-
So is this How socialism works
[link=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_bi_ge/us_citigroup_treasury]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_bi_ge/us_citigroup_treasury[/link]
[b] The Treasury Department said Monday it will begin selling the stake it owns in Citigroup Inc., which could result in a profit to the government of more than $8 billion.[/b]
[b][/b]
[b][/b]
Oh well so much for those who felt Obama was going to take over the banking industry…………..another Faux Accusation by the Right Wingers. -
111 Replies
-
Crickets
C’mon………..where are all the big mouth right wingers spewing the talking points about socialism and taking over the financial industry.
C’mon ladies lets hear what you got to say?
-
This was part of the original intent under TARP. I supported TARP under Bush and I still think it was necessary and effective. TARP is the one key factor that kept us from a financial callapse. The second TARP stipulation was that the profits would go to paying down the debt. Lets see if this holds.
-
[b]I supported TARP under Bush[/b]
BUt I thought it was Socialism under Obama…. I am confused
-
The difference: TARP was essentially a loan to be paid back with interest. It is being paid back. How many jobs did Obama’s “stimulus” create?
-
The TARP money, $350/billion released in Oct 2008 and $350 billion released one week before Obama’s inaguration has mostly been paid back. I think the program can be viewed as a success. It is interesting that the TARP money is commonly counted toward the Bush deficit. Whereas the payments are credited on the Obama side of the ledger. Funny, we never hear too much about this.
If Obama divests the government of the Auto manufacturers, the Health Care sector and the student loans; if he renounces wealth redistribution and massive taxation, then I won’t call him a socialist. In the meantime, he is a socialist
-
[b]If Obama divests the government of the Auto manufacturers, the Health Care sector and the student loans;then I won’t call him a socialist. In the meantime, he is a socialist [/b]
[b][/b]
HAHAHA
Just like lloyd said to harry(or maybe vice versa) Just when I think yo couldn’t get any dumber……………………….You totally redeem yourself
Can always count on one of them to stand up
-
-
[b]The difference: TARP was essentially a loan to be paid back with interest. It is being paid back. How many jobs did Obama’s “stimulus” create?[/b]
No you right wing whack jobs claimed that the governement was taking over the Financial industry the auto industry and the Insurance industry.
So I ask again………..Is this Socialism?
Does Obama want to take over the private sector. Does he want to take over The financial industry, The Auto Industry and the Insurance industry?
C’mon I have heard these claims repeatedly Is this really what he wants to do. Is this the type of socialism that yo are ranting about?
-
[b]”Does Obama want to take over the private sector. Does he want to take over The financial industry, The Auto Industry and the Insurance industry?” [/b]
DUH….YES!!!
[b]”The Treasury Department said” [/b]
Like they are an independent voice. I will believe it when I see it.
-
I love when the dumb guys speak first at least Mistrad And Dalai would try to weasel out of it and think a little before they spin it.
Look Einstein………….does it seem to reason that if the FEDS wanted to take over the banks this would be their Golden opportunity?-
The genius spoke! He declared Obama not a Socialist. We should all ignore all evidence to the contrary and immediately agree.
My guess is that Obama’s had his eyes opened to a lot of realities recently. He’s figuring out that it may be difficult to ramp up employment and generate taxes for all of his pet projects, so he’s throwing a bone out to the free market people. It didn’t take long for the fools to buy in … again.-
I’m sorry but you have to be absolutely crazy to beleive that our government wants to own the Financial industry, the Automobile industry and the Insurance industry.
THat is such idiotic thinking that it amazes me when the minions actually beleive it.-
Well, for the fringies, the actions of people are not important. The fringies just KNOW stuff in their hearts, facts be damned – like Obama is the second coming of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler combined. And the devil. Because one man’s moderate technocrat is another man’s anti-christ. Quick! Grab their guns! Just kidding, fringies. Heh heh.
-
ORIGINAL: nobody2008
Well, for the fringies, the actions of people are not important. The fringies just KNOW stuff in their hearts, facts be damned – like Obama is the second coming of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler combined. And the devil. Because one man’s moderate technocrat is another man’s anti-christ. Quick! Grab their guns! Just kidding, fringies. Heh heh.
Sounds like Obama’s health care push. LOL.
-
ORIGINAL: eradicator
I’m sorry but you have to be absolutely crazy to beleive that our government wants to own the Financial industry, the Automobile industry and the Insurance industry.
THat is such idiotic thinking that it amazes me when the minions actually beleive it.
They don’t want to own any of those, but they do want to protect their own special interests – the UAW, the Fannie Mae’s and Freddy Mac’s, and the fat cat political donors on Wall Street.
-
[b]They don’t want to own any of those, but they do want to protect their own special interests – the UAW, the Fannie Mae’s and Freddy Mac’s, and the fat cat political donors on Wall Street.[/b]
So is this Socialism?
Is bailing out Citibank and making 8 billion in the process Socialism?
-
-
-
-
-
ORIGINAL: eradicator
[b]The difference: TARP was essentially a loan to be paid back with interest. It is being paid back. How many jobs did Obama’s “stimulus” create?[/b]
No you right wing whack jobs claimed that the governement was taking over the Financial industry the auto industry and the Insurance industry.
So I ask again………..Is this Socialism?
Does Obama want to take over the private sector. Does he want to take over The financial industry, The Auto Industry and the Insurance industry?
C’mon I have heard these claims repeatedly Is this really what he wants to do. Is this the type of socialism that yo are ranting about?
Of course it’s socialism.. I can’t see how you’d call it otherwise. The definition of socialism in my eyes is where the government controls the 4 P’s.. People Profit, Production and Price. .. IT is not the purpose or intention of government .. at least the founding fathers’ intent.. to compete with profit making corporations thereby taking money out of the economy and then placing it into the gov’t coffers.
No matter what you call it.. government interference in any corporate activites is wron gand should not be allowed. Gov’t’s purpose is to provide an authority to ensure the contracts are enforced and there is fairness all around an to create a level playing field for all. If gov’t can take money from the taxpayers at gunpoint and then use that money to make more money they can waste on silly pet projects to keep people elected. I’d hardly call that fair.-
Capitalism must allow for failure. Any system that protects those that have failed is socialist.
-
[b]Capitalism must allow for failure. Any system that protects those that have failed is socialist.[/b]
[b][/b]
And anyone who swears by absolute black and white ideology is going to fail-
Socialism is when the means of production and distribution of goods and services is owned collectively by the public. The government “controlling” things is not socialism, that’s what governments do by definition. The government doesn’t suddenly own your car because it tells you that you can’t drive 100mph in the residential neighborhoods, nor does it own your factory when it sets up rules for the safe storage of hazardous chemicals or that sort of thing. That’s not socialism.
Obama’s not a socialist in any sense of the word. It’s kind of funny to read these sorts of threads–anywhere else in the world, the politicians that are being called pinko commies by conservatives in the US would be considered slightly-right-of-center moderates.
-
First, if you have a capitalistic system that does not allow for businesses to fail, what you do is support unsustainable business.
That is not how capitalism is to work.
Nobody has ever given me a good reason why we saved Chrysler. Basically, we subsidized an Italian companies purchase of them. And basically, the old Chrysler will fail to exist. Instead, if it had gone into bankruptcy, virtually the same thing would have happened…without govt intervention with billions of dollars.
As for Tarp, it is definitely socialist in some sense. That is why I was against it. I didn’t care Bush was in charge, I still thought it was a mistake.
