Fascism

[Divine Wind]

...The US of A is a gargantuan FASCIST bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.
.

I've seen that same opinion expressed by pot-smoking teenage anarchists living off their parents in a basement room.

How do you arrive as such a wild conclusion that the US is fascist, bankrupt or any of the rest much less all together?

 

[Divine Wind]

That is because people don't know that he was a nut and believed in eugenics......if more people knew that Teddy wouldn't have the status that he has.....

1) A lot of prominent people accepted the science of eugenics in the early part of the 20th. It's not like he believed Obama was a Kenyan Muslim sleeper agent sent here to destroy the United States or that Bush caused 9/11.

2) Eugenics is simply improving the human race through selective breeding. Eugenics got a bad name because of it's association with the fucking Nazis. Not only did they selectively breed their "best", but they actively sought to eliminate all "undesirable" human beings from their population such as Jews, Homosexuals, mentally defective, Gypsies, etc. by imprisoning and executing them. 11 million people died in the Nazi Holocaust, 6 million of them Jews.

3) From 1907 to 1963, the US practiced eugenics through forced sterilization of "undesirables" such as the mentally retarded, the insane and other "defective persons". Social Origins of Eugenics

4) Today it's considered not PC to mention it even though we're entering an age of selecting desirable genes from eggs and sperm to form a desired zygote. In essence, we're on the verge of practicing Eugenics pre-conception.

 

[danielpalos]

"Seems to work best?" Obviously you don't have any actual evidence that it works best.

The United States of America. Perhaps you can give the name of a country which is better.....in your opinion.

The United States of America is the evidence that limiting government meddling to the maximum extent possible is what works best.

Bad bad example

The US of A is a gargantuan FASCIST bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.


.

It is now, but prior to FDR it was a passably free country.

what do you mean by "free"? we had a Third World economy before FDR, we cruised right past the second world due to litigation and war, and now we have a First World economy, where the right alleges that the poor are, too free to do what they want.

 

[Divine Wind]

.... we had a Third World economy before FDR, we cruised right past the second world due to litigation and war, and now we have a First World economy, where the right alleges that the poor are, too free to do what they want.

That's not quite correct, although I'm sure most people will agree WWII, despite almost bankrupting the nation, gave it an industrial boost that pushed us to the top of the world economies.

1) "Second World" refers to communist nations since their economies were planned. First, Second, and Third World - Nations Online Project

2) The world was in a global depression in the 1930s. Despite this, the US was still an economic powerhouse. A major difference was one of attitude; the US was isolationist to a large extent and global trade was limited. The US economy was large because the country is large and prosperous whereas the USSR was large and not prosperous. China was a basketcase of competing warlords.

 

[bripat9643]

"Seems to work best?" Obviously you don't have any actual evidence that it works best.

The United States of America. Perhaps you can give the name of a country which is better.....in your opinion.

The United States of America is the evidence that limiting government meddling to the maximum extent possible is what works best.

Bad bad example

The US of A is a gargantuan FASCIST bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.


.

It is now, but prior to FDR it was a passably free country.

what do you mean by "free"? we had a Third World economy before FDR, we cruised right past the second world due to litigation and war, and now we have a First World economy, where the right alleges that the poor are, too free to do what they want.

No we didn't. We had the biggest economy on earth. You're peddling a leftwing myth. Who do you imaging purchased 20 million Model T's before FDR ascended to the throne?

 

[bripat9643]

.... we had a Third World economy before FDR, we cruised right past the second world due to litigation and war, and now we have a First World economy, where the right alleges that the poor are, too free to do what they want.

That's not quite correct, although I'm sure most people will agree WWII, despite almost bankrupting the nation, gave it an industrial boost that pushed us to the top of the world economies.

1) "Second World" refers to communist nations since their economies were planned. First, Second, and Third World - Nations Online Project

2) The world was in a global depression in the 1930s. Despite this, the US was still an economic powerhouse. A major difference was one of attitude; the US was isolationist to a large extent and global trade was limited. The US economy was large because the country is large and prosperous whereas the USSR was large and not prosperous. China was a basketcase of competing warlords.

1. More leftist propaganda. WW II did not grow our industrial capacity that much. The claim that it did is a leftwing myth. Most of the factories used in WW II already existed before the war. They were just lying idle because of the depression.

2. So the U.S. was an economic powerhouse before the war, but the war is the reason we were an economic powerhouse? You can't even keep your propaganda straight.

 

[2aguy]

That is because people don't know that he was a nut and believed in eugenics......if more people knew that Teddy wouldn't have the status that he has.....

