ad hominem insults, idiot-grams and emoticons, and no actual effort to rebut the argument that the conservative movement has devolved into fascism.

It is obvious it has, and putting a flashlight on it is necessary to get some who support those whose rhetoric is framed by the bullet points to actually think.

Fascism is a branch of socialism, so tthe point to ponder should have been

What does the current iteration of the demopublicans have in common with fascism?


While it is true that German Fascism was racist neither Japan nor Italy were.


.

Echoing revised history doesn't make it true, though repeating lies does convince those Linclon described as those who can be fooled all of the time. The question now is this, are you one of those fools, or are you simply ignorant and echo whatever the current propaganda memo the right wing issues?

 

[Wry Catcher]

...the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

It's like Adolph Hitler was the 20th century version of George Bush!

Except for the whole Holocaust thing...

Wait, didn't Bush nationalize airport security?

Yeah, he did. He also created more govt, HS. O came along after that and nationalized healthcare. Theyre both doucheheads.

Nationalized healthcare? How did you come to this foolish conclusion?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

...the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

It's like Adolph Hitler was the 20th century version of George Bush!

Except for the whole Holocaust thing...

Wait, didn't Bush nationalize airport security?

Yeah, he did. He also created more govt, HS. O came along after that and nationalized healthcare. Theyre both doucheheads.

Nationalized healthcare? How did you come to this foolish conclusion?

Seriously? That is the end goal of this current bunch of loonbats currently occupying the white house. Please just scurry along. I feel sorry for your ineptitude.

 

[Wry Catcher]

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

It's like Adolph Hitler was the 20th century version of George Bush!

Except for the whole Holocaust thing...

Wait, didn't Bush nationalize airport security?

Yeah, he did. He also created more govt, HS. O came along after that and nationalized healthcare. Theyre both doucheheads.

Nationalized healthcare? How did you come to this foolish conclusion?

Seriously? That is the end goal of this current bunch of loonbats currently occupying the white house. Please just scurry along. I feel sorry for your ineptitude.

What evidence do you have which you believe is credible and proved your conclusion (end goal is to nationalize healthcare0. Do you know what the Nationalization of an industry entails?

Nationalization refers to the process of a government taking control of a company or industry, which can occur for a variety of reasons. When nationalization occurs, the former owners of the companies may or may not be compensated for their loss in net worth and potential income.

Nationalization is most common in developing countries subject to frequent leadership and regime changes. In these instances, nationalization is often a way for a government to expand its economic resources and power.

The opposite of nationalization is privatization, when government-owned companies are spun off into the private business sector.

See: Nationalization Definition | Investopedia

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It's like Adolph Hitler was the 20th century version of George Bush!

Except for the whole Holocaust thing...

Wait, didn't Bush nationalize airport security?

Yeah, he did. He also created more govt, HS. O came along after that and nationalized healthcare. Theyre both doucheheads.

Nationalized healthcare? How did you come to this foolish conclusion?

Seriously? That is the end goal of this current bunch of loonbats currently occupying the white house. Please just scurry along. I feel sorry for your ineptitude.

What evidence do you have which you believe is credible and proved your conclusion (end goal is to nationalize healthcare0. Do you know what the Nationalization of an industry entails?

Nationalization refers to the process of a government taking control of a company or industry, which can occur for a variety of reasons. When nationalization occurs, the former owners of the companies may or may not be compensated for their loss in net worth and potential income.

Nationalization is most common in developing countries subject to frequent leadership and regime changes. In these instances, nationalization is often a way for a government to expand its economic resources and power.

The opposite of nationalization is privatization, when government-owned companies are spun off into the private business sector.

See: Nationalization Definition | Investopedia

Once we establish enough rules for industries and create rules that force them to do the government's will then what is the difference between that and having and government owned industry that happens to do the same thing?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Except for the whole Holocaust thing...

Wait, didn't Bush nationalize airport security?

