The Left Loses Ground...

[Jroc]

The extremist rightwing overreach with insane legislation like the RFRA has hurt the religious right.

Instead of achieving their theocratic goals they alienated corporations who chose to take their business elsewhere rather than risk losing customers nationwide.

As a theist PR exercise it was a complete and utter failure of monumental proportions.

To pretend otherwise, as the OP is trying to do, just exposes the fact that those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry on We the People are completely out of touch with reality.

"....those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry..."


....cudgel...

...bigotry....


Exactly the sort of faux pas one would expect from a dunce line you.



"A prominent Silicon Valley chief executive stepped down just days after his appointment, amid a firestorm across the Internet that was sparked by employees who complained about his opposition to gay marriage.

Brendan Eich resigned from Mozilla, the organization behind the Firefox Web browser, after intense criticism over a six-year-old, $1,000 donation he made in support of a 2008 California ballot initiative to ban gay marriage."
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down - WSJ

You want to trade anecdotes?

1. Lisa Howe (Tennessee)
This former Belmont University soccer coach was fired in December 2010 after she came out to her soccer team that she is a lesbian and announced that she and her partner were expecting their first child. While the university’s official statement at first said that she had resigned, it was soon amended to say that the decision had been mutual, and that her continuing to work for Belmont would not be beneficial to her or the university. Demonstrators protested Howe’s termination, as she was a highly successful and popular coach, and they called for an official apology, which they never received. Although Belmont had terminated its ties with the Tennessee Baptist Church in 2007, chairman of Belmont’s board of trustees Marty Dickens told The Tennessean that, “We expect people to commit themselves to high moral and ethical standards within a Christian context.” -

See more at: 5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal Williams Institute

Lost her job to the cudgel of conservative Christian anti-gay bigotry.

And...

2. Jodi O’Brien (Wisconsin) O’Brien, a sociology professor at Seattle University who is openly a lesbian and writes about sexuality, was originally offered a job as dean of one of Marquette University’s colleges. In May 2010, her offer was rescinded. The Roman Catholic and Jesuit-run University told the New York Times that she lacked “the ability to represent the Marquette mission and identity.” University President Rev. Robert A. Wild argued that the choice not to hire O’Brien wasn’t due to her sexuality, but rather to her academic writing, in which he found “strongly negative statements about marriage and family.” O’Brien has written extensively about the topic of gay marriage; if this isn’t discrimination based on sexual orientation, it’s certainly discrimination based on beliefs about sexual orientation. Is there a substantial difference between the two?

- See more at: 5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal Williams Institute

So I'm ahead 2 - 1.

Your turn.

So you would force religious based institutions to hire homosexuals? In the first link "she and her partner" aren't expecting any child, not possible. That would be She and whoever the sperm donor is.... or her partner and whoever the sperm donor is. It's so confusing these days though. What are there 5 or 6 sexes now?

 

[Bfgrn]

Hitler's agenda was:
1) Nationalism...ULTRA nationalism. Hitler used religious reasoning to justify his own policies. Hitler focused on how the Aryan people had a "Christian heritage" with principles that must be adhered in order to rebuild the country.

2) Militarism...Hitler greatly increased the portion of the German economy devoted to military spending and further believed that the best defense was a good offense.

3) Purging Germany of undesirables...
a) Jews
b) homosexuals
c) Hitler outlawed labor unions in Germany

PLEASE highlight the 'progressive' agenda pea brain?

You left out socialism. Furthermore, Eugenics was a progressive creation.

That's pretty much the same agenda FDR had.

There was no 'socialism' in NAZI Germany...

Hitler worked with the industrialist of Germany and allowed a tremendous profit incentive to remain. The Nazis were a socialist party in name only. The State did not take over all the major factors of production in the German economy which is the hallmark trait of socialist state. In addition when Hitler did use government to control the economy he used his dictatorial powers and terror as the means of control. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt used the democratic process to allow more government control of the economy. Hitler could literally use the army to take over a business. Roosevelt used his Justice Department to break up trusts using the laws enacted by an elected legislature. There is a tremendous difference between the two....ref

You dont understand socialism. Or Nazism. Or a dozen other things. But that doesnt mean you can't spout an opinion about them.
It's what makes America great--idiots sounding off about shit they know nothing about.

Let's see..I provided proof, and you provided emotes and insults...

You claim Hitler was a 'progressive'...and bripat claims Hitler was a socialist...

Yet in 1927 Hitler wrote a pamphlet entitled The Road to Resurgence only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.

Hitler expressly attacked Marxists, socialism and 'progressives', called for a 'meritocracy' and exalts 'individual personality'


excerpts:

The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;

2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;

3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.


The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

...


The National Socialist movement is no parliamentary party. It does not expect that questions involving the fate of the German nation could ever be resolved by majority rule. It is convinced that the spirit it advocates will one day become the spirit of that institution which is all that remains of the old army and, at the same time, the school for the future. The organisation of the military might of a folk, be it large or small, is always intimately connected with a doctrine of the value of individual personality, struggle, and patriotism. Unintentionally and unconsciously, to the extent that the official state becomes more and more corrupt in its folkish content, discredited by its personnel, and filled with pacifistic cowardice, the movement and the army will draw ever closer together.