1) A lot of prominent people accepted the science of eugenics in the early part of the 20th. It's not like he believed Obama was a Kenyan Muslim sleeper agent sent here to destroy the United States or that Bush caused 9/11.

2) Eugenics is simply improving the human race through selective breeding. Eugenics got a bad name because of it's association with the fucking Nazis. Not only did they selectively breed their "best", but they actively sought to eliminate all "undesirable" human beings from their population such as Jews, Homosexuals, mentally defective, Gypsies, etc. by imprisoning and executing them. 11 million people died in the Nazi Holocaust, 6 million of them Jews.

3) From 1907 to 1963, the US practiced eugenics through forced sterilization of "undesirables" such as the mentally retarded, the insane and other "defective persons". Social Origins of Eugenics

4) Today it's considered not PC to mention it even though we're entering an age of selecting desirable genes from eggs and sperm to form a desired zygote. In essence, we're on the verge of practicing Eugenics pre-conception.

Yeah...he made some really unpleasant statements supporting eugenics....and if people knew about them he would not be seen kindly.....

 

[Divine Wind]

That is because people don't know that he was a nut and believed in eugenics......if more people knew that Teddy wouldn't have the status that he has.....

1) A lot of prominent people accepted the science of eugenics in the early part of the 20th. It's not like he believed Obama was a Kenyan Muslim sleeper agent sent here to destroy the United States or that Bush caused 9/11.

2) Eugenics is simply improving the human race through selective breeding. Eugenics got a bad name because of it's association with the fucking Nazis. Not only did they selectively breed their "best", but they actively sought to eliminate all "undesirable" human beings from their population such as Jews, Homosexuals, mentally defective, Gypsies, etc. by imprisoning and executing them. 11 million people died in the Nazi Holocaust, 6 million of them Jews.

3) From 1907 to 1963, the US practiced eugenics through forced sterilization of "undesirables" such as the mentally retarded, the insane and other "defective persons". Social Origins of Eugenics

4) Today it's considered not PC to mention it even though we're entering an age of selecting desirable genes from eggs and sperm to form a desired zygote. In essence, we're on the verge of practicing Eugenics pre-conception.

Yeah...he made some really unpleasant statements supporting eugenics....and if people knew about them he would not be seen kindly.....

Of course he did. Like I said, it was so common at the time, many states practices eugenics through forced sterilization.

FWIW, do you believe there are superior and inferior people? I do. That's clearly shown by any IQ Bell Curve.

Does this superiority/inferiority apply to different "races" or religions? No, it does not. The difference we see are primarily cultural. Take a Palestinian baby out of Gaza, put them into a Middle Class American home and you'll most likely end up with a hard-working, loyal American citizen.

7 Beloved Famous People Who Were Wildly Pro-Eugenics

 

[Divine Wind]

1. More leftist propaganda. WW II did not grow our industrial capacity that much. The claim that it did is a leftwing myth. Most of the factories used in WW II already existed before the war. They were just lying idle because of the depression.

2. So the U.S. was an economic powerhouse before the war, but the war is the reason we were an economic powerhouse? You can't even keep your propaganda straight.

You should try reading it again, but let the partisan scales fall from your eyes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The election proved demagoguery, hate and fear are sufficient to woe the votes of the biddable. Have you noticed how many common people have been nominated or appointed by the P-e? Has Trump drained the swamp, or has he reloaded it with the usual suspects; from, Wall Street, the 1%, the Military and former elected officials.

As if Hillary would have done anything different, other than the cronies would all have a "D" after their names or large "charity" donation checks.

Still, it remains to be seen how the Trump administration functions. He's not even sworn in yet and you're declaring his Presidency a failure. LOL

Hillary hasn't and won't nominate or appoint anyone, she lost the Presidency even though she received a clear mandate of a 3 million + or - votes more than Trump. That's a fact!

I haven't declared Trump's Presidency a failure. I have said and I will repeat that Trump is unfit to be POTUS, I've made that assessment by watching and listening to him closely, and by the facts that he has zero experience with governance, seems to have no sense of diplomacy, attacks persons not their argument, and has proved to me to be a classic demagogue, charlatan and narcissist.

Will his presidency be a failure? That is the question yet to be answered. Two points to consider:

1. People in general either grow into a job, or they don't. We can hope and some might pray that Trump can learn he cannot succeed on tweets, lies, false pathos or promises. He must rely on others and listen to their counsel, he must try to understand other cultures and why some will tell him, NO! And he must hold his tongue (metaphorically, put the letter under his pillow and read it over the following day)
2. And the question to be answered for anyone who first takes the oath of office of the President of the United States: Will he make history, or will history make him?