Yeah, he did. He also created more govt, HS. O came along after that and nationalized healthcare. Theyre both doucheheads.

Nationalized healthcare? How did you come to this foolish conclusion?

Seriously? That is the end goal of this current bunch of loonbats currently occupying the white house. Please just scurry along. I feel sorry for your ineptitude.

What evidence do you have which you believe is credible and proved your conclusion (end goal is to nationalize healthcare0. Do you know what the Nationalization of an industry entails?

Nationalization refers to the process of a government taking control of a company or industry, which can occur for a variety of reasons. When nationalization occurs, the former owners of the companies may or may not be compensated for their loss in net worth and potential income.

Nationalization is most common in developing countries subject to frequent leadership and regime changes. In these instances, nationalization is often a way for a government to expand its economic resources and power.

The opposite of nationalization is privatization, when government-owned companies are spun off into the private business sector.

See: Nationalization Definition | Investopedia

Once we establish enough rules for industries and create rules that force them to do the government's will then what is the difference between that and having and government owned industry that happens to do the same thing?

First consider this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Now, consider industry without controls, where every industry and business can operate without external rules and regulations. Dosa that make sense to you? No rules to regulate the disposal of chemicals, garbage, no zoning laws, no rules / regulation on polluting the air, water or soil.

How would you feel if a fish monger open his market in a home next to yours? Who buried the guts of fish cleaned in his backyard, adjacent to yours? Would that have an impact on your Rights?

Now, consider this:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"

The words written by Jefferson in the DoI clearly should give you pause to think about the ideology you seem to advocate. IMO there is no need to alter or abolish are system of government, especially because we can and have changed the course of governance by free, open and regular elections. Only by suppression of the Right to vote can one consider any iteration of governance becomes destructive to those ends.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's like Adolph Hitler was the 20th century version of George Bush!

Except for the whole Holocaust thing...

Wait, didn't Bush nationalize airport security?

Yeah, he did. He also created more govt, HS. O came along after that and nationalized healthcare. Theyre both doucheheads.

Nationalized healthcare? How did you come to this foolish conclusion?

Seriously? That is the end goal of this current bunch of loonbats currently occupying the white house. Please just scurry along. I feel sorry for your ineptitude.

What evidence do you have which you believe is credible and proved your conclusion (end goal is to nationalize healthcare0. Do you know what the Nationalization of an industry entails?

Barney Frank said he favoted single payer but didnt have the votes.
Barack Obama said he favored single payer.
Bernie Sanders favors single payer.
These people are mainstream in the Democratic Party so their views are widely shared. Single payer is the goal. Clearly.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, he did. He also created more govt, HS. O came along after that and nationalized healthcare. Theyre both doucheheads.

Nationalized healthcare? How did you come to this foolish conclusion?

Seriously? That is the end goal of this current bunch of loonbats currently occupying the white house. Please just scurry along. I feel sorry for your ineptitude.

What evidence do you have which you believe is credible and proved your conclusion (end goal is to nationalize healthcare0. Do you know what the Nationalization of an industry entails?

Nationalization refers to the process of a government taking control of a company or industry, which can occur for a variety of reasons. When nationalization occurs, the former owners of the companies may or may not be compensated for their loss in net worth and potential income.

Nationalization is most common in developing countries subject to frequent leadership and regime changes. In these instances, nationalization is often a way for a government to expand its economic resources and power.

The opposite of nationalization is privatization, when government-owned companies are spun off into the private business sector.

See: Nationalization Definition | Investopedia

Once we establish enough rules for industries and create rules that force them to do the government's will then what is the difference between that and having and government owned industry that happens to do the same thing?

First consider this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Now, consider industry without controls, where every industry and business can operate without external rules and regulations. Dosa that make sense to you? No rules to regulate the disposal of chemicals, garbage, no zoning laws, no rules / regulation on polluting the air, water or soil.