In these seven years of progressive deformation of the German national body, a state within the state has slowly evolved which ideologically as well as politically will be the Prussia of the coming era.

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

 

[Jroc]

You left out socialism. Furthermore, Eugenics was a progressive creation.

That's pretty much the same agenda FDR had.

There was no 'socialism' in NAZI Germany...

Hitler worked with the industrialist of Germany and allowed a tremendous profit incentive to remain. The Nazis were a socialist party in name only. The State did not take over all the major factors of production in the German economy which is the hallmark trait of socialist state. In addition when Hitler did use government to control the economy he used his dictatorial powers and terror as the means of control. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt used the democratic process to allow more government control of the economy. Hitler could literally use the army to take over a business. Roosevelt used his Justice Department to break up trusts using the laws enacted by an elected legislature. There is a tremendous difference between the two....ref

You dont understand socialism. Or Nazism. Or a dozen other things. But that doesnt mean you can't spout an opinion about them.
It's what makes America great--idiots sounding off about shit they know nothing about.

Let's see..I provided proof, and you provided emotes and insults...

You claim Hitler was a 'progressive'...and bripat claims Hitler was a socialist...

Yet in 1927 Hitler wrote a pamphlet entitled The Road to Resurgence only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.

Hitler expressly attacked Marxists, socialism and 'progressives', called for a 'meritocracy' and exalts 'individual personality'


excerpts:

The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;

2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;

3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.


The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

...


The National Socialist movement is no parliamentary party. It does not expect that questions involving the fate of the German nation could ever be resolved by majority rule. It is convinced that the spirit it advocates will one day become the spirit of that institution which is all that remains of the old army and, at the same time, the school for the future. The organisation of the military might of a folk, be it large or small, is always intimately connected with a doctrine of the value of individual personality, struggle, and patriotism. Unintentionally and unconsciously, to the extent that the official state becomes more and more corrupt in its folkish content, discredited by its personnel, and filled with pacifistic cowardice, the movement and the army will draw ever closer together.


In these seven years of progressive deformation of the German national body, a state within the state has slowly evolved which ideologically as well as politically will be the Prussia of the coming era.

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

They are all big government tyrannies. What you leftist love

 

[NYcarbineer]

The extremist rightwing overreach with insane legislation like the RFRA has hurt the religious right.

Instead of achieving their theocratic goals they alienated corporations who chose to take their business elsewhere rather than risk losing customers nationwide.

As a theist PR exercise it was a complete and utter failure of monumental proportions.

To pretend otherwise, as the OP is trying to do, just exposes the fact that those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry on We the People are completely out of touch with reality.

"....those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry..."


....cudgel...

...bigotry....


Exactly the sort of faux pas one would expect from a dunce line you.



"A prominent Silicon Valley chief executive stepped down just days after his appointment, amid a firestorm across the Internet that was sparked by employees who complained about his opposition to gay marriage.

Brendan Eich resigned from Mozilla, the organization behind the Firefox Web browser, after intense criticism over a six-year-old, $1,000 donation he made in support of a 2008 California ballot initiative to ban gay marriage."
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down - WSJ

You want to trade anecdotes?

1. Lisa Howe (Tennessee)
This former Belmont University soccer coach was fired in December 2010 after she came out to her soccer team that she is a lesbian and announced that she and her partner were expecting their first child. While the university’s official statement at first said that she had resigned, it was soon amended to say that the decision had been mutual, and that her continuing to work for Belmont would not be beneficial to her or the university. Demonstrators protested Howe’s termination, as she was a highly successful and popular coach, and they called for an official apology, which they never received. Although Belmont had terminated its ties with the Tennessee Baptist Church in 2007, chairman of Belmont’s board of trustees Marty Dickens told The Tennessean that, “We expect people to commit themselves to high moral and ethical standards within a Christian context.” -

See more at: 5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal Williams Institute

Lost her job to the cudgel of conservative Christian anti-gay bigotry.

And...

2. Jodi O’Brien (Wisconsin) O’Brien, a sociology professor at Seattle University who is openly a lesbian and writes about sexuality, was originally offered a job as dean of one of Marquette University’s colleges. In May 2010, her offer was rescinded. The Roman Catholic and Jesuit-run University told the New York Times that she lacked “the ability to represent the Marquette mission and identity.” University President Rev. Robert A. Wild argued that the choice not to hire O’Brien wasn’t due to her sexuality, but rather to her academic writing, in which he found “strongly negative statements about marriage and family.” O’Brien has written extensively about the topic of gay marriage; if this isn’t discrimination based on sexual orientation, it’s certainly discrimination based on beliefs about sexual orientation. Is there a substantial difference between the two?

- See more at: 5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal Williams Institute

So I'm ahead 2 - 1.

Your turn.

So you would force religious based institutions to hire homosexuals? In the first link "she and her partner" aren't expecting any child, not possible. That would be She and whoever the sperm donor is.... or her partner and whoever the sperm donor is. It's so confusing these days though. What are there 5 or 6 sexes now?