As for Obama and socialism…maybe you are right. There is some nuance in the definition. But one thing is for sure: he is not a free market capitalist either.
-
[b]But one thing is for sure: he is not a free market capitalist either.[/b]
Which is in keeping with his party affiliation…. What is the big surprise here? -
Fair enough itchn.
OK, let us presume, for a moment, that we are right and that Obama is not a true socialist, but is not a true capitalist either. What would you call him?
Or, maybe a label is too broad. Let us ask it this way: what country do you think Obama sees as the model of economic perfection? Any thoughts?
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
Fair enough itchn.
OK, let us presume, for a moment, that we are right and that Obama is not a true socialist, but is not a true capitalist either. What would you call him?
Or, maybe a label is too broad. Let us ask it this way: what country do you think Obama sees as the model of economic perfection? Any thoughts?
What? Are you a mind reader as well as a BS artist?
I’d call him an American politician. Just because the GOP has sold you on the idea that all government regulation is bad and only Pure Capitalism ™ is acceptable does not make it true. Corporations spend millions a year to REDUCE competition in their industry and add regulations that protect and enrich them. Does that make them socialist? This black and white crap might work for the kids who watch Fox but why don’t you stop playing dumb.
-
Which is exactly why I’m not going to take that challenge: how the he!! would I know? Do I think it’s possible to characterize every Democrat according to some cookie-cutter, reductionist theory the ‘Pubs might think is a productive lens for looking at the world through? No.
In fact I’m biting my tongue from saying the thing I’d like to say, that most likely someone else will come on here and say, so I don’t have to.
-
No wait just a second.
This man is the President of the United States. We watched him campaign for two years and run the country for the last year. You are, to some extent, a supporter of his. Can’t you at least tell me what he believes in? Forget characterizing the entire party, because like you said, that is often prejudicial. And you can explain it in gestalt terms. What is Obama’s vision of what America should be, if he could wave a wand?
This is the point. The left would like us to belief that Obama is just like every other American politician. I totally disagree. In fact, I think even his main competitor, Hillary Clinton, would have been a much more moderate and reasonable President than Obama has been. So clearly, the Dems believe that Obama’s beliefs are superior to Hillary’s…right? That assumes, of course, that Democrats are actually a party of ideas and not symbolism.
Frankly, I think you guys should be embarrassed if you can’t answer what Obama believes in. Because then, you are following a ‘religion’ that you don’t understand…sound familiar?
And if you guys can’t answer this basic question of the leader of your movement…what kind of movement do you really have? To me, blind faith sounds like a religion or cult, doesn’t it?
-
[b][u]WTF[/u]?[/b] I voted for the guy on the off chance he might have been a reformer. I voted for him in the primary because I don’t like Hilary — don’t trust her, definitely don’t trust her, [i]know[/i] that I don’t trust her. I honestly don’t know who he really is (like many, yourself included, Mistrad); I think that has to come through hindsight and his record as President.
I already [i]said[/i], I vote for the least evil among bad, or unreliable choices! That makes me somehow a cheerleader and personal psychic for the candidate I deem least evil??
…calmed down now… I had hoped, and felt I had decent reason to think, that he would be someone who with his community organizer background, had a sense of what things were like for the Regular Joe on the street, understood the reality of what they were facing, and would legislate to protect those people. I expected consumer protections, I expected banking reform, I expected we’d get the he!! out of Iraq and Guantanamo and certainly never abide another Abu Ghraib, I figured the US wouldn’t rush headlong into a nuclear confrontation with Iran.
I also hoped, though I knew enough not to count on it, that if [i]anyone[/i] were going to take on Big Industry, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Oil, it would be him. I’m disappointed so far, but he’s only just into his 4 years, and there’s a chance there may be an additional 4 years, and maybe, just [i][b]maybe[/b][/i] (because if not, we are screwed) he may have enough time and independence somehow to correct the last disastrous 8 years, the last leading-up-to-disastrous 30 years…..
You guys really need to quit asking me what I really think. -
ORIGINAL: itchn2help
[b][u]WTF[/u]?[/b] I voted for the guy on the off chance he might have been a reformer. I voted for him in the primary because I don’t like Hilary — don’t trust her, definitely don’t trust her, [i]know[/i] that I don’t trust her. I honestly don’t know who he really is (like many, yourself included, Mistrad); I think that has to come through hindsight and his record as President.
I already [i]said[/i], I vote for the least evil among bad, or unreliable choices! That makes me somehow a cheerleader and personal psychic for the candidate I deem least evil??……
I also hoped, though I knew enough not to count on it, that if [i]anyone[/i] were going to take on Big Industry, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Oil, it would be him. I’m disappointed so far, but he’s only just into his 4 years, and there’s a chance there may be an additional 4 years, and maybe, just [i][b]maybe[/b][/i] (because if not, we are screwed) he may have enough time and independence somehow to correct the last disastrous 8 years, the last leading-up-to-disastrous 30 years…..
You guys really need to quit asking me what I really think.
after reading that post, i still don’t understand what you “really think”. in the first paragraph, you make it sound like you supported obama because he was the nicest smelling pig at the fair, but in your concluding statement you make him sound like a savior who can deliver our country from its corporate oppressors and [i]maybe[/i] somehow reverse history itself and undue the damage inflicted by lesser commanders-in-chief.
so which is it, the “least evil among bad” or the oracle of rational politics?
-
We don’t know yet, do we? What am I, all of a sudden the Oracle of Delphi?
My hopes sunk the moment he brought in Big Pharma for the “sit down” (or, they brought [i]him[/i] into…). If he can do one thing right, who knows?: maybe curtail the banks, I’ll be happier than if uh McCain had got in, or Hilary probably — it’s always a gamble. Already, though, from what I hear the student loan add-on to the healthcare bill sounds like the right move: he basically cut the banks out of a decades-long sweetheart deal where the gov’t carried the risk for billions of dollars in loans, while the banks got to administer and reap profits off the top. Gone. +1 for the bammer.
(you guys didn’t know about that little tidbit of socialism we’d been carrying on our backs all this time, did you?) -
The banks were going to get reformed anyways. Do you think that Americans were going to let that happen again? We didn’t need Obama’s entire socialist agenda in order to adopt the necessary adjustments to the financial institutions. What we got instead was a pig-in-a-poke.
-
Oh, and who was going to take that on? Is that like the phantom health care reform the Republicans would have come up with if…if… if only the Dems hadn’t won an election based on promising it, then won it by …heh!… adopting former Republican ideas!! Which you now un-support, but wait: claim credit for, but wait: promise to repeal, but wait:…. You guys are lost.
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
Fair enough itchn.
OK, let us presume, for a moment, that we are right and that Obama is not a true socialist, but is not a true capitalist either. What would you call him?
Or, maybe a label is too broad. Let us ask it this way: what country do you think Obama sees as the model of economic perfection? Any thoughts?
He’s got to be a whole-hearted supporter of the most extreme version of free-market capitalism in order to be considered a “true capitalist”? He believes in a mostly-free market with sensible regulations. Like just about everyone but the most nutty libertarians do. Where you and he disagree is on exactly where the lines should be drawn.
-
Thank you, KFrance. Let calmer minds prevail, both online and in Washington…
-
Well I can see it’s time for a lesson. Rather than quote from some dry history tome, this will do nicely:
“Strict government control over businesses is the essence of Fascism, or more precisely, Mussolini-style corporatism. As Mussolini said, ‘Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.’ Corporatism boils down to this: government tells industry (and labor) what to do and they do it for the supposed good of the country. ”
[link=http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/29/a-whiff-of-fascism-from-obamas]http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/29/a-whiff-of-fascism-from-obamas[/link]
Rather than having the state OWN businesses, Mussolini came up with the “compromise” of having the state MANAGE them. Then a certain crowd can claim that everything is A-OK since the government isn’t actually OWNING. It may as well be ownership, though! One could say that it is ownership by de facto.