How would you feel if a fish monger open his market in a home next to yours? Who buried the guts of fish cleaned in his backyard, adjacent to yours? Would that have an impact on your Rights?

Now, consider this:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"

The words written by Jefferson in the DoI clearly should give you pause to think about the ideology you seem to advocate. IMO there is no need to alter or abolish are system of government, especially because we can and have changed the course of governance by free, open and regular elections. Only by suppression of the Right to vote can one consider any iteration of governance becomes destructive to those ends.

You seem unclear on the concept of property rights.

 

[Agit8r]

Except for the whole Holocaust thing...

Wait, didn't Bush nationalize airport security?

Yeah, he did. He also created more govt, HS. O came along after that and nationalized healthcare. Theyre both doucheheads.

Nationalized healthcare? How did you come to this foolish conclusion?

Seriously? That is the end goal of this current bunch of loonbats currently occupying the white house. Please just scurry along. I feel sorry for your ineptitude.

What evidence do you have which you believe is credible and proved your conclusion (end goal is to nationalize healthcare0. Do you know what the Nationalization of an industry entails?

Barney Frank said he favoted single payer but didnt have the votes.
Barack Obama said he favored single payer.
Bernie Sanders favors single payer.
These people are mainstream in the Democratic Party so their views are widely shared. Single payer is the goal. Clearly.

The argument comes down to semantic; whether single payer is technically nationalizing the industry, or not.

 

[Agit8r]

Nationalized healthcare? How did you come to this foolish conclusion?

Seriously? That is the end goal of this current bunch of loonbats currently occupying the white house. Please just scurry along. I feel sorry for your ineptitude.

What evidence do you have which you believe is credible and proved your conclusion (end goal is to nationalize healthcare0. Do you know what the Nationalization of an industry entails?

Nationalization refers to the process of a government taking control of a company or industry, which can occur for a variety of reasons. When nationalization occurs, the former owners of the companies may or may not be compensated for their loss in net worth and potential income.

Nationalization is most common in developing countries subject to frequent leadership and regime changes. In these instances, nationalization is often a way for a government to expand its economic resources and power.

The opposite of nationalization is privatization, when government-owned companies are spun off into the private business sector.

See: Nationalization Definition | Investopedia

Once we establish enough rules for industries and create rules that force them to do the government's will then what is the difference between that and having and government owned industry that happens to do the same thing?

First consider this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Now, consider industry without controls, where every industry and business can operate without external rules and regulations. Dosa that make sense to you? No rules to regulate the disposal of chemicals, garbage, no zoning laws, no rules / regulation on polluting the air, water or soil.

How would you feel if a fish monger open his market in a home next to yours? Who buried the guts of fish cleaned in his backyard, adjacent to yours? Would that have an impact on your Rights?

Now, consider this:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"

The words written by Jefferson in the DoI clearly should give you pause to think about the ideology you seem to advocate. IMO there is no need to alter or abolish are system of government, especially because we can and have changed the course of governance by free, open and regular elections. Only by suppression of the Right to vote can one consider any iteration of governance becomes destructive to those ends.

You seem unclear on the concept of property rights.

You property rights end, where mine begin.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, he did. He also created more govt, HS. O came along after that and nationalized healthcare. Theyre both doucheheads.

Nationalized healthcare? How did you come to this foolish conclusion?

Seriously? That is the end goal of this current bunch of loonbats currently occupying the white house. Please just scurry along. I feel sorry for your ineptitude.

What evidence do you have which you believe is credible and proved your conclusion (end goal is to nationalize healthcare0. Do you know what the Nationalization of an industry entails?

Barney Frank said he favoted single payer but didnt have the votes.
Barack Obama said he favored single payer.
Bernie Sanders favors single payer.
These people are mainstream in the Democratic Party so their views are widely shared. Single payer is the goal. Clearly.

The argument comes down to semantic; whether single payer is technically nationalizing the industry, or not.

Who do you think the "single payer" is?