The Marquette basketball team is not a church.

Seriously though, if it's church or the like whose primary function is religion, then they should get narrow exemptions. Like if you don't want your organist to be gay, fair enough.

Otherwise, if you're a business or an organization engaged in secular functions, no, you don't get to be above the law.

 

[Jroc]

The extremist rightwing overreach with insane legislation like the RFRA has hurt the religious right.

Instead of achieving their theocratic goals they alienated corporations who chose to take their business elsewhere rather than risk losing customers nationwide.

As a theist PR exercise it was a complete and utter failure of monumental proportions.

To pretend otherwise, as the OP is trying to do, just exposes the fact that those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry on We the People are completely out of touch with reality.

"....those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry..."


....cudgel...

...bigotry....


Exactly the sort of faux pas one would expect from a dunce line you.



"A prominent Silicon Valley chief executive stepped down just days after his appointment, amid a firestorm across the Internet that was sparked by employees who complained about his opposition to gay marriage.

Brendan Eich resigned from Mozilla, the organization behind the Firefox Web browser, after intense criticism over a six-year-old, $1,000 donation he made in support of a 2008 California ballot initiative to ban gay marriage."
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down - WSJ

You want to trade anecdotes?

1. Lisa Howe (Tennessee)
This former Belmont University soccer coach was fired in December 2010 after she came out to her soccer team that she is a lesbian and announced that she and her partner were expecting their first child. While the university’s official statement at first said that she had resigned, it was soon amended to say that the decision had been mutual, and that her continuing to work for Belmont would not be beneficial to her or the university. Demonstrators protested Howe’s termination, as she was a highly successful and popular coach, and they called for an official apology, which they never received. Although Belmont had terminated its ties with the Tennessee Baptist Church in 2007, chairman of Belmont’s board of trustees Marty Dickens told The Tennessean that, “We expect people to commit themselves to high moral and ethical standards within a Christian context.” -

See more at: 5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal Williams Institute

Lost her job to the cudgel of conservative Christian anti-gay bigotry.

And...

2. Jodi O’Brien (Wisconsin) O’Brien, a sociology professor at Seattle University who is openly a lesbian and writes about sexuality, was originally offered a job as dean of one of Marquette University’s colleges. In May 2010, her offer was rescinded. The Roman Catholic and Jesuit-run University told the New York Times that she lacked “the ability to represent the Marquette mission and identity.” University President Rev. Robert A. Wild argued that the choice not to hire O’Brien wasn’t due to her sexuality, but rather to her academic writing, in which he found “strongly negative statements about marriage and family.” O’Brien has written extensively about the topic of gay marriage; if this isn’t discrimination based on sexual orientation, it’s certainly discrimination based on beliefs about sexual orientation. Is there a substantial difference between the two?

- See more at: 5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal Williams Institute

So I'm ahead 2 - 1.

Your turn.

So you would force religious based institutions to hire homosexuals? In the first link "she and her partner" aren't expecting any child, not possible. That would be She and whoever the sperm donor is.... or her partner and whoever the sperm donor is. It's so confusing these days though. What are there 5 or 6 sexes now?

The Marquette basketball team is not a church.

Seriously though, if it's church or the like whose primary function is religion, then they should get narrow exemptions. Like if you don't want your organist to be gay, fair enough.

Otherwise, if you're a business or an organization engaged in secular functions, no, you don't get to be above the law.

Maybe Jewish Schools should be forced to hired Nazis

 

[The Rabbi]

You left out socialism. Furthermore, Eugenics was a progressive creation.

That's pretty much the same agenda FDR had.

There was no 'socialism' in NAZI Germany...

Hitler worked with the industrialist of Germany and allowed a tremendous profit incentive to remain. The Nazis were a socialist party in name only. The State did not take over all the major factors of production in the German economy which is the hallmark trait of socialist state. In addition when Hitler did use government to control the economy he used his dictatorial powers and terror as the means of control. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt used the democratic process to allow more government control of the economy. Hitler could literally use the army to take over a business. Roosevelt used his Justice Department to break up trusts using the laws enacted by an elected legislature. There is a tremendous difference between the two....ref

You dont understand socialism. Or Nazism. Or a dozen other things. But that doesnt mean you can't spout an opinion about them.
It's what makes America great--idiots sounding off about shit they know nothing about.

Let's see..I provided proof, and you provided emotes and insults...

You claim Hitler was a 'progressive'...and bripat claims Hitler was a socialist...

Yet in 1927 Hitler wrote a pamphlet entitled The Road to Resurgence only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.

Hitler expressly attacked Marxists, socialism and 'progressives', called for a 'meritocracy' and exalts 'individual personality'


excerpts:

The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;

2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;

3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.


The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

...