Above someone cited minor restrictions placed on certain activities such as driving as being comparable. They aren’t even close!!
This country is headed down the same perilous road at break-neck speed.
-
[b]Rather than quote from some dry history tome, this will do nicely:[/b]
Rather than quote a reasonable text……………………….You quote A F’ng blog
And expect everyone to agree.
Get outta here
-
Cool.
Now we just need
Obama = Mao
Obama = Kim Jong-Il
Obama = Khadaffi
Obama = Ayatollahand the circle will be complete.
Apparently Obama is his own Axis of Evil….
-
And by the way
Facism is much closer to capitalism on the linear spectrum than it is to socialism…………………most would call facism and socialism polar opposites………unless of course you are a right wing talk show host throwing out buzzword bombs.
It is amazing how ignorant people are -
ORIGINAL: eradicator
And by the way
Facism is much closer to capitalism on the linear spectrum than it is to socialism…………………most would call facism and socialism polar opposites………unless of course you are a right wing talk show host throwing out buzzword bombs.
It is amazing how ignorant people are
Not true, It is in fact a circle. The way I the circle works, starting from centrist democracy to populist/progressive democracy to socialist democracy to statist socialism to communism or fascism to authoritarian democracy to conservative democracy and back to centrist democracy. So you see, They are equidistant.
-
Hmmm..
In Stalin’s world – you were imprisoned/killed for not toeing the party line.
In Mussolini’s world – you were imprisoned/killed for not toeing the party line.
In Hitler’s world – you were killed for not toeing the party line or not being from the correct gene pool.
In Obama’s world – you get legislation passed that you don’t like.
Yep – these are all the same. Ruthless dictators every one of em!
-
ORIGINAL: eradicator
And by the way
Facism is much closer to capitalism on the linear spectrum than it is to socialism…………………most would call facism and socialism polar opposites………unless of course you are a right wing talk show host throwing out buzzword bombs.
It is amazing how ignorant people are
Fascism is the politicization of corporations in order to produce a national identity. So in that sense, it is closer to capitalism. However, they also abhor what they call ‘supercapitalism’ which sounds a lot like Democrats today.
But in many ways it is closer to liberalism than conservatism. Liberals generally believe in centralization of power in the state…conservatives believe the opposite. I know traditionally it has been thought of a ‘right’ wing movement, but history shows that it has been used by both political extremes, and doesn’t fit easily into one or the other.
I agree that it is not a pure political spectrum…but look at historical fascist figures, they have been liberal socialists more than capitalists, ala Hitler, Mussolini, etc.
So erad, as usual, only gets half the story right.
-
There is just a smal step between socialist progressivism and facism, i.e., Castro and Chavez. That is the risk.
-
[b]but look at historical fascist figures, they have been liberal socialists more than capitalists, ala Hitler, Mussolini, etc.[/b]
You are absolutely crazy.
Any Historian would laugh in your biased face.
Fascism is more of a hierarchical society as communism is a completely equal society. -
Prove it. You are a hack, and your opinion by itself is worth absolutely nothing. Give me some facts.
Tell you what, since you are so deficient in knowledge, I will even give you two citations you can look up so you are not so ignorant:
Payne, Stanley G. A history of fascism, 1914-1945. Oxon: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconson System, 2005 (digital edition). p. 112.
Sternhell, Zeev; Sznajder, Mario; Ashéri, Maia; Massel, David (translation). The birth of fascist ideology: from cultural rebellion to political revolution. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press: 1994. pp. 190-193.
Of course, knowing erad who doesn’t like facts, he won’t accept that any of these are historians, and will state that his personal knowledge of the subject is superior.
LOL.
Oh, and if you have any faith in Wiki, here you go:
[i]Fascism is normally described as “extreme right”,[41] although some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult.[42] There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right.[8] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.[9][10][11]
The historians Eugen Weber,[43] David Renton,[44] and Robert Soucy[45] view fascism as on the ideological right. Rod Stackelberg argues that fascism opposes egalitarianism (particularly racial) and democracy, which according to him are characteristics that make it an extreme right-wing movement.[46] Stanley Payne states that pre-war fascism found a coherent identity through alliances with right-wing movements[47] Roger Griffin argues that since the end of World War II, fascist movements have become intertwined with the radical right, describing certain groups as part of a “fascist radical right”.[48][49]
Walter Laqueur says that historical fascism “did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either”, but that it “was always a coalition between radical, populist (‘fascist’) elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right”.[50] Payne says “fascists were unique in their hostility to all the main established currents, left right and center”, noting that they allied with both left and right, but more often the right.[51][52] However, he contends that German Nazism was closer to Russian communism than to any other non-communist system.[53]
The position that fascism is neither right nor left is supported by a number of contemporary historians and sociologists, including Seymour Martin Lipset[54] and Roger Griffin.[55] Griffin argued, “Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good ground for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own “beyond left and right.”[56]
On economic issues, fascists reject ideas of class conflict and internationalism, which are commonly held by Marxists and international socialists, in favour of class collaboration and statist nationalism.[57][58] However, Italian fascism also declared its objection to excessive capitalism, which it called supercapitalism.[59] Zeev Sternhell sees fascism as an anti-Marxist form of socialism.[60]
A number of fascist movements described themselves as a “third force” that was outside the traditional political spectrum altogether.[61] Mussolini promoted ambiguity about fascism’s positions in order to rally as many people to it as possible, saying fascists can be “aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists”.[62] Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism’s economic system of corporatism could be identified as either state capitalism or state socialism, which in either case involved “the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation.”[63] Mussolini described fascism in any language he found useful.[62][64] Spanish Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera was critical of both left-wing and right-wing politics, once saying that “basically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile”.[65]
Roger Eatwell sees terminology associated with the traditional left-right political spectrum as failing to fully capture the complex nature of the ideology[66] and many other political scientists have posited multi-dimensional alternatives to the traditional linear left-right spectrum.[67] In some two dimensional political models, such as the Political Compass (where left and right are described in purely economic terms), fascism is ascribed to the economic centre, with its extremism expressing itself on the authoritarianism axis instead.[68]
[/i] -
Hence the political circle. The political spectrum is not linear, but circular. The extreme left and the extreme right are actually very close in completing the circle loop,
-
[b]Oh, and if you have any faith in Wiki, here you go:[/b]
[b][/b]
Wiki haha you cite an op ed peice from Wiki………………………..you really are clueless aren’t you
Uhh how about a brief History lesson, this is from my college thesis.
[b][/b]
Classically, Communisn or socialism in the Marxian sense refers to a culture or society that is essentially classless, with no states and free of oppression and materialism. Essentially decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made by pleurality, allowing all of society to engage and become involved in the decision making process in both the political and economic aspects of their daily lives. Today, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the unilateral often authoritarian governments that had ownership of all the individuals and states means of production and centrally planned economies.Fascism is a strictly a political ideology that tries to combine radical and typically violent and authoritarian nationalism with a corporate capitalistic economic system. It is essentially the survival of the fittest. Fascists strive for creation of a single-party state. Fascist attempt to outlaw, restrict and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the facist sympathizers. Fascism denies confict between the social classes, blames ardent capitalism and liberal democracies for its creation and the suppression of the masses and accuses communists of exploiting the original manifesto in order to advance its cause. Fascism originally formed as itself as an alternative and in reality the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism. The primary belief of fascism being that human beings are motivated by glory and heroism rather than economic motives, in contrast to the worldview of capitalism and socialism.
