It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Liberals, Democrat's, Antifa and the Democratic Socialist are the New Nazi's

page: 8
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I understand that you want to split hairs.

When people want to get together and pool their money to buy a pizza, you can call that a social action or "socialism." Fine.

But what you are missing is that people in that scenario are acting entirely out of choice. If there are five people getting together, four of them might pool their money and fifth might sit out. That's OK. There is no power to compel the fifth to join because he's overruled by the choice of the rest.

Contrast that by nationalizing/socializing things in larger society where people are compelled against their own wishes to join a system. This is the larger equivalent of the four compelling the fifth to put his money in for the pizza also, even if he doesn't want pizza and won't eat because they've determined that doing such is more efficient and better for them.




posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: TheTory

Oh don't worry, the original thread topic is about the Nazi's actually mirrored the Democrat's rhetoric and policy almost identically.

I was expecting purposeful derailment.

Really? I thought the purpose was to foster further political division within the US.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

I understand that you want to split hairs.

When people want to get together and pool their money to buy a pizza, you can call that a social action or "socialism." Fine.

But what you are missing is that people in that scenario are acting entirely out of choice. If there are five people getting together, four of them might pool their money and fifth might sit out. That's OK. There is no power to compel the fifth to join because he's overruled by the choice of the rest.

Contrast that by nationalizing/socializing things in larger society where people are compelled against their own wishes to join a system. This is the larger equivalent of the four compelling the fifth to put his money in for the pizza also, even if he doesn't want pizza and won't eat because they've determined that doing such is more efficient and better for them.


I understand that you want to muddle the discussion and conflate the facts to match your narrative.

Strawman, red herring, logical fallacies: these are what you always bring to the table. I haven't said anything about pizza and you know it. Spurious, specious, dishonest example.

I have stated that socialism as a general concept is not compulsory, and it is not. You wish to speak of totalitarian governments that have claimed to be inspired by socialist ideas ... and patently were not.

You're further complaining about the innate authoritarian nature of government. All governments compel people to do things they don't want to do as well as restricting them from things they do want to do. Your complaint is against the basic concepts of central governance, of statism ... not against socialism. The same argument can be made against organized religions ... like comparing the structure of the Church to the actual teachings of Jesus.

If you want to promote anarchy, that's fine; I can sympathize to a degree. Some trends in socialist thought conceive that government will collapse along with capitalism ... but that's not all socialism, it's not immediate, and it would be an untrue generalization.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

With your extensive knowledge on the subject, it must be excruciating to you to read these ignorant diatribes about comparing Nazis and Democrats, the constant apologies for the real Nazis in our midst, etc.

What happened to the admiring the truth? What happened to valuing facts and knowledge?

/sigh



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well reading through this particular thread was truly hilarious. Watching Introvert patiently deflect their strawmen was pretty entertaining. Though you are right. It's why I've toned down my participation on these forums lately. I truly feel like the membership has lost its way. Deny ignorance used to mean something around here. Now I think it's just a catchphrase...


Plus anyone who says that Nazis were Socialist just because