The National Socialist movement is no parliamentary party. It does not expect that questions involving the fate of the German nation could ever be resolved by majority rule. It is convinced that the spirit it advocates will one day become the spirit of that institution which is all that remains of the old army and, at the same time, the school for the future. The organisation of the military might of a folk, be it large or small, is always intimately connected with a doctrine of the value of individual personality, struggle, and patriotism. Unintentionally and unconsciously, to the extent that the official state becomes more and more corrupt in its folkish content, discredited by its personnel, and filled with pacifistic cowardice, the movement and the army will draw ever closer together.


In these seven years of progressive deformation of the German national body, a state within the state has slowly evolved which ideologically as well as politically will be the Prussia of the coming era.

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

What you dont know would fill the internet.
Hitler banned unions that were not the official approved one, the Nazi Party one.
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. His socialism was a national socialism, that socialism should be implemented in each country, rather than the Soviet kind which envisioned an international socialist regime. (Bonus question: What was the anthem of the Communism?)
Co operative management of the economy is exactly what Nazism was. You got that part right.
If anyone does not understand the differences, it is you.

 

[The Rabbi]

You left out socialism. Furthermore, Eugenics was a progressive creation.

That's pretty much the same agenda FDR had.

There was no 'socialism' in NAZI Germany...

Hitler worked with the industrialist of Germany and allowed a tremendous profit incentive to remain. The Nazis were a socialist party in name only. The State did not take over all the major factors of production in the German economy which is the hallmark trait of socialist state. In addition when Hitler did use government to control the economy he used his dictatorial powers and terror as the means of control. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt used the democratic process to allow more government control of the economy. Hitler could literally use the army to take over a business. Roosevelt used his Justice Department to break up trusts using the laws enacted by an elected legislature. There is a tremendous difference between the two....ref

You dont understand socialism. Or Nazism. Or a dozen other things. But that doesnt mean you can't spout an opinion about them.
It's what makes America great--idiots sounding off about shit they know nothing about.

Let's see..I provided proof, and you provided emotes and insults...

You claim Hitler was a 'progressive'...and bripat claims Hitler was a socialist...

Yet in 1927 Hitler wrote a pamphlet entitled The Road to Resurgence only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.

Hitler expressly attacked Marxists, socialism and 'progressives', called for a 'meritocracy' and exalts 'individual personality'


excerpts:

The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;

2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;

3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.


The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

...


The National Socialist movement is no parliamentary party. It does not expect that questions involving the fate of the German nation could ever be resolved by majority rule. It is convinced that the spirit it advocates will one day become the spirit of that institution which is all that remains of the old army and, at the same time, the school for the future. The organisation of the military might of a folk, be it large or small, is always intimately connected with a doctrine of the value of individual personality, struggle, and patriotism. Unintentionally and unconsciously, to the extent that the official state becomes more and more corrupt in its folkish content, discredited by its personnel, and filled with pacifistic cowardice, the movement and the army will draw ever closer together.


In these seven years of progressive deformation of the German national body, a state within the state has slowly evolved which ideologically as well as politically will be the Prussia of the coming era.

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

What you dont know would fill the internet.
Hitler banned unions that were not the official approved one, the Nazi Party one.
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. His socialism was a national socialism, that socialism should be implemented in each country, rather than the Soviet kind which envisioned an international socialist regime. (Bonus question: What was the anthem of the Communism?)
Co operative management of the economy is exactly what Nazism was. You got that part right.
If anyone does not understand the differences, it is you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hitler's agenda was:
1) Nationalism...ULTRA nationalism. Hitler used religious reasoning to justify his own policies. Hitler focused on how the Aryan people had a "Christian heritage" with principles that must be adhered in order to rebuild the country.

2) Militarism...Hitler greatly increased the portion of the German economy devoted to military spending and further believed that the best defense was a good offense.

3) Purging Germany of undesirables...
a) Jews
b) homosexuals
c) Hitler outlawed labor unions in Germany

PLEASE highlight the 'progressive' agenda pea brain?

You left out socialism. Furthermore, Eugenics was a progressive creation.

That's pretty much the same agenda FDR had.

There was no 'socialism' in NAZI Germany...

Hitler worked with the industrialist of Germany and allowed a tremendous profit incentive to remain. The Nazis were a socialist party in name only. The State did not take over all the major factors of production in the German economy which is the hallmark trait of socialist state. In addition when Hitler did use government to control the economy he used his dictatorial powers and terror as the means of control. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt used the democratic process to allow more government control of the economy. Hitler could literally use the army to take over a business. Roosevelt used his Justice Department to break up trusts using the laws enacted by an elected legislature. There is a tremendous difference between the two....ref

"As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nations goods". - Joseph Goebbels


"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew .. not the Sabbath Jew, .. the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? .. self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry". - Marx

"...This collection of capitalist interests on the one hand, Jewish instincts of hatred and the emigrants' lust for revenge, succeeded in increasingly beclouding the world".. Hitler


"They can wage wars for their capitalist interests, but in the end these wars will open the way for social risings within the nations" - Hitler

German Philosopher Theodor Adorno, strongly influenced the Left. He devised a scale known as the "F" scale which has been utilized to associate conservative elements of society as fascist. However, as is so frequently the case, his F scale was a twist of reality and a blatant oxymoron. The Adorno F scale is used to frame conservatives, and any opposed to Socialism as Nazis and latent fascists. The fascist label has come to mean anyone the liberal progressive sociofascists seek to defame or discredit.

