The Right Wing Moron Thread

[AntRobertson]

^^So you do think North Korea is a democracy then.

Sheesh, what a right wing moron.

[ENT]

Still fishing?

Read my post again.

[AntRobertson]

No need, it won't get any better.

[david44]

I'm lost is their a thread for liberal middle of the road easy going tolerant morons please?

[bsnub]

Also for someone so long-winded the majority of your posts just devolve down to ranting about 'lefties'.

In baseball terms he has a long wind up and a shit delivery.

[ENT]

Socialism, it never got off the ground, ever...................

[bsnub]

^ Umm yes it did. All of the nations that have the highest standards of living are socialist nations.

[ENT]

Like North Korea, Cambodia, Laos, China, Russia,.....etc?

[AntRobertson]

Like North Korea

Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

[ENT]

Still self styled socialist-communist, but a monarchic dictatorship.

[AntRobertson]

So basically your argument is that Nazism was a form of socialism because Nazi was short for the National Socialist German Workers' Party but North Korea, short for the North Korea Democratic People's Republic of Korea, isn't a democracy and, in fact, is actually socialist monarchic dictatorship even though they don't have, you know, a royal family.

Hmm, question...does that mean that all Nazis were also workers?

[ENT]

Glad to see you've finally done some homework.

BTW, a monarchic dictatorship is not the same as a monarchy.

[ENT]

Hmm, question...does that mean that all Nazis were also workers?

Stupid idea.

[AntRobertson]

Jaysus, right wing morons are too moronic to even know when they're being mocked.

[ENT]

Want some peanuts?

[sabang]

Ever heard of National Socialism?

Ever heard of the Democratic Republic of North Korea?

The equating of Nazism (aka Fascism) to Socialism is sheer, utter nonsense- they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The only thing they have in common is that they are both not sustainable forms of governance.

Edit:- Plus the government is not elected by the People. Rather appointed by an unelected Politburo (committee), or seized and held on to by force.

[Humbert]

I'm lost is their a thread for liberal middle of the road easy going tolerant morons please?

No, but you can start one and earn lots of the little green blobs you covet so much.

[ENT]

Ever heard of National Socialism?

Ever heard of the Democratic Republic of North Korea?

The equating of Nazism (aka Fascism) to Socialism is sheer, utter nonsense- they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The only thing they have in common is that they are both not sustainable forms of governance.

Edit:- Plus the government is not elected by the People. Rather appointed by an unelected Politburo (committee), or seized and held on to by force.

Who's government are you talking about, socialists, fascists or dictators?
Socialists elect their governments as a rule, as do fascists.

Both then tend to become totalitarian, each dictating the lives of their respective peoples, all their workers imprisoned in state enterprise.

Fascism demands national solidarity, while socialism supposedly espouses international solidarity, both political forms being totalitarian, repressive and negative of individualism and free choice or thought.

Fascism claims to protect the people (workers and all) via the state, which is paramount, and socialism claims to protect the working class, again via the state.

UK's and other supposedly democratic governments aren't elected by the voting public either, but are appointed by the wining party after an election, socialist or conservative.

All governments are evil, but necessary evils, otherwise we'd have various shades of dictatorial piracy and gangsterism running our countries.

The bottom line is that fascism demands total conformity and allegiance to the values of the state in order to govern and protect the state and its economy, while socialism demands worker solidarity to govern and ostensibly protect the state and its economy, both systems of governance suppress individual human choice and rights in favour of state control over every individual.

Not much difference between the two.

Woodrow Wilson, America's first Fascist president is a glaring example of power hunger

Wilson was the first president to criticize the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Wilson criticized the diffuseness of government power in the US in most famous book Congressional Government. In this work he confessed, “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”



His love and worship of power was a prime characteristic of fascism. “If any trait bubbles up in all one reads about Wilson it is this: he loved, craved, and in a sense glorified power,” writes historian Walter McDougall. It should not surprise us that his idols were Abraham Lincoln and Otto von Bismarck.


“No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle,” wrote Wilson, attacking the very individual rights that have made America great.


He rejected the principles of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” that are the foundation of American government: “Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand….” wrote Wilson in The State.


No fan of democracy or constitutional government, he wrote the following in Constitutional Government in the United States:

“The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit….” Sounds like a devotee of the imperial presidency.


Indeed, in a disturbing 1890 essay entitled Leaders of Men, Wilson said that a “true leader” uses the masses of people like “tools.”



He writes, “The competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of other people’s characters:


he cares much–everything–for the external uses to which they may be put….



He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates…. It is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield.



Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.” So much for the dignity of each person!

https://conservativecolloquium.wordp...ist-president/

[Humbert]

Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.

The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.

Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist? Debunking a Historical Myth

[bsnub]

^ Shit the brownshirts even torched the Reichstag and blamed the communists. Anyone that thinks Nazi's were socialist needs a history lesson.

[ENT]

Dunno if Hitler was a socialist,
socialism
Simple Definition of socialism
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies


Full Definition of socialism1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

1. 2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property. b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
2. 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Maybe he qualifies under point 2.3, as do every form of capitalism and government.

[Humbert]

^He was not a socialist, communist, Marxist or Bolshevik. He loathed them.

[ENT]

Anyone that thinks Nazi's were socialist needs a history lesson.

A rose by any other name would still smell just the same.

[bsnub]

^ The Nazi's were fascists and that is why they aligned with another fascist nation in Italy.

[AntRobertson]

It's no use trying to use facts or logic with him: he makes up his mind about something and that's that. No amount of reason will change it and he will perform any logic gymnastics or outright disingenuity to keep repeating the same incorrect statements.