Why must some right wingers insist in calling an anti-socialist fascist a "socialist?"

[TNHarley]

Hitler tried to ERADICATE socialism and communism. He even set up gangs to attack socialists in the street.
He focused on race NOT class.
Hell, his pan-german theories couldnt survive with socialism.
He tried to dismantle trade unions, was pro-industry ETC ETC ETC
Why? What purpose is there to sound like such a moron?

 

[TNHarley]

Let me guess " because he had socialist in his name you fucking commie"

 

[Compost]

Why so hung up on labels? LOL

 

[Norman]

Hitler tried to ERADICATE socialism and communism. He even set up gangs to attack socialists in the street.
He focused on race NOT class.
Hell, his pan-german theories couldnt survive with socialism.
He tried to dismantle trade unions, was pro-industry ETC ETC ETC
Why? What purpose is there to sound like such a moron?

Hitler?

You mean the guy who was the leader of national-socialist party?

I think, the name of the party might explain it.

 

[TNHarley]

Hitler tried to ERADICATE socialism and communism. He even set up gangs to attack socialists in the street.
He focused on race NOT class.
Hell, his pan-german theories couldnt survive with socialism.
He tried to dismantle trade unions, was pro-industry ETC ETC ETC
Why? What purpose is there to sound like such a moron?

Hitler?

You mean the guy who was the leader of national-socialist party?

I think, the name of the party might explain it.

Thanks for that

 

[deannalw]

It's cuz he was in the nationalist socialist party, TNHarley.
Duh.
Do lurnin more beter.

 

[TNHarley]

It's cuz he was in the nationalist socialist party, TNHarley.
Duh.
Do lurnin more beter.

Stalin called himself a communist but he wasnt. He was a socialist dictator
Self proclaimed liberals call themselves liberals, but they aint.
Germany started the socialist workers party to draw communists into their nationalist ideals. Then, they dropped that rhetoric to draw in industries.
What actions did he do that were "socialist?"
What kind of socialist puts industry above the worker? What kind of socialist attacks trade unions? What kind fo socialist kills socialists for being socialists? What kind of socialist publically speaks out against socialism and communism?

 

[MisterBeale]

There are two types of socialists, STATE socialists, and CORPORATE socialists.

That latter is known as as fascists. When the government allows state sanctioned corporate cartels to force citizens to purchase goods and services, it is socialized, but via corporations approved, hand in glove by the state. In essence, that is what we have now with the ACA, and with many other industries in the US, it is a form of socialism known as fascism.

 

[nat4900]

There are two types of socialists, STATE socialists, and CORPORATE socialists.

That latter is known as as fascists. When the government allows state sanctioned corporate cartels to force citizens to purchase goods and services, it is socialized, but via corporations approved, hand in glove by the state. In essence, that is what we have now with the ACA, and with many other industries in the US, it is a form of socialism known as fascism.

Benito Mussolini (named by his father who loved Benito Juarez), would ask all corporate heads in Italy, along with professors and other members of Italy's intelligentsia to offer Il Duce, a LOYALTY OATH.......

Do you know of anyone else who may be asking for an oath of loyalty to him personally???

 

[MisterBeale]

There are two types of socialists, STATE socialists, and CORPORATE socialists.

That latter is known as as fascists. When the government allows state sanctioned corporate cartels to force citizens to purchase goods and services, it is socialized, but via corporations approved, hand in glove by the state. In essence, that is what we have now with the ACA, and with many other industries in the US, it is a form of socialism known as fascism.

Benito Mussolini (named by his father who loved Benito Juarez), would ask all corporate heads in Italy, along with professors and other members of Italy's intelligentsia to offer Il Duce, a LOYALTY OATH.......

Do you know of anyone else who may be asking for an oath of loyalty to him personally???

Obama?

 

[nat4900]

There are two types of socialists, STATE socialists, and CORPORATE socialists.

That latter is known as as fascists. When the government allows state sanctioned corporate cartels to force citizens to purchase goods and services, it is socialized, but via corporations approved, hand in glove by the state. In essence, that is what we have now with the ACA, and with many other industries in the US, it is a form of socialism known as fascism.

Benito Mussolini (named by his father who loved Benito Juarez), would ask all corporate heads in Italy, along with professors and other members of Italy's intelligentsia to offer Il Duce, a LOYALTY OATH.......

Do you know of anyone else who may be asking for an oath of loyalty to him personally???

Obama?

Well, maybe.......I offer these links below.....and I'll wait for yours about Obama...Deal???

Trump enforces 'loyalty oath' at Vermont rally, ejects any who don't ...

In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred ...