He literally lifted that nonsense from Stalin, who was at war with the fascists, and tended to refer to all political enemies, perceived or otherwise: as fascist; including Leon Trotsky... a lifetime communist... and given the one degree of separation between Histler's fascism and Stalinism, the Left which took most of its cues from Stalinism, Adorno simply used that intellectual bankruptcy as a basis to publish yet another invalid Leftist point.

BTW: It's good to see ya back in the game.

The self-described libs in here are actually all indistinguishable from Nazis.

Yup... And except for the polished leather,the Nazis were indistinguishable from Zombies.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

She is purely emotion. Emotion is what Rightwingers prefer when it comes to politics. Facts and critical thinking are so above them that they need people like her to speak in ridiculous absolutes about the left for them to feel validated about the bullshit they believe about the rightwing. Fox News operates the same way.

ROFLMNAO!

If I was in the market for a Signature... THAT would be an excellent choice.

Good LORD, I can't tell which is more striking, THE DELUSION or the Irony.

 

[Bfgrn]

There was no 'socialism' in NAZI Germany...

Hitler worked with the industrialist of Germany and allowed a tremendous profit incentive to remain. The Nazis were a socialist party in name only. The State did not take over all the major factors of production in the German economy which is the hallmark trait of socialist state. In addition when Hitler did use government to control the economy he used his dictatorial powers and terror as the means of control. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt used the democratic process to allow more government control of the economy. Hitler could literally use the army to take over a business. Roosevelt used his Justice Department to break up trusts using the laws enacted by an elected legislature. There is a tremendous difference between the two....ref

You dont understand socialism. Or Nazism. Or a dozen other things. But that doesnt mean you can't spout an opinion about them.
It's what makes America great--idiots sounding off about shit they know nothing about.

Let's see..I provided proof, and you provided emotes and insults...

You claim Hitler was a 'progressive'...and bripat claims Hitler was a socialist...

Yet in 1927 Hitler wrote a pamphlet entitled The Road to Resurgence only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.

Hitler expressly attacked Marxists, socialism and 'progressives', called for a 'meritocracy' and exalts 'individual personality'


excerpts:

The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;

2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;

3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.


The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

...


The National Socialist movement is no parliamentary party. It does not expect that questions involving the fate of the German nation could ever be resolved by majority rule. It is convinced that the spirit it advocates will one day become the spirit of that institution which is all that remains of the old army and, at the same time, the school for the future. The organisation of the military might of a folk, be it large or small, is always intimately connected with a doctrine of the value of individual personality, struggle, and patriotism. Unintentionally and unconsciously, to the extent that the official state becomes more and more corrupt in its folkish content, discredited by its personnel, and filled with pacifistic cowardice, the movement and the army will draw ever closer together.


In these seven years of progressive deformation of the German national body, a state within the state has slowly evolved which ideologically as well as politically will be the Prussia of the coming era.

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

They are all big government tyrannies. What you leftist love

Liberals don't support government tyrannies...conservatives do...

Conservatives have NEVER GIVEN US LESS GOVERNMENT...EVER...

I will REPEAT...

Conservatives have NEVER GIVEN US LESS GOVERNMENT...EVER...

Conservatives have given us MORE government and MORE citizens in jails and MORE government tyranny.

They gave us :THE DECIDER"

 

[The Rabbi]

You dont understand socialism. Or Nazism. Or a dozen other things. But that doesnt mean you can't spout an opinion about them.
It's what makes America great--idiots sounding off about shit they know nothing about.

Let's see..I provided proof, and you provided emotes and insults...

You claim Hitler was a 'progressive'...and bripat claims Hitler was a socialist...

Yet in 1927 Hitler wrote a pamphlet entitled The Road to Resurgence only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.

Hitler expressly attacked Marxists, socialism and 'progressives', called for a 'meritocracy' and exalts 'individual personality'


excerpts:

The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;

2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;

3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.


The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

...


The National Socialist movement is no parliamentary party. It does not expect that questions involving the fate of the German nation could ever be resolved by majority rule. It is convinced that the spirit it advocates will one day become the spirit of that institution which is all that remains of the old army and, at the same time, the school for the future. The organisation of the military might of a folk, be it large or small, is always intimately connected with a doctrine of the value of individual personality, struggle, and patriotism. Unintentionally and unconsciously, to the extent that the official state becomes more and more corrupt in its folkish content, discredited by its personnel, and filled with pacifistic cowardice, the movement and the army will draw ever closer together.


In these seven years of progressive deformation of the German national body, a state within the state has slowly evolved which ideologically as well as politically will be the Prussia of the coming era.

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

They are all big government tyrannies. What you leftist love

Liberals don't support government tyrannies...conservatives do...

Conservatives have NEVER GIVEN US LESS GOVERNMENT...EVER...

I will REPEAT...

Conservatives have NEVER GIVEN US LESS GOVERNMENT...EVER...