So really they are complete opposites.
I challenge you to prove otherwise -
I don’t know why you are bothering to argue with these capitalist warriors who don’t understand that dictators are all AUTHORITARIAN but this is not the same as LIBERAL SOCIALISTS. Cause that is just plain stupid talk and they should be ashamed of buying that load of crap. Authoritarianism can be used for fascism and communism. Which are different.
-
[b]I don’t know why you are bothering to argue with these capitalist warriors who don’t understand that dictators are all AUTHORITARIAN but this is not the same as LIBERAL SOCIALISTS.[/b]
[b][/b]
Well I think it is amusing when they are arguing somthing that they really don’t understand especcially when it goes beyond their talking apoints and beyond their ability to cut and paste.
That is particularly true of MISTRAD……..He hates losing an argument so much that he becomes desperate and starts a cut and paste frenzy -
While well written, I’m not sure something you wrote 20 (30?) years ago in college qualifies as evidence.
But read it again. All it takes is for the fascists to take over production/economy/etc, and they become socialists. It’s as if the far right and the far left on the spectrum are brought together, and they really aren’t all that far apart. -
[b] It’s as if the far right and the far left on the spectrum are brought together, and they really aren’t all that far apart.[/b]
[b][/b]
No way the only similarities is that the real examples of both in the modern era produced Authoritarian states and often leaders/Dictators ……………..but from its core they are opposite and true commies and true Nazi’s will admit that.
………….and the individuals who like to speak of the circular nature of the economic process are simply those that are unable to separate the the difference between economics principle and political ideology……..basically they are capitalists and resent being labled as Fascist because of Hitler.
If Hitler was a good man………………..He would be worshiped by all conservatives not just the Neo-Nazi’s -
Perhaps in their [i]stated ideologies[/i] they are different, but the ultimate result of their rule is identical. The people are suppressed, the economies go to hell, and dissidents are imprisoned or killed. As you note, the only examples we see in modern times have been [i]totalitarian[/i], which does lead to the above findings whether Left or Right.
Can we agree that both Socialism/Communism and Fascism are bad things? -
Erad simplific understanding of fascism is what makes this such a joke.
There is an economic spectrum, ranging from communism to socialism to capitalism
Fascism is not really anywhere on that spectrum. A communist, socialist, or capitalist could be fascist.
Frankly, you probably didn’t get a great grade on that thesis. Either that, or your professor was an extreme liberal that didn’t understand that fascism is not on the same political spectrum as the others. They are not complete opposites, unless you have a ridiculous black and white view of the world, which you yourself denounce
Let us give the most obvious example that destroys your point, because anything more nuanced is too complicated for you.
Would you agree the Nazis were fascists?
And if so, do you know what ‘Nazi’ stood for?
Nationalsozialismus…othewise known as [b][i]National SOCIALIS[/i]M.[/b] The Nazis were fascists [b][i]and [/i][/b]socialists. But apparently, either you or your professor missed that small historical detail.
Again, just because you think you are intelligent does not make it so.
-
I do have to add that what tyrants call themselves may have little connection to what they really are.
As an aside, the only place on Earth where socialism has worked at all is in the kibbutzim of Israel, and that is on a very small scale. From erad’s definition of socialism, an entire socialist nation would make decisions of production, and this is how things work on a Kibbutz. On the national level, that ain’t what happens, is it? -
[b]the only place on Earth where socialism has worked at all is in the kibbutzim of Israel, and that is on a very small scale.[/b]
[b][/b]
I don’t know a lot of hippies in the 60’s made it work for a a while until they got too burn out to support it any more. -
Actually, it was the unfortunate interjection of human nature into the equation that killed it. (Sort of… there are still communes in NoCal and Oregon). Or more correctly, it was the failure of any of these ideologies to take into account the variability of individuals’ deeper motivations and their “purity” in devotion to the cause…. sounds like, in all the above examples.
-
[b]Actually, it was the unfortunate interjection of human nature into the equation that killed it.[/b]
[b][/b]
I agree that is why in my opinion Capitalism with limits(some would call this regulations) is the best economic system available to mankind.
Lets face it that is why we are a republic and not a democracy. -
The socialism in Nazism was a pretty minor part what made them fascist, you know. And once again I’ll point out that Dick Nixon would be derided as a Communist by the current crop of faux capitalist warriors.
-
ORIGINAL: nobody2008
The socialism in Nazism was a pretty minor part what made them fascist, you know. And once again I’ll point out that Dick Nixon would be derided as a Communist by the current crop of faux capitalist warriors.
Again, that shows your ignorance. The Nazis came to power not because of their antisemitism, but because of their fascist/nationalistic and socialist platform. I can give you quote after quote after quote of Hitler campaigning on a socialist platform.
The Nazis were socialist. It is an unarguable fact. Anybody that argues differently really is clueless. Even erad has accepted that before.
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
ORIGINAL: nobody2008
The socialism in Nazism was a pretty minor part what made them fascist, you know. And once again I’ll point out that Dick Nixon would be derided as a Communist by the current crop of faux capitalist warriors.
Again, that shows your ignorance. The Nazis came to power not because of their antisemitism, but because of their fascist/nationalistic and socialist platform. I can give you quote after quote after quote of Hitler campaigning on a socialist platform.
The Nazis were socialist. It is an unarguable fact. Anybody that argues differently really is clueless. Even erad has accepted that before.
Having you call me ignorant is a compliment. Especially in the realm of history.
Hitler was also elected on his anti-communist platform. How does your socialism-communism continuum fare with that?
You conveniently gloss over my Nixon reference. What was going on in the US at the time Hitler rose to power? SURELY IT WASN’T SOCIALISM. Give us a break with this nonsense. -
[b]Nationalsozialismus…othewise known as [i]National SOCIALIS[/i]M. The Nazis were fascists [i]and [/i]socialists. But apparently, either you or your professor missed that small historical detail.[/b]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are completely taking something out of context after doing a brief internet search. It is laughable that you are trying to portray yourself as understanding this issue.
A little info is dangerous………You are a walking example of this old saying. -
ORIGINAL: eradicator
[b]Nationalsozialismus…othewise known as [i]National SOCIALIS[/i]M. The Nazis were fascists [i]and [/i]socialists. But apparently, either you or your professor missed that small historical detail.[/b]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are completely taking something out of context after doing a brief internet search. It is laughable that you are trying to portray yourself as understanding this issue.
A little info is dangerous………You are a walking example of this old saying.
Yeah…your little information in your head is certainly dangerous.
Again, note how erad didn’t discount my point…he just ignored it. Again, he talks a lot, but shows you no information…he just wants you to blindly believe that he knows what he is talking about…which he doesnt. He even used his own thesis…which frankly, should discount the truthfulness as much as coming from a blog or wiki.
And trust me…I could pull out my own thesis on this as well if you want…though I believe I only have it in print. But erad wants us to accept his thesis as fact, and would say mine is just spin anyway. I did get an ‘A’ on it from my liberal professor, however.
And erad…how do we know that your ‘thesis’ was not from an internet download? We are just supposed to take your word, I guess. Yeah, right. LOL.
As for socialism…I don’t think it is inherently evil like Fascism, but there is a simple reason I don’t like it: because it doesn’t work.