'Loyalty Freak' Donald Trump Freaks Out FBI With Alleged Loyalty ...

 

[MisterBeale]

There are two types of socialists, STATE socialists, and CORPORATE socialists.

That latter is known as as fascists. When the government allows state sanctioned corporate cartels to force citizens to purchase goods and services, it is socialized, but via corporations approved, hand in glove by the state. In essence, that is what we have now with the ACA, and with many other industries in the US, it is a form of socialism known as fascism.

Benito Mussolini (named by his father who loved Benito Juarez), would ask all corporate heads in Italy, along with professors and other members of Italy's intelligentsia to offer Il Duce, a LOYALTY OATH.......

Do you know of anyone else who may be asking for an oath of loyalty to him personally???

Obama?

Well, maybe.......I offer these links below.....and I'll wait for yours about Obama...Deal???

Trump enforces 'loyalty oath' at Vermont rally, ejects any who don't ...

In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred ...

'Loyalty Freak' Donald Trump Freaks Out FBI With Alleged Loyalty ...

Arms Up for Trump? Just Like Obama.
False Hitler Analogy About Trump Pledge Conceals Similarities to Obama
"Their styles may be different but the two are more similar than you might think.

Both Obama and Trump have risen via movements that are little more than cults of personality. Both have inspired absurd hero worship that focused less on their ideology than on their personal qualities. Obama ran on national unity and governed as the most partisan liberal ideologue since Lyndon Johnson. Since Trump has no set principles there is no way of knowing what he will do which is why many conservatives correctly view the prospect of a Trump presidency as not likely to be any different from one run by the Clintons.

Part of the attraction of Trump is the notion that the nation needs a strong man. He appeals to the authoritarian instinct in ways that no other politician has done in the living memory of any American. It is not surprising that his followers are ready to pledge allegiance to him in the way that Obama’s have done. If it’s hard to think of any other presidential candidate other than this pair doing this, that’s not an accident.

The entire premise of the Obama presidency has been a belief that the magic of his personality would transform both American politics and international relations. That it has been a resounding failure on both fronts is hardly surprising since his considerable political talent is not matched by any gift for governing or command of the realities of foreign policy.

But though Trump substitutes machismo for Obama’s apologies, is he really any different? Like Obama, he, too, thinks all it takes to transform the country and the world is to put one bigger than life person in the Oval Office. Leaders are vitally necessary. But the American republic is one that is rooted in a set of Constitutional principles that place the law above the will of any one man and his acolytes.

President Obama has chafed against this bedrock concept of checks and balances throughout his time in office. He believes that his desire to change a law, be it those concerning immigration or the environment or even a nuclear treaty with a hostile and dangerous Islamist state, is more important than the process the Constitution set up to enact such procedures. Yet can anyone doubt that Trump, a man who thinks the military won’t dare to disobey illegal orders if they come from his mouth, would do the same or even far worse?

Given the way he flirts with and sometimes engages in prejudice, it’s not surprising that a photo that depicts his followers with arms raised pledging blind allegiance to him would provoke unflattering comparisons. But the real analogy here is with the man Trump wishes to succeed. Is there much difference between Obama’s belief that he could turn back the oceans and Trump’s promise to make Mexico pay for a wall? Both involve crippling economic damage to the country (getting rid of fossil fuels is fashionable and is poison to the economy in much the same way as the trade war that Trump thinks will pay for his great wall). But more than that, both pledges are the product of hubris.

There are vast differences between Obama and Trump. Obama’s smoother edges made it more difficult at times to discern his monarchical instincts as head of the executive branch. Obama’s historic status as our first African-American president was also the impetus for his election and re-election and will probably be the sole reason he is remembered by history. But his “hope and change” mantra is just a liberal version of Trump’s “make America great again.” Both are empty slogans that are merely the justification for faith in one deeply flawed man."

 

[2aguy]

Hitler tried to ERADICATE socialism and communism. He even set up gangs to attack socialists in the street.
He focused on race NOT class.
Hell, his pan-german theories couldnt survive with socialism.
He tried to dismantle trade unions, was pro-industry ETC ETC ETC
Why? What purpose is there to sound like such a moron?

Wow...the stupid is strong with this one.....

Why did Stalin purge communists in his government...after all.....weren't they also communists? This silly idea that because the national socialists fought with the international socialists, that that means they were not socialists themselves is just childish thinking.

the national socialists were socialists all the way through, they believed in government control of the means of production......they just didnt' believe in direct seizure of all private property....they just controlled all private property from the central government......

 

[nat4900]

There are two types of socialists, STATE socialists, and CORPORATE socialists.