 

[owebo]

The election proved demagoguery, hate and fear are sufficient to woe the votes of the biddable. Have you noticed how many common people have been nominated or appointed by the P-e? Has Trump drained the swamp, or has he reloaded it with the usual suspects; from, Wall Street, the 1%, the Military and former elected officials.

As if Hillary would have done anything different, other than the cronies would all have a "D" after their names or large "charity" donation checks.

Still, it remains to be seen how the Trump administration functions. He's not even sworn in yet and you're declaring his Presidency a failure. LOL

Hillary hasn't and won't nominate or appoint anyone, she lost the Presidency even though she received a clear mandate of a 3 million + or - votes more than Trump. That's a fact!

I haven't declared Trump's Presidency a failure. I have said and I will repeat that Trump is unfit to be POTUS, I've made that assessment by watching and listening to him closely, and by the facts that he has zero experience with governance, seems to have no sense of diplomacy, attacks persons not their argument, and has proved to me to be a classic demagogue, charlatan and narcissist.

Will his presidency be a failure? That is the question yet to be answered. Two points to consider:

1. People in general either grow into a job, or they don't. We can hope and some might pray that Trump can learn he cannot succeed on tweets, lies, false pathos or promises. He must rely on others and listen to their counsel, he must try to understand other cultures and why some will tell him, NO! And he must hold his tongue (metaphorically, put the letter under his pillow and read it over the following day)
2. And the question to be answered for anyone who first takes the oath of office of the President of the United States: Will he make history, or will history make him?

A mandate for what?

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Seems to work best?" Obviously you don't have any actual evidence that it works best.

The United States of America. Perhaps you can give the name of a country which is better.....in your opinion.

The United States of America is the evidence that limiting government meddling to the maximum extent possible is what works best.

I'd suggest courses on the Economic History of the United States and The Diplomatic History of the US, but since they are mostly taught by professors, and your side of the aisle believes them to be liberal brain washers you would not be inclined to do so. There are books on both subjects, annotated with bibliographies and cites to primary sources. But I doubt you would waster your time.

I would suggest that you're a brainwashed moron. I've read hundred of books about American history, especially it's economic history.

You, on the other hand, don't know your ass for a hole in the ground. Everything you think you know is a lie.

I once thought you were stupid and an angry white guy. Of late I've changed my opinion and have a hunch you are insane. Your sense of reality is bizarre at best, more akin to a paranoid schizophrenic than anyone else who posts I've read on the USMB. I hope for the sake of others you don't own a gun..

 

[Wry Catcher]

The election proved demagoguery, hate and fear are sufficient to woe the votes of the biddable. Have you noticed how many common people have been nominated or appointed by the P-e? Has Trump drained the swamp, or has he reloaded it with the usual suspects; from, Wall Street, the 1%, the Military and former elected officials.

As if Hillary would have done anything different, other than the cronies would all have a "D" after their names or large "charity" donation checks.

Still, it remains to be seen how the Trump administration functions. He's not even sworn in yet and you're declaring his Presidency a failure. LOL

Hillary hasn't and won't nominate or appoint anyone, she lost the Presidency even though she received a clear mandate of a 3 million + or - votes more than Trump. That's a fact!

I haven't declared Trump's Presidency a failure. I have said and I will repeat that Trump is unfit to be POTUS, I've made that assessment by watching and listening to him closely, and by the facts that he has zero experience with governance, seems to have no sense of diplomacy, attacks persons not their argument, and has proved to me to be a classic demagogue, charlatan and narcissist.

Will his presidency be a failure? That is the question yet to be answered. Two points to consider:

1. People in general either grow into a job, or they don't. We can hope and some might pray that Trump can learn he cannot succeed on tweets, lies, false pathos or promises. He must rely on others and listen to their counsel, he must try to understand other cultures and why some will tell him, NO! And he must hold his tongue (metaphorically, put the letter under his pillow and read it over the following day)
2. And the question to be answered for anyone who first takes the oath of office of the President of the United States: Will he make history, or will history make him?

A mandate for what?

Yes Virginia, there are dumb questions.

 

[Divine Wind]

...I haven't declared Trump's Presidency a failure. I have said and I will repeat that Trump is unfit to be POTUS, I've made that assessment by watching and listening to him closely, and by the facts that he has zero experience with governance, seems to have no sense of diplomacy, attacks persons not their argument, and has proved to me to be a classic demagogue, charlatan and narcissist....

Not in so many words, but, as you opened with, clearly you and your fellow far Left friends, are so highly antagonistic toward Trump, you aren't even allowing him his first 100 days to see what happens.