-
[b]And trust me…I could pull out my own thesis on this as well if you want[/b]
[b][/b]
Lets see it -
No, thank you.
No matter what, you will decry it as something or other.
Frankly, I leave the ball in your court. I can show you example after example of profound socialist regimes that are considered fascist. Can you show many capitalist ones?
Again, you have stated that you don’t want to hear any facts. Fine, so be it. So the burden of facts is no longer with me…it is on you. And so far, all I have seen is the usual liberal rhetoric of fascism of the right…with no real facts whatsoever.
Once again, you are an empty vessel, no more, no less.
-
Wow! Ignorance you can cut with a butterknife. Nothing has changed on AM except maybe the bile has increased. Maybe AM should institute a literacy test.
About the only thing right the posters from the Right get correct about socialism is the spelling. Put away your Glenn Beck factoids. Yes, the Nazis were “Socialists” and made speeches about socialism but your understanding is very superficial since you don’t seem to understand anything deeper (other than the same spelling) and their anti-Semitism was not a minor artifact of their platform but a core part. Racism and conspiracy theories about world domination were a central part of National Socialism (Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer – one people, one nation, one leader). Round-ups and mass murders and work & death camps aren’t a small part of Nazi political philosophy. 6 million Jews and another 6 million “misfits” (Gypsies, homosexuals, etc) were murdered.
The socialism part was for the German Worker/citizen to be liberated from the oppressors and traitors who betrayed Germany & German victory in WWI, the reparation payments and “humiliation” of the German people by the Treaty of Versailles, the support of the Treaty by the Capitalists, the hyperinflation during the Weimar period, the weak government of the Weimar Republic, the Banks and Bankers & all of this caused by the International Jewish Conspiracy who ran the Banks and of course the Communists who ran the Unions and the sucking misfits who produced nothing & stole everything like the Gypsies & immoral homosexuals. The National-SOCIALISTS were enemies of the Communists & Bolsheviks, not allies. It was a philosophy of victimization of the German people. Today we have the victimization of the American people by Socialists. Goebbels would find ripe opportunity today.
& then there is Stalin, another mass murderer. Yeah, I can see how Obama and the Democrats are their equivalent.
-
Sorry, Frumi, but your understanding is classic of people that only read the superficial history of the Nazis.
I will agree with a few points: first, they were in fact fascists first, socialists second, and in that sense, their nationalistic goals were paramount. To that end they used antisemitism. But the ‘final solution’ and extreme ethnic cleansing concepts were not public before they came to power. They purposefully hid them, because Hitler and others did not feel that even Germans would accept that extremism at that point. There are many writings from Hitler himself that state that.
Nazis came to power on two ideals: socialism and nationalism (though we can define the latter as fascism).
You have defined the fascist part just fine.
Hitler was fiercely anti-capitalist in tone during the twenties and thirties. He was certainly not an economic right winger. In fact, he often equated capitalism a Pluto-Democratic concept ruled by the Jewish elite (which is ironic, because in some ways that is a classical definition of fascism in and of itself).
In the 1920s, Nazis proposed numerous socialist programs. They wanted to outlaw any income that was not produced by work (like interest on loans, etc). They wanted to nationalize all corporations and any companies that made a profit. They wanted universal health care. And they wanted land distribution to the poor. These are in the Nazis own literature. In fact, the Capitalist of the time opposed the Nazis.
Look, I will admit that I didn’t spend 10,000 words explaining the complicated ideology and political influences of Nazism and Adolf HItler. But for you to deny that the Nazis were strongly socialist and fascist is pure ignorance on your part. I have NEVER, EVER called Obama a fascist. I don’t believe that for a second. I think he might be a socialist, but I mean that not as derogatory so much as descriptive of his ideology. Calling Obama a fascist is like calling him a Nazi…it simply has no basis in fact. And Nazis were definitely enemies of the Communists…but that by itself does not make them capitalists. That is a false strawman argument.
But at the same time, to ignore that most fascists on any renown have come from the political left, and not the right, just shows that either you were edcuated by pure liberal idealogues, or you simply don’t read enough.
-
Saying Hitler came from the “political left” is just wrong. Fascism isn’t necessarily economically conservative but it is based in nationalism which is considered a socially conservative ethos. That’s as simple as it gets right there. It doesn’t matter much that he proposed socialist style government considering the German people were dirt-ass poor thanks to WWI and the treaty. It was a way to get elected and hold power. That being said, plenty of industrialists made fortunes under Hitler. Doesn’t sound very communisty/socialist to me.
-
1. So you are saying FDR, the penultimate liberal, wasn’t a nationalist?
2. Why nationalism has to be a conservative ethos is beyond me. Communists are pretty damn nationalistic. Only liberal commentators have linked nationalism purely to conservatives. There is absolutely, positively no reason liberals can’t be nationalists.
3. Most socialist countries are dirt poor. And the elite usually still make their money under socialism and communism…which is one of the failures of those systems in general.
4. Hitler’s socialist statements came over decades of commentary. To say it was a simple political ploy is a misreading of history. -
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
1. So you are saying FDR, the penultimate liberal, wasn’t a nationalist?…
If FDR was the penultimate liberal, who do you consider the ultimate liberal?
-
[b]the ultimate liberal[/b]
[b][/b]
Aristotle -
[b]Saying Hitler came from the “political left” is just wrong.[/b]
[b][/b]
Oh it is worse than that it is just a flat out lie brought on by conservatives who are afraid of getting labeled as nazi’s -
ORIGINAL: eradicator
[b]Saying Hitler came from the “political left” is just wrong.[/b]
[b][/b]
Oh it is worse than that it is just a flat out lie brought on by conservatives who are afraid of getting labeled as nazi’sProve it.
In what way was he a ‘conservative’? Did he believe in the private market? No. Did he believe in individual rights? Nope. Did he believe in capitalistic free markets? Nope. So what is the proof? There is none. As usual, you are full of it.
But if you want to show yourself to be any type of intellectual, go right ahead. If you can’t show us something, you once again, like many times before, show yourself as a hack.
Liberals simply don’t want to accept that the biggest criminal in history happened to be one of them.
-
[b]In what way was he a ‘conservative’?[/b]
Don’t change the argument.
No one here said Hitler was a conservative. The Point made over and over is that Facism is the far right of the Political spectrum. -
ORIGINAL: eradicator
[b]In what way was he a ‘conservative’?[/b]
Don’t change the argument.
No one here said Hitler was a conservative. The Point made over and over is that Facism is the far right of the Political spectrum.
And I am telling you that you are wrong. So prove your point. Forget the conservative part. Argue whatever argument you want to make. So far, you have done nil, as usual. Like I said, we are now playing by your rules, not mine.
-
[b]And I am telling you that you are wrong.[/b]
[b][/b]
about what?
You don’t even know what you [b]are[/b] arguing or arguing about……..you just throw something out there..attach a link to it ………..and act like it is gospel -
No, who is changing the argument? You are.
You make blatant statements, don’t back it up…and we are supposed to take that as gospel. Sorry, um, no. Doesn’t work that way.
I challenge you to back up this statement you made earlier…
[b][i]MISTRAD: Saying Hitler came from the “political left” is just wrong.
ERAD: Oh it is worse than that it is just a flat out lie brought on by conservatives who are afraid of getting labeled as naz[/b]i’s[/i]
Back it up, big man. You don’t want facts from me, fine. Like I said, I will play your game. Now the ball is in your court…and you will go and make excuses like you always do, and avoid the question, because you don’t want to have to admit how lame your argument has been.