Conservatives have given us MORE government and MORE citizens in jails and MORE government tyranny.

They gave us :THE DECIDER"

Democrats are not liberals. Republicans are liberals.
Democrats are progressives. Nazis and Bolsheviks were also progressives.
What you dont know would fll a stadium.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

He claimed I lied by saying that most Catholics supported birth control...

No Gilligan, I stated as FACT that you lied... I then challenged you to post the evidence you used to advance your assertion, which merely provided that fact with unnecessary validation, which you were more than happy to provide, through your feckless google search... which substantiated the fact that at the time you asserted the falsehood, you had no information to stand upon, supporting such.

But... in your defense, as an imbecile, there was no way you could have known that.

Evidence was posted, in contrast to your 'lie' about the percent of people who are gay, for which you posted no evidence.

The Difference between National Socialism and International Socialism is that International Socialism seeks to strip all sense of nation, heritage and tradition... seeking one united international state. Which Mussolini finally came to recognize as untenable, when he formed the fascist party under National Socialism, which seized upon Italy's National heritage and traditions, hijacking such, in the name of socialism.

The Fascist/National Socialism exercise was widely hailed by Lenin, prior to his death... who said such was the future of socialism.

Histler glommed upon that narrative and came to raging success, applauded around the socialist world, particularly in the United States by every stripe of socialist, and was hailed as a marvel of the modern world by rock stars the like of Lindbergh, and institutions such as Columbia University who paid for Mussolini to visit the US.

The Ideological Left's kinship with European Fascism is undeniable, except in the irrational ranks of the Left itself, who, as has been noted here many times... who simply choose to deny reality; because reality conflicts diametrically with it's core subjective need.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Let's see..I provided proof, and you provided emotes and insults...

You claim Hitler was a 'progressive'...and bripat claims Hitler was a socialist...

Yet in 1927 Hitler wrote a pamphlet entitled The Road to Resurgence only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.

Hitler expressly attacked Marxists, socialism and 'progressives', called for a 'meritocracy' and exalts 'individual personality'


excerpts:

The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;

2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;

3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.


The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

...


The National Socialist movement is no parliamentary party. It does not expect that questions involving the fate of the German nation could ever be resolved by majority rule. It is convinced that the spirit it advocates will one day become the spirit of that institution which is all that remains of the old army and, at the same time, the school for the future. The organisation of the military might of a folk, be it large or small, is always intimately connected with a doctrine of the value of individual personality, struggle, and patriotism. Unintentionally and unconsciously, to the extent that the official state becomes more and more corrupt in its folkish content, discredited by its personnel, and filled with pacifistic cowardice, the movement and the army will draw ever closer together.


In these seven years of progressive deformation of the German national body, a state within the state has slowly evolved which ideologically as well as politically will be the Prussia of the coming era.

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

They are all big government tyrannies. What you leftist love

Liberals don't support government tyrannies...conservatives do...

Conservatives have NEVER GIVEN US LESS GOVERNMENT...EVER...

I will REPEAT...

Conservatives have NEVER GIVEN US LESS GOVERNMENT...EVER...

Conservatives have given us MORE government and MORE citizens in jails and MORE government tyranny.

They gave us :THE DECIDER"

Democrats are not liberals. Republicans are liberals.
Democrats are progressives. Nazis and Bolsheviks were also progressives.
What you dont know would fll a stadium.

Well said. I'd only add to THAT, that "Progressives" ... are REGRESSIVE.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Liberals don't support government tyrannies...conservatives do...

Then 'liberals' did not support the attempt by the 'liberal' obama/holder cult to frame innocent US Citizens for selling Firearms to Mexican drug cartels and slave traders, seeking to blame US GUN MANUFACTURERS FOR SELLING THE GUNS THAT obama / Holder SOLD to those mass-murderers?

And you did not therefore, support the illicit use of Executive Power to prevent Americans from peaceably assembling, by turning the IRS into a political AX-man?

Huh... I'm pretty sure ya actually DID support BOTH of those...

Conservatives have NEVER GIVEN US LESS GOVERNMENT...EVER...

See: 1994 'Contract with America', LANDSLIDE DEFEAT of the Left; see Further: William 'The Bubba': "The Age of Welfare as we know it, is OVER!", See Further: The would-be "Balanced Budget".

Now... after ya see those things. SHUT THE **** UP!

 

[NYcarbineer]

He claimed I lied by saying that most Catholics supported birth control...

No Gilligan, I stated as FACT that you lied... I then challenged you to post the evidence you used to advance your assertion, which merely provided that fact with unnecessary validation, which you were more than happy to provide, through your feckless google search... which substantiated the fact that at the time you asserted the falsehood, you had no information to stand upon, supporting such.

But... in your defense, as an imbecile, there was no way you could have known that.

Evidence was posted, in contrast to your 'lie' about the percent of people who are gay, for which you posted no evidence.

The Difference between National Socialism and International Socialism is that International Socialism seeks to strip all sense of nation, heritage and tradition... seeking one united international state. Which Mussolini finally came to recognize as untenable, when he formed the fascist party under National Socialism, which seized upon Italy's National heritage and traditions, hijacking such, in the name of socialism.