Three thoughts:
1) Ronald Reagan, the actor, became President. Yes, he had governor experience, but his salient talent was surrounding himself with good people and letting them do their jobs. He was very good at putting the nation first.

2) George W. Bush also had governor experience but his main failing was putting loyalty to friends first over the needs of the nation.

3) Barack Obama's resume lacked executive office. He was a community organizer, a state senator and a 3+ year Congressional Senator. His first year or two in office were plagued by rookie mistakes but LWers kept saying "give him a chance".

4) Regardless of all the squawking from the Left, Trump will become President. Is it too much to ask to give him the same chance LWers asked for Obama?

 

[Rustic]

We have 200+ years of history of career politicians fucking over citizens, why would anyone trust the career politician?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The United States of America. Perhaps you can give the name of a country which is better.....in your opinion.

The United States of America is the evidence that limiting government meddling to the maximum extent possible is what works best.

Bad bad example

The US of A is a gargantuan FASCIST bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.


.

It is now, but prior to FDR it was a passably free country.

what do you mean by "free"? we had a Third World economy before FDR, we cruised right past the second world due to litigation and war, and now we have a First World economy, where the right alleges that the poor are, too free to do what they want.

No we didn't. We had the biggest economy on earth. You're peddling a leftwing myth. Who do you imaging purchased 20 million Model T's before FDR ascended to the throne?

 

[Divine Wind]

The election proved demagoguery, hate and fear are sufficient to woe the votes of the biddable. Have you noticed how many common people have been nominated or appointed by the P-e? Has Trump drained the swamp, or has he reloaded it with the usual suspects; from, Wall Street, the 1%, the Military and former elected officials.

As if Hillary would have done anything different, other than the cronies would all have a "D" after their names or large "charity" donation checks.

Still, it remains to be seen how the Trump administration functions. He's not even sworn in yet and you're declaring his Presidency a failure. LOL

Hillary hasn't and won't nominate or appoint anyone, she lost the Presidency even though she received a clear mandate of a 3 million + or - votes more than Trump. That's a fact!

I haven't declared Trump's Presidency a failure. I have said and I will repeat that Trump is unfit to be POTUS, I've made that assessment by watching and listening to him closely, and by the facts that he has zero experience with governance, seems to have no sense of diplomacy, attacks persons not their argument, and has proved to me to be a classic demagogue, charlatan and narcissist.

Will his presidency be a failure? That is the question yet to be answered. Two points to consider:

1. People in general either grow into a job, or they don't. We can hope and some might pray that Trump can learn he cannot succeed on tweets, lies, false pathos or promises. He must rely on others and listen to their counsel, he must try to understand other cultures and why some will tell him, NO! And he must hold his tongue (metaphorically, put the letter under his pillow and read it over the following day)
2. And the question to be answered for anyone who first takes the oath of office of the President of the United States: Will he make history, or will history make him?

A mandate for what?

Yes Virginia, there are dumb questions.

Disagreed here. Regardless of numbers, a lot of pissed off West Coast liberals should not be allowed to dictate to the other 47-48 states who becomes President. That's why the Founders set up the system we have. If you want to change the system, you just had 8 years to do so. Why wait until after Hillary lost to bitch about it?

Owebo asked a question and you dodged it. I suspect because you know the answer: There is no "Hillary mandate". To even mention it is bullshit. It means nothing. Not only did the Democrats lose the White House, but they failed at retaking both Houses of Congress. THAT sounds like a mandate to me. Do you agree?

 

[Wry Catcher]

We have 200+ years of history of career politicians fucking over citizens, why would anyone trust the career politician?

Would you go to a barber to remove a burst appendix? What's wrong with Congress and state/local legislative bodies is not "career politicians", it is the cash that is necessary for each of them to remain in elective office.

 

[Rustic]

We have 200+ years of history of career politicians fucking over citizens, why would anyone trust the career politician?

Would you go to a barber to remove a burst appendix? What's wrong with Congress and state/local legislative bodies is not "career politicians", it is the cash that is necessary for each of them to remain in elective office.

Having single term limits would get the cancer out of the politician that is the career... fact

 

[bripat9643]

1. More leftist propaganda. WW II did not grow our industrial capacity that much. The claim that it did is a leftwing myth. Most of the factories used in WW II already existed before the war. They were just lying idle because of the depression.

2. So the U.S. was an economic powerhouse before the war, but the war is the reason we were an economic powerhouse? You can't even keep your propaganda straight.

You should try reading it again, but let the partisan scales fall from your eyes.

Your delusions that you aren't partisan is hilarious.