-
[b]Back it up, big man.[/b]
I just did you are conservative and you do not want to admit that Facism is on the edges of extreme right wing political system because you are afraid that conservatives will be labeled as Nazi’s
[b]You don’t want facts from me, fine.[/b]
[b][/b]
Ummmmmmmmmmmm so far your Facts were a Wikipedia article…………….and a threat to put your thesis on here which you backed out of when asked to do so
Like I said…..you don’t even know what you are arguing about
-
ORIGINAL: eradicator
[b]Back it up, big man.[/b]
I just did you are conservative and you do not want to admit that Facism is on the edges of extreme right wing political system because you are afraid that conservatives will be labeled as Nazi’s
[b]You don’t want facts from me, fine.[/b]
[b][/b]
Ummmmmmmmmmmm so far your Facts were a Wikipedia article…………….and a threat to put your thesis on here which you backed out of when asked to do soLike I said…..you don’t even know what you are arguing about
Sorry, no, you are wrong. Fascism doesn’t really fit on the left/right spectrum at all. My argument from the beginning is that only leftists historians ever really argued it belonged on the right…and yet, the great historical uses of fascism are all leftists. Again, show me how the Nazi’s are in any way related to right wing politics of today…they have much more in common with today’s political left, i.e. YOU.
Second, I didn’t use the Wiki article as my fact base…I even posted in that post that it was a brief, not thorough overview of the issue. But again, you can’t actually answer the question, because you realize that you are wrong. Of course, you try to take it out of context, because once again, you are realizing how foolish you are starting to look.
Not to mention, your own facts were…yourself. HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!
I don’t trust wiki, but I trust you [b][i]less[/i][/b]. And as far as I can tell, you posted 2 paragraphs of your ‘supposed’ thesis, which could have been plagiarized from anywhere. So again, you presumed ‘credibility’ on this issue is nil. And since you have long argued that you don’t want facts from me anyway, why would I trancribe my written thesis into auntminnie for you? I don’t thinks so. No, sir, the burden of proof is on you, because that is the way you wanted to play the game. Again…we are playing by YOUR RULES.
But, again, like I said, I will give you a chance to save face. Make an argument. Any argument. Something, anything, no matter how ridiculous it is. Back it up with something other than your own mind. Come on. Don’t be such a sad argument for a liberal man.
Back it up, big man.
-
[b]And since you have long argued that you don’t want facts from me anyway, why would I trancribe my written thesis into auntminnie for you?[/b]
Because you said you would……then when asked you said no.
Basically your knowledge on this is……………uh a wikipedia article
[b][/b]
[b][/b] -
This thread has been, um, enlightening. At least to inform us of the delusions of some people here regarding history.
I will have to say adieu but with one parting thought-
It is perfectly reasonable to say Nazism isn’t the opposite of Communism in most regards. I agree with this, even.
It is NOT REASONABLE to reinvent history in order to claim Hitler was a progressive liberal who just happened to gas Jews on his way to turning Germany into a Socialist paradise. This is stupid and misses the entire point of Nazism, why it came to be, how it worked, and why it was so successful. In fact, it completely flips the roles of ideology and execution. But whatever, these are wasted electrons as the wingnuts create their own reality when the one we have doesn’t fully demonize liberals. -
[b]It is NOT REASONABLE to reinvent history in order to claim[/b]
It because they are ideologues.
THey can’s seperate economics from politics. -
Actually, the two of you are the idealogues. That is what is enlightening about this thread. While you two have been trying to equate fascism and Nazism with the right, with no proof I may add, I have been stating the fact, that you have still not disproved, that fascism can be seen on both ends of the spectrum. So who is the idealogue? Clearly you are, because without anything to back you up you have been trying to paint American conservatives with the broad brush of fascism. What a joke.
As usual, erad presents nothing. Zero. Nada. Erad’s knowledge on this is a two paragraphs from a pilfered thesis from God knows where. And I have told you, since you said I should not present facts to you, we would play by your game. And thus, you are responsible for the facts, not me. And what did you present? Nothing but left wing propaganda. Even when we play by your rules, you can’t win an argument.
Nobody is plain delusional. Show me where I called Hitler a progressive liberal? Again, his hallucinations I can write off, because he has always been wrong about everything. I said Hitler was a socialist…which, as many of you Democrats repeatedly remind us, is a different animal than a liberal progressive. Or are you now admitting to equate the two? I guess Obama is really blurring the lines.
Erad talks about separating politics and economics. But he has, on numerous occasions, said the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is how they view the market economy. Talk about moronic. Erad can’t even distinguish between your own thoughts, let alone anyone elses. Pretty sad.
You two did not present anything, anywhere, other than your own dogma. While Nobody has always been a lost cause, erad at least used to be rational. Well, now, he doesn’t want to present any facts (because he has none), and as usual, and does the intellectual equivalent of taking is ball and going home.
Once again, erad proved my point: when you challenge liberals to show you something, anything tangible…they usually come up with nothing. And go back and read all of erad’s posts…there is nothing there. Nada. Zip.
All I asked was for one bit of tiny proof that shows where fascism was related to anything resembling the political right. You two buffoons came up with…nothing.
The absence of the intelligence on the left, paraded for all to see.
Clearly, the big man has nothing to back it up with.
-
[b]While you two have been trying to equate fascism and Nazism with the right,[/b]
[b][/b]
I am trying to figure out exactly what your learning disability is. It has something to do with your ability to comprehend. Or maybe it is just you want to argue….so you try to twist something for purposes of framing it that you think you can win……………..that is kinda why no one is paying attention to yo in this particularly thread……….and that is driving you crazy……………which is amusing.
BUt in a brief attempt to refocus you
What has be argued here between evreyone excluding you is the spectrum between Facism and communism………… not nazi-ism
THere has been a discussion between economics and politics and Nazi ism Hitler, Castro and others have been thrown into the mix for examples but basically some here are trying to have a discussion which you do not understand and are trying to twist into something else -
[b]As usual, erad presents nothing.[/b]
That is because after you boasted about posting your thesis then refused to do so when asked, I just figured you were making stuff up and werfen’t adding anything to this discussion so I l pretty much quit reading the bulk of your quite lenthy posts and WIKpedia links. -
You need to take a reading comprehension class.
When I mentioned my thesis, I specifically stated I would not post it, because no matter what, you didn’t want to hear facts.
So now, do you want to hear facts? Sorry, but you are the one changing the rules. I am playing by your rules, not mine, remember, and you can’t even keep that straight.
Now, as for YOUR learning disability, go back and read what you posted. You didnt relate fascism to communism. You related to the political right, which is a slightly different thing all together, no? Or maybe you are really that clueless.
So you related fascism to the political right. Not me. I then stated that is nonsense, because fascism can be part of either the political right or left…it is NOT ON THAT POLITICAL SPECTRUM.
And you argued that. You argued strenuously. Over and over again. So it was YOU who tried to link it to the political spectrum, not me. And now you are accusing me of doing exactly what you did!
Hahahahahahahaha!!!! You are such a tool.
Your cluelessness also shows in that I asked you for one example of a political right movement that used significant fascist ideals. You came up with…nothing.
Now, you want proof for me? For months you said you don’t want facts from me, and now you are saying you can’t present anything because….you want facts from me.
Erad, you really are an intellectual joke. And anyone that doesn’t believe that should go back and read JUST YOUR POSTS IN THIS THREAD. You can frankly ignore mine if you would like. Your posts say nothing, and somehow, you want to be taken serious. Hilarious.