The Fascist/National Socialism exercise was widely hailed by Lenin, prior to his death... who said such was the future of socialism.

Histler glommed upon that narrative and came to raging success, applauded around the socialist world, particularly in the United States by every stripe of socialist, and was hailed as a marvel of the modern world by rock stars the like of Lindbergh, and institutions such as Columbia University who paid for Mussolini to visit the US.

The Ideological Left's kinship with European Fascism is undeniable, except in the irrational ranks of the Left itself, who, as has been noted here many times... who simply choose to deny reality; because reality conflicts diametrically with it's core subjective need.

And what exactly does that have to do with you lying about how many gays there are in the population?

 

[Bfgrn]

There was no 'socialism' in NAZI Germany...

Hitler worked with the industrialist of Germany and allowed a tremendous profit incentive to remain. The Nazis were a socialist party in name only. The State did not take over all the major factors of production in the German economy which is the hallmark trait of socialist state. In addition when Hitler did use government to control the economy he used his dictatorial powers and terror as the means of control. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt used the democratic process to allow more government control of the economy. Hitler could literally use the army to take over a business. Roosevelt used his Justice Department to break up trusts using the laws enacted by an elected legislature. There is a tremendous difference between the two....ref

You dont understand socialism. Or Nazism. Or a dozen other things. But that doesnt mean you can't spout an opinion about them.
It's what makes America great--idiots sounding off about shit they know nothing about.

Let's see..I provided proof, and you provided emotes and insults...

You claim Hitler was a 'progressive'...and bripat claims Hitler was a socialist...

Yet in 1927 Hitler wrote a pamphlet entitled The Road to Resurgence only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.

Hitler expressly attacked Marxists, socialism and 'progressives', called for a 'meritocracy' and exalts 'individual personality'


excerpts:

The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;

2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;

3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.


The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

...


The National Socialist movement is no parliamentary party. It does not expect that questions involving the fate of the German nation could ever be resolved by majority rule. It is convinced that the spirit it advocates will one day become the spirit of that institution which is all that remains of the old army and, at the same time, the school for the future. The organisation of the military might of a folk, be it large or small, is always intimately connected with a doctrine of the value of individual personality, struggle, and patriotism. Unintentionally and unconsciously, to the extent that the official state becomes more and more corrupt in its folkish content, discredited by its personnel, and filled with pacifistic cowardice, the movement and the army will draw ever closer together.


In these seven years of progressive deformation of the German national body, a state within the state has slowly evolved which ideologically as well as politically will be the Prussia of the coming era.

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

What you dont know would fill the internet.
Hitler banned unions that were not the official approved one, the Nazi Party one.
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. His socialism was a national socialism, that socialism should be implemented in each country, rather than the Soviet kind which envisioned an international socialist regime. (Bonus question: What was the anthem of the Communism?)
Co operative management of the economy is exactly what Nazism was. You got that part right.
If anyone does not understand the differences, it is you.

NONE of that is socialism...

You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.


What is so hard to understand about ULTRA -nationalism...Hitler promoted a German racially homogeneous population : a state having ethnic purity.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

He claimed I lied by saying that most Catholics supported birth control...

No Gilligan, I stated as FACT that you lied... I then challenged you to post the evidence you used to advance your assertion, which merely provided that fact with unnecessary validation, which you were more than happy to provide, through your feckless google search... which substantiated the fact that at the time you asserted the falsehood, you had no information to stand upon, supporting such.

But... in your defense, as an imbecile, there was no way you could have known that.

Evidence was posted, in contrast to your 'lie' about the percent of people who are gay, for which you posted no evidence.

The Difference between National Socialism and International Socialism is that International Socialism seeks to strip all sense of nation, heritage and tradition... seeking one united international state. Which Mussolini finally came to recognize as untenable, when he formed the fascist party under National Socialism, which seized upon Italy's National heritage and traditions, hijacking such, in the name of socialism.

The Fascist/National Socialism exercise was widely hailed by Lenin, prior to his death... who said such was the future of socialism.

Histler glommed upon that narrative and came to raging success, applauded around the socialist world, particularly in the United States by every stripe of socialist, and was hailed as a marvel of the modern world by rock stars the like of Lindbergh, and institutions such as Columbia University who paid for Mussolini to visit the US.

The Ideological Left's kinship with European Fascism is undeniable, except in the irrational ranks of the Left itself, who, as has been noted here many times... who simply choose to deny reality; because reality conflicts diametrically with it's core subjective need.

And what exactly does that have to do with you lying about how many gays there are in the population?

LOL! WTF are you talking about Gilligan? Go home... you're drunk.

 

[The Rabbi]

You dont understand socialism. Or Nazism. Or a dozen other things. But that doesnt mean you can't spout an opinion about them.
It's what makes America great--idiots sounding off about shit they know nothing about.

Let's see..I provided proof, and you provided emotes and insults...

You claim Hitler was a 'progressive'...and bripat claims Hitler was a socialist...