That latter is known as as fascists. When the government allows state sanctioned corporate cartels to force citizens to purchase goods and services, it is socialized, but via corporations approved, hand in glove by the state. In essence, that is what we have now with the ACA, and with many other industries in the US, it is a form of socialism known as fascism.

Benito Mussolini (named by his father who loved Benito Juarez), would ask all corporate heads in Italy, along with professors and other members of Italy's intelligentsia to offer Il Duce, a LOYALTY OATH.......

Do you know of anyone else who may be asking for an oath of loyalty to him personally???

Obama?

Well, maybe.......I offer these links below.....and I'll wait for yours about Obama...Deal???

Trump enforces 'loyalty oath' at Vermont rally, ejects any who don't ...

In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred ...

'Loyalty Freak' Donald Trump Freaks Out FBI With Alleged Loyalty ...

Arms Up for Trump? Just Like Obama.
False Hitler Analogy About Trump Pledge Conceals Similarities to Obama
"Their styles may be different but the two are more similar than you might think.

Both Obama and Trump have risen via movements that are little more than cults of personality. Both have inspired absurd hero worship that focused less on their ideology than on their personal qualities. Obama ran on national unity and governed as the most partisan liberal ideologue since Lyndon Johnson. Since Trump has no set principles there is no way of knowing what he will do which is why many conservatives correctly view the prospect of a Trump presidency as not likely to be any different from one run by the Clintons.

Part of the attraction of Trump is the notion that the nation needs a strong man. He appeals to the authoritarian instinct in ways that no other politician has done in the living memory of any American. It is not surprising that his followers are ready to pledge allegiance to him in the way that Obama’s have done. If it’s hard to think of any other presidential candidate other than this pair doing this, that’s not an accident.

The entire premise of the Obama presidency has been a belief that the magic of his personality would transform both American politics and international relations. That it has been a resounding failure on both fronts is hardly surprising since his considerable political talent is not matched by any gift for governing or command of the realities of foreign policy.

But though Trump substitutes machismo for Obama’s apologies, is he really any different? Like Obama, he, too, thinks all it takes to transform the country and the world is to put one bigger than life person in the Oval Office. Leaders are vitally necessary. But the American republic is one that is rooted in a set of Constitutional principles that place the law above the will of any one man and his acolytes.

President Obama has chafed against this bedrock concept of checks and balances throughout his time in office. He believes that his desire to change a law, be it those concerning immigration or the environment or even a nuclear treaty with a hostile and dangerous Islamist state, is more important than the process the Constitution set up to enact such procedures. Yet can anyone doubt that Trump, a man who thinks the military won’t dare to disobey illegal orders if they come from his mouth, would do the same or even far worse?

Given the way he flirts with and sometimes engages in prejudice, it’s not surprising that a photo that depicts his followers with arms raised pledging blind allegiance to him would provoke unflattering comparisons. But the real analogy here is with the man Trump wishes to succeed. Is there much difference between Obama’s belief that he could turn back the oceans and Trump’s promise to make Mexico pay for a wall? Both involve crippling economic damage to the country (getting rid of fossil fuels is fashionable and is poison to the economy in much the same way as the trade war that Trump thinks will pay for his great wall). But more than that, both pledges are the product of hubris.

There are vast differences between Obama and Trump. Obama’s smoother edges made it more difficult at times to discern his monarchical instincts as head of the executive branch. Obama’s historic status as our first African-American president was also the impetus for his election and re-election and will probably be the sole reason he is remembered by history. But his “hope and change” mantra is just a liberal version of Trump’s “make America great again.” Both are empty slogans that are merely the justification for faith in one deeply flawed man."

Someday (maybe) you too will realize the difference between someone's "Commentary" (blog) on someone.....and the direct, reported actions of someone else.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Let me guess " because he had socialist in his name you fucking commie"

Talking about a bunch of commies...Here's three in the Oval Office last month.

 

[BluesLegend]

I refer to the left as FILTH, keep it simple.

 

[nat4900]

I refer to the left as FILTH, keep it simple.

laxatives may help you, Blues.........LOL

 

[MisterBeale]

There are two types of socialists, STATE socialists, and CORPORATE socialists.

That latter is known as as fascists. When the government allows state sanctioned corporate cartels to force citizens to purchase goods and services, it is socialized, but via corporations approved, hand in glove by the state. In essence, that is what we have now with the ACA, and with many other industries in the US, it is a form of socialism known as fascism.

Benito Mussolini (named by his father who loved Benito Juarez), would ask all corporate heads in Italy, along with professors and other members of Italy's intelligentsia to offer Il Duce, a LOYALTY OATH.......