-
[b]When I mentioned my thesis, I specifically stated I would not post it, because no matter what, you didn’t want to hear facts.[/b]
Here is exactly what you said
[b][i][u]And trust me…I could pull out my own thesis on this as well if you want
[/u][/i][/b]Then when asked to post it you refused…………………..so I just figured at that point you were FOS and strted ignoring you on this topic much like I usually ignore Pointman and HOR on most issues.
-
Well, I have no idea if your two paragraphs are from anything other than a liberal website.
Second, you picked the rules, not me. You didn’t want to hear facts from me. Fine. Now you have it your way, and you are complaining?
Again, I will ask, big man…present something other than your own opinion, which has been proven to be faulty. If it is so obvious, then it should be easy. Instead of the last 15 posts, you can have proven me the fool you claim I am on won the argument. Instead, you have conveniently failed to make any argument whatsoever.
Again, a neon sign showing your intellectual dishonesty.
-
[b]Second, you picked the rules, not me. You didn’t want to hear facts from me. Fine. Now you have it your way, and you are complaining?[/b]
2 points
—You said you could post your thesis if we wanted ……….then you refused when asked
—I am not complaining…..I was trying to ignore you because I think you are FOS on this issue just like I do to pointman and HOR on most issues……..you are quickly falling into their category -
Well, I have more than proven that you are FOS on this issue. If you are so easily correct, you could have actually posted your beliefs and argument instead of arguing the rules…
…this is what you always do. When challenged, you argue about procedure, and demand that someone else do the heavy lifting. Sorry, no more. You clearly stated several weeks ago you don’t want facts from me, and I made a promise to you that no matter what, I wouldn’t give you any more facts. Now, your own demand has come back to haunt you, because you have to show facts…and you have none to defend yourself with.
Again, I am proving once again that you are an ideological hack. If you want to have a discussion on the relationship of fascism to politics, lets do it. But that is not what you want. You want to make a blatant incorrect statement, and then walk away as if you are some kind of expert.
And clearly, after several days of jousting with you, you keep on proving yourself as just another ignorant liberal spouting talking points some professor somewhere handed to you. You are a dittohead in the truest sense of the word.
-
Ok you got to vent now move on
-
I still want to hear your argument. I am not hear to vent…I am here to so I can hear opposing viewpoints to my own. What bothers me about you is that you state your opinion, don’t back it up, and we are supposed to take it as gospel.
Again, big man, show me something.
-
[b]I still want to hear your argument[/b]
[b][/b]
Go back and re-read the thread girlfriend -
Sorry, but you said nothing of value so far, big man.
Again, make your argument, if you have one.
-
Go back and re-read the thread girlfriend
-
ORIGINAL: eradicator
Go back and re-read the thread girlfriend
OK, let us say I did.
And you still have not shown anything.
Again, big man, make your argument…I know you don’t have one, that is why you are avoiding.
That is fine. Keep telling everyone to reread your posts. Acutally, I [i][b]encourage [/b][/i]people to go back and read erad’s posts…just to prove he has said nothing. That will more than prove my point, not yours.
-
You know, it strikes me (or maybe I’m just betraying an odd predilection for the academic world where ideas are bandied about as pure sport): [i]normally[/i], in a community of relatively intelligent, well-educated folks, isn’t a difference of opinion generally not only tolerated, but welcomed (makes discussions more interesting and fruitful), and treated as a simple, albeit curious, case of perhaps different viewpoints/backgrounds/references? In such a world, wouldn’t someone who happened to disagree with you — even often, even fundamentally — still be seen by you as an intelligent, worthy sparring partner and perhaps in some measure a potential teacher?
That’s what strikes me so about the “new” Republican/conservative/Tea Party/townhall thug behavior: there seems to be an assumption that if someone disagrees with their summation and interpretation, that person must be either an idiot, or a liar.
I frankly don’t care if the conservatives [i]are[/i] right about everything — I so resent what they have done to our discourse and political freedom of thought in this country, that I cannot abide their influence, I’ve lost respect for them.
-
But that is just it, itchn.
I am willing to accept a difference of opinion. I know I will NEVER convince erad of my point of view.
But it is erad, and not me, that is thuggish in his behavior. He wants me to shut up…I want him to voice his opinion. The irony is, the person acting more fascist here is erad, not me.
I have never asked erad to shut up, and never will. He has a right to his opinions, as do we all. But erad simply cannot dictate something as fact, and then claim that the argument is over. In this discussion, he simply claimed he knew more than the rest us, never presented anything, and somehow we are supposed to accept his claim. Sorry, but no.
I would claim, itchn, it is the liberals that have taken the level of discourse downward. Whenever, where ever conservatives band together, what is the first word out of liberals mouth? Racists. That, by definition, coarsens the discourse. When liberals attacked tea partiers in St. Louis last year, erad said it didn’t happen unless there was video evidence. Fine. Then, when the ‘N’ word was suppposedly bantered around by Tea Partiers during the health care vote, I said give me video evidence…using erad’s own level of evidence. But no, now the word of random sources was enough. The double standard continues, and the liberals once again coarsen the debate.
That is why the right, and many independents now, have lost respect for Barack Obama and the liberal left.
-
[b]Whenever, where ever conservatives band together, what is the first word out of liberals mouth? Racists.[/b]
[b][/b]
That is plain BS. Sure, the debate has become so heated and overwrought on both sides, it’s hard to tell who’s the more reasonable and calm anymore, but I certainly wouldn’t be making that claim about the ‘Pubs. Not with Armey baiting the Tea Partiers… not with the secessionist talk coming out of conservatives from all over. It’s all overblown — the whole damn thing. It’s not possible to have profitable debate anymore.Who was it who went on tv early on and called Obama a racist? That was Beck, if memory serves? ok, so most of you would disavow him, but the Left isn’t going to leave his contribution — as [i]apparently[/i] tolerated and condoned by the Right — out of the equation when distilling a sense of what the Right is about.
If you’re right, Mistrad, then the GOP has made one colossal mistake: in promising too much to the far right to win their support, and backing themselves into an untenable corner where accusations of racism are not warranted fundamentally, but certainly are going by appearances. I understand the wish to backtrack and defend themselves, but I also completly understand the burning anger on the part of the Left.
Like I said, the conversation just can’t be had anymore. We need a moratorium on discussion, a cooling out period — and the conservatives on here need to quit calling their ideological opponents “stupid”. It just reflects so badly….
-
Last year, when the tea party movement started, what was the first thing that came out of media? Angry WHITE males against Obama. It was no such thing. Was it conservatives? Yes. Were they mostly white? Yes. But I went to many of these things, and not once did I hear anything close to a racial slur.
Glenn Beck is a moron. Do you want me to make you defend Keith Olbermann, or a host of other idiots on the left? Olbermann called Bush a Nazi not once, but many times…but didn’t hear anyone on the left decry that.
If the conversation cannot be had anymore, so be it. Then the Republicans are doing the exact right thing: polarizing things even more. Your argument basically results in one thing: further and more alienation of the extremes. And for liberals not to take their due credit for the current environment (and I will admit conservatives deserve their share as well) will not help the discourse any, I can assure you.
As for a moratorium on discussion, I am all for that…but that would be Obama should halt his policy measures as well. I don’t think that is going to happen. It has to be bilateral disarmament, or nothing at all.
