Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

The issue is once again to do with labelling. "Conservative" should mean "Strong respect for constitution, economic spending on infrastructure, Foreign policy that keeps US soldiers on US soil." However, thanks in part to the UTTERLY F*CKING INSANE GOP, "Conservative Republican" has come to mean "Bigoted, xenophobic religious nutter (likely white, Christian, and male) that wants to declare war on everything"

Oh, both parties are Fascist by the way. Clinton is just as Fascist as Trump is, maybe more so.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

fascism
ˈfaʃɪz(ə)m/
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic left-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism,leftism, militarism; More
(in general use) extreme left-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.
"this is yet another example of health fascism in action"



Stop it.

Just stop.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I see... fascism is en vogue again. Good for every self-loving right-winger when there is something to fuel the delusional state of mind with.

You know Mussolini killed roughly 2 million people? With the nice sum of 100 million in credit from J.P. Morgan to built up his tyranny, of course. Just like every promising dictator, big capital loves those folks.
Ever heard that name, J.P. Morgan? Off we go into the post-modern financial fascism, that's right. Some say we're aleready there since 2008, whatever. And you just opened your legs for this PR campaign, I'm proud of your aryan hair!

Kinda funny that you didn't mention the Duce, but rambled about the NSDAP instead. Well... fascism and nationalsocialism are actually 2 different pair of shoes. Sorry to break this for you, but socialism and stalinism are not the same either. All those _isms are obviously way too much for your Electric Universe. Chapeau!
There is so much wrong with your thread that I'm lost on where to start deconstructing the disinfo, which way do you wanna have it then?

Anyway... following orders is something we Krauts were very good with, just saying. Obey a nice and warm social fascism then!

a reply to: Bennyzilla

Why? Just that you folks can continue to obfuscate language and history without any inconvenient disturbance?

Perfectly understandable for various reasons, but you should really discard that joke of a dictionary. All systems are similar to some degree, but they are simply not the same.

There is no need for different names if you were right (is it a pun?), innit?

originally posted by: neo96
Their solution is just to rob from the one percent to pay for the 99%.

Until one day there is no more one percent.

Sounds like a great solution, where do we sign up?

a reply to: pirhanna

Fascism is the marriage of the state and large corporate interests, with strong nationalist and collectivist ideology.

Well now if that's the case remind me WHO it was again that forced people to buy auto insurance,home insurance,and HEALTHCARE INSURANCE(ALL corporate products) ?

Hint it wasn't the right.

a reply to: neo96

Both sides of the government are fascist. I don't think anyone's disputing that?

a reply to: neo96

Nobody said we don't live in some kind of financial fascism. And some people would dare to call this crap socialism, or dare to sell us all the shiny new forms of slavary as freedom for that matter.

The right and left wing of political parties are indeed working for the same class (with some rare exceptions). Hint... it's no way near democracy.

a reply to: neo96

Compulsory auto insurance is required by all states, except one. It is universally accepted by people on both sides of the aisle.

Home insurance began as a requirement by mortgage companies.

And the healthcare mandate was created by the Heritage Foundation, which was later implemented by Romney in Massachusetts.

Hint: You don't know what you're talking about.

a reply to: introvert

We established that earlier when he said Sanders was going to tax rich people 70-90% of the their income, then changed to talking about stock taxes when called on it.

Are publically funded roads a bad thing?

a reply to: neo96

Well now if that's the case remind me WHO it was again that forced people to buy auto insurance,home insurance,and HEALTHCARE INSURANCE(ALL corporate products) ?

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts and last season's Republican presidential candidate. The Republicans are vilifying the best "market based" solution to America's health care crisis. A better solution would be socialized medicine, but that leads to Fascism, right?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: peskyhumans
a reply to: muse7

Don't mistake modern liberalism for classic liberalism. In modern day terms the founding fathers would be considered libertarians.

And we shouldn't confuse modern socialism with classic socialism. In modern day terms, the founding fathers would be socialists.

That makes no sense. What social programs did the founding fathers create? I think you are confused. The usage of the word "Liberalism" has changed over the centuries. What the founding fathers called "liberalism" is very different to how the word is used today.

en.wikipedia.org...

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom

Classical Liberalism advocated individual freedoms and small government, which is a polar opposite of modern liberalism which advocates big government and social nets.

The founding fathers believed in making individuals independent from the government and advocated freedom and responsibility. The closest ideology they could be compared to today would be libertarian.

a reply to: peskyhumans

That makes no sense. What social programs did the founding fathers create?

Point of information: during the colonial period the settlers maintained the British custom of holding large parcels of land as "commons" for the use of all. This is a form of communism. Also, serving in the militia was mandatory, which is an obligation on the individual by the State.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: peskyhumans

Maybe it does, but the current GOP doesn't represent those roots in pretty much any shape or form.

That's true. The recent budget bill was passed by a majority republican congress. It's a monstrosity that is spending another trillion dollars we don't have. Our representatives just don't care about their constituents anymore.

I really think that the people should be directly involved with how our tax money is spent. National budgets should either require a popular vote or individual taxpayers should be able to decide what specific programs their tax money funds.

originally posted by: introvert
-- snip --
Anyway, you have to better understand the differences in terminology between the 1930's and 2015 to better understand Nazis, fascism and socialism.

Star!

A sentiment I had been considering but was unable to come up with such a concise way to say it.

Three more words that come to mind are progress, conservative and gay.

I've reached the age where it is hard to hold out hope of there ever being an evenhanded way for society to function. Even in the event that a way could be found to cure whatever leads to the birth of physical psychopaths, sociopaths will always exist because they are the other side of the "Nature vs Nurture" equation.

It is naive in the extreme to believe anyone at the upper level of a society will ever willingly live within the same means as the lowest. Human nature assures that will never be the case.

a reply to: peskyhumans

What social programs did the founding fathers create?

The Military, for one. Did they not grant the authority of the Federal government to provide for the common defense?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

And I'll see your "Hitler manifesto" with
a personal anecdote.

One of my good friends is a Cuban who defected 20-something years ago.
HE IS VOTING FOR SANDERS.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: introvert

We established that earlier when he said Sanders was going to tax rich people 70-90% of the their income, then changed to talking about stock taxes when called on it.

Are publically funded roads a bad thing?

Yeah we sure did establish that didn't we ?

Bernie Sanders Backs Off From Support For A 90 Percent Tax Rate

He was FOR IT until He Decided AGAINST it.

a reply to: neo96

Then you should be able to untwist your shorts!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So you missed the whole HE wanted to tax them evil rich 90% of their incomes part ?

Guess so.