Do you know of anyone else who may be asking for an oath of loyalty to him personally???

Obama?

Well, maybe.......I offer these links below.....and I'll wait for yours about Obama...Deal???

Trump enforces 'loyalty oath' at Vermont rally, ejects any who don't ...

In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred ...

'Loyalty Freak' Donald Trump Freaks Out FBI With Alleged Loyalty ...

Arms Up for Trump? Just Like Obama.
False Hitler Analogy About Trump Pledge Conceals Similarities to Obama
"Their styles may be different but the two are more similar than you might think.

Both Obama and Trump have risen via movements that are little more than cults of personality. Both have inspired absurd hero worship that focused less on their ideology than on their personal qualities. Obama ran on national unity and governed as the most partisan liberal ideologue since Lyndon Johnson. Since Trump has no set principles there is no way of knowing what he will do which is why many conservatives correctly view the prospect of a Trump presidency as not likely to be any different from one run by the Clintons.

Part of the attraction of Trump is the notion that the nation needs a strong man. He appeals to the authoritarian instinct in ways that no other politician has done in the living memory of any American. It is not surprising that his followers are ready to pledge allegiance to him in the way that Obama’s have done. If it’s hard to think of any other presidential candidate other than this pair doing this, that’s not an accident.

The entire premise of the Obama presidency has been a belief that the magic of his personality would transform both American politics and international relations. That it has been a resounding failure on both fronts is hardly surprising since his considerable political talent is not matched by any gift for governing or command of the realities of foreign policy.

But though Trump substitutes machismo for Obama’s apologies, is he really any different? Like Obama, he, too, thinks all it takes to transform the country and the world is to put one bigger than life person in the Oval Office. Leaders are vitally necessary. But the American republic is one that is rooted in a set of Constitutional principles that place the law above the will of any one man and his acolytes.

President Obama has chafed against this bedrock concept of checks and balances throughout his time in office. He believes that his desire to change a law, be it those concerning immigration or the environment or even a nuclear treaty with a hostile and dangerous Islamist state, is more important than the process the Constitution set up to enact such procedures. Yet can anyone doubt that Trump, a man who thinks the military won’t dare to disobey illegal orders if they come from his mouth, would do the same or even far worse?

Given the way he flirts with and sometimes engages in prejudice, it’s not surprising that a photo that depicts his followers with arms raised pledging blind allegiance to him would provoke unflattering comparisons. But the real analogy here is with the man Trump wishes to succeed. Is there much difference between Obama’s belief that he could turn back the oceans and Trump’s promise to make Mexico pay for a wall? Both involve crippling economic damage to the country (getting rid of fossil fuels is fashionable and is poison to the economy in much the same way as the trade war that Trump thinks will pay for his great wall). But more than that, both pledges are the product of hubris.

There are vast differences between Obama and Trump. Obama’s smoother edges made it more difficult at times to discern his monarchical instincts as head of the executive branch. Obama’s historic status as our first African-American president was also the impetus for his election and re-election and will probably be the sole reason he is remembered by history. But his “hope and change” mantra is just a liberal version of Trump’s “make America great again.” Both are empty slogans that are merely the justification for faith in one deeply flawed man."

Someday (maybe) you too will realize the difference between someone's "Commentary" (blog) on someone.....and the direct, reported actions of someone else.

I'm trying to give you perspective here. It's all how you choose to view something.

If you seriously want to view something through your cult of personality, feel free.

What I am getting at, is Trump and Obama are no different, they are quintessentially American megalomaniacs. If you want to be taken in by one, while some others are being taken in by the other, feel free. Why not rise above it all?

Until you do, your posts will be utter partisan tripe.

 

[TNHarley]

Hitler tried to ERADICATE socialism and communism. He even set up gangs to attack socialists in the street.
He focused on race NOT class.
Hell, his pan-german theories couldnt survive with socialism.
He tried to dismantle trade unions, was pro-industry ETC ETC ETC
Why? What purpose is there to sound like such a moron?

Wow...the stupid is strong with this one.....

Why did Stalin purge communists in his government...after all.....weren't they also communists? This silly idea that because the national socialists fought with the international socialists, that that means they were not socialists themselves is just childish thinking.

the national socialists were socialists all the way through, they believed in government control of the means of production......they just didnt' believe in direct seizure of all private property....they just controlled all private property from the central government......

good job! Thats called FASCISM.
Remember reading about the "march of berlin?"
Tell me, since he was a socialist all the way through, maybe give some examples of actions?
I can name MANY that support fascism. Cant name many that would support socialism except maybe welfare and the name.
englighten me

 

[TNHarley]

still waiting 2aguy