-
All this Fascists = Lefties is an old argument that I recalled hearing before. For those of you who are interested, the Right-wingernuts have been arguing sophistry about Fascism being a left-wing political philosophy for a very long time now. This thread is from 2010 & started by eradicator & my brain exploded as I read the twisted arguments.
The Right has been trying to fool us all for a very long time now. It is just a continuing story.
So not only was Hitler and company Left-wingers, so were Mussolini and Francisco Franco, Franco being the most successful, only successful Fascist in the past.
Somehow I don’t see Franco as much of a left-winger. Or Mussolini. Someone needs to explain. -
That Eradicator is one bad arse dude
-
Yup
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
ORIGINAL: eradicator
[b]In what way was he a ‘conservative’?[/b]
… The Point made over and over is that Facism is the far right of the Political spectrum.
And I am telling you that you are wrong. So prove your point. Forget the conservative part. Argue whatever argument you want to make. So far, you have done nil, as usual. Like I said, we are now playing by your rules, not mine.
I have no intention of wading into this food fight. But for those of you out there who are confused as to where to place Fascism and Naziism on the political spectrum (and you wouldn’t be alone), may I recommend Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” from a few years back. He makes a compelling case that the modern Left owes a great debt to the Fascism that evolved from the French Revolution through Mussolini. Here is Goldberg’s definition, (fwiw)…
[center][b]Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is [i]totalitarian[/i] in that it vews everything as political and hods that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy.[/b][/center]
-
ORIGINAL: Photonman
I have no intention of wading into this food fight. But for those of you out there who are confused as to where to place Fascism and Naziism on the political spectrum (and you wouldn’t be alone), may I recommend Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” from a few years back. He makes a compelling case that the modern Left owes a great debt to the Fascism that evolved from the French Revolution through Mussolini. Here is Goldberg’s definition, (fwiw)…
[center][b]Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is [i]totalitarian[/i] in that it vews everything as political and hods that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy.[/b][/center]
I don’t know if I agree with Goldberg’s analysis completely. My argument is this: fascism doesn’t fit on the left/right spectrum. Liberals have tried to place it with the right, and right wingers like Goldberg try to place in on the left. It doesn’t fit with either, and is more a tool of political movements and a way to obtain and maintain power than fitting with any ideology specifically.
I still argue that most of the strongest fascist regimes of the last century were from the political left. That said…I don’t think fascism is unique to either side of the political spectrum.
-
Yep. Good Post. Also – Jonah Goldberg hates Trump for what its worth.
This is the TRUTH of fascism/socialism/communism. This is what most people who democrat in this country don’t understand. They confuse with wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage. Meanwhile they are after CONTROL.
-
Propaganda and how to see it.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/04/technology/facebook-influence-campaigns-quiz.html]https://www.nytimes.com/i…ce-campaigns-quiz.html[/link] -
NYT full on fake news and propaganda. It’s when they report non-leftist stories now that they are only actually serving news. They don’t even have international bureaus anymore, they have 20 year olds making shit up after calling people from their NY apartments. It’s quite funny since it’s so obvious now.
As for the power rulers above, the first place to start is that they are statists. Then you can talk about how they rule politically to understand what left or right mean. -
[b]Socialist Defeats 4-Term Incumbent Mayor of Buffalo[/b][/h1]
India Walton, the community activist barely known to many Buffalo voters just months ago, shocked four-term incumbent Byron Brown in Tuesdays Democratic primary for mayor in what may rank as the most historic upset in the citys political history, the [link=https://buffalonews.com/news/local/government-and-politics/india-walton-claims-upset-in-buffalo-mayoral-race-byron-brown-pins-hopes-on-absentees/article_0effac1a-d2e3-11eb-af3c-4be5cacd07aa.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1]Buffalo News[/link] reports.
[link=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/socialist-candidate-track-defeat-buffalo-s-four-term-incumbent-mayor-n1272091]NBC News[/link]: If Walton, 39, wins the primary and the general election later this year, she would become the first socialist mayor of a large American city since 1960, when Frank Zeidler left office in Milwaukee.
Walton was [link=https://twitter.com/RobertKirkhamBN/status/1407534364771115009?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1407534364771115009%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbuffalonews.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fgovernment-and-politics%2Findia-walton-claims-upset-in-buffalo-mayoral-race-byron-brown-pins-hopes-on-absentees%2Farticle_0effac1a-d2e3-11eb-af3c-4be5cacd07aa.html]captured on video[/link] telling her mother that she won.Video @TheBuffaloNews
India Walton leaves Poize Nightclub on Niagara Street to call her mom telling her she won mayoral democratic primary in Buffalo pic.twitter.com/tVNsy2mDe2
— Robert Kirkham (@RobertKirkhamBN) June 23, 2021
-
He kept hope alive …
[h1][b]Buffalo Mayor Wins as Write-In Candidate to Defeat Socialist Primary Opponent[/b][/h1]
Byron Brown, considered politically dead by many following his stunning defeat in the June primary for mayor of Buffalo, appears to have resurrected his long career as he claimed victory Tuesday in his bruising write-in campaign against Democratic nominee India Walton, the [link=https://buffalonews.com/news/local/government-and-politics/byron-brown-claims-victory-in-buffalo-mayors-race-write-in-ballots-swamp-india-walton/article_ecc533bc-3b48-11ec-877f-db82ef2dd077.html#tracking-source=home-top-story]Buffalo News[/link] reports.
Walton was the only name listed on the ballot but she lost [link=https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/politics/buffalo-mayor-byron-brown/index.html]by what looks like a 59% to 41% margin[/link].
-
Hitler named his party the German National Workers Socialist Party (NationalsoZialitische Deusche Arbeiterpartei) Nazi for short. This is clearly a leftist socialist label, even though he was not a Marxist and was clearly a nationalist. Stalin was a communist and a fascist. Castro was a leftist socialist later turned communist and a fascist, Chaves is a socialist redistributionist gradually turning fascist, Obama is a redistributionist, left wing social worker who intends to change America.
The liberal ideals are great, but the implementation of those ideals requires forcing people to give up their personal freedoms.
-
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
The liberal ideals are great, but the implementation of those ideals requires forcing people to give up their personal freedoms.Much like national security…
-
[b]Perhaps in their [i]stated ideologies[/i] they are different, but the ultimate result of their rule is identical. The people are suppressed, the economies go to hell, and dissidents are imprisoned or killed. As you note, the only examples we see in modern times have been [i]totalitarian[/i], which does lead to the above findings whether Left or Right. [/b]
[b][/b]
I think you can draw some paralells but I could also make quite a few arguments stating the opposite. In the Modern era communism has been much more successful than fascism………. you could argue this is because Hitler was a madman[b]Can we agree that both Socialism/Communism and Fascism are bad things?[/b]
If I answer that question in the context of human Nature I say yes I agree with you.
I could get extremely philosophical with this but remember but rememember Socialism, communism and facism are ideas… theories even……………………Individuals make them bad things.
-
ORIGINAL: eradicator
I could get extremely philosophical with this but rememember Socialism, communism and facism are ideas… theories even.
Individuals make them bad things.
Very wise and well-stated. I personally believe all are based on incorrect or improper logic and reasoning. Socialism/Communism (ultimately similar) were based on good intentions, but have been shown to be unsustainable on a large scale, time and again, even with benign leadership. Facism, of course, is another story.
-
-
-
Then, by your logic, Bush is a socialist as well. TARP was designed around “too big to fail”. (Not that I disagree about the possibility of failure being a necessary risk… but personally, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to call Bush a socialist. Just another pansy to the Oligarchs, that’s all.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