Yet in 1927 Hitler wrote a pamphlet entitled The Road to Resurgence only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.

Hitler expressly attacked Marxists, socialism and 'progressives', called for a 'meritocracy' and exalts 'individual personality'


excerpts:

The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:

1. The merit of their own race;

2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;

3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.

Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.


The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.

And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.

...


The National Socialist movement is no parliamentary party. It does not expect that questions involving the fate of the German nation could ever be resolved by majority rule. It is convinced that the spirit it advocates will one day become the spirit of that institution which is all that remains of the old army and, at the same time, the school for the future. The organisation of the military might of a folk, be it large or small, is always intimately connected with a doctrine of the value of individual personality, struggle, and patriotism. Unintentionally and unconsciously, to the extent that the official state becomes more and more corrupt in its folkish content, discredited by its personnel, and filled with pacifistic cowardice, the movement and the army will draw ever closer together.


In these seven years of progressive deformation of the German national body, a state within the state has slowly evolved which ideologically as well as politically will be the Prussia of the coming era.

Stalin preached international socialism.
Hitler preached national socialism.
There was little difference between them.
Hitler's Germany provided a social safety net with cradle to grave benefits (granted, a lot of that he inherited from Bismark). His unions worked hand in hand with industry and government, creating a tight relationship among the three entities. He believed in state planning of the economy.
Hitler was popular with progressives in the US when he started out. Even the Blue Eagle of the NRA was taken from the Nazis.

Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.

Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.

What you dont know would fill the internet.
Hitler banned unions that were not the official approved one, the Nazi Party one.
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. His socialism was a national socialism, that socialism should be implemented in each country, rather than the Soviet kind which envisioned an international socialist regime. (Bonus question: What was the anthem of the Communism?)
Co operative management of the economy is exactly what Nazism was. You got that part right.
If anyone does not understand the differences, it is you.

NONE of that is socialism...

You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.


What is so hard to understand about ULTRA -nationalism...Hitler promoted a German racially homogeneous population : a state having ethnic purity.

Socialism is not liberal. Liberalism means private property rights, laissez faire economic policies,and individual liberty. Milton Friedman described himself as a liberal. William F Buckley did too.
Socialism is about state control over the economy. Socialism is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. Socialism is all about government control.
By your reasoning Japan is an ultra nationalist society. Hint: It isnt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals don't support government tyrannies...conservatives do...

Then 'liberals' did not support the attempt by the 'liberal' obama/holder cult to frame innocent US Citizens for selling Firearms to Mexican drug cartels and slave traders, seeking to blame US GUN MANUFACTURERS FOR SELLING THE GUNS THAT obama / Holder SOLD to those mass-murderers?

And you did not therefore, support the illicit use of Executive Power to prevent Americans from peaceably assembling, by turning the IRS into a political AX-man?

Huh... I'm pretty sure ya actually DID support BOTH of those...

Conservatives have NEVER GIVEN US LESS GOVERNMENT...EVER...

See: 1994 'Contract with America', LANDSLIDE DEFEAT of the Left; see Further: William 'The Bubba': "The Age of Welfare as we know it, is OVER!", See Further: The would-be "Balanced Budget".

Now... after ya see those things. SHUT THE **** UP!

Reagan saved Social Security and expanded Medicare and Medicaid. And the deficit rose.

Bush and the contract with America Republicans further expanded Medicare and busted the budget.

What were you trying to say?

 

[NYcarbineer]

He claimed I lied by saying that most Catholics supported birth control...

No Gilligan, I stated as FACT that you lied... I then challenged you to post the evidence you used to advance your assertion, which merely provided that fact with unnecessary validation, which you were more than happy to provide, through your feckless google search... which substantiated the fact that at the time you asserted the falsehood, you had no information to stand upon, supporting such.

But... in your defense, as an imbecile, there was no way you could have known that.

Evidence was posted, in contrast to your 'lie' about the percent of people who are gay, for which you posted no evidence.

The Difference between National Socialism and International Socialism is that International Socialism seeks to strip all sense of nation, heritage and tradition... seeking one united international state. Which Mussolini finally came to recognize as untenable, when he formed the fascist party under National Socialism, which seized upon Italy's National heritage and traditions, hijacking such, in the name of socialism.

The Fascist/National Socialism exercise was widely hailed by Lenin, prior to his death... who said such was the future of socialism.

Histler glommed upon that narrative and came to raging success, applauded around the socialist world, particularly in the United States by every stripe of socialist, and was hailed as a marvel of the modern world by rock stars the like of Lindbergh, and institutions such as Columbia University who paid for Mussolini to visit the US.

The Ideological Left's kinship with European Fascism is undeniable, except in the irrational ranks of the Left itself, who, as has been noted here many times... who simply choose to deny reality; because reality conflicts diametrically with it's core subjective need.

And what exactly does that have to do with you lying about how many gays there are in the population?

LOL! WTF are you talking about Gilligan? Go home... you're drunk.

You stated as fact that 2 to 3% of the population was gay. You lied, according to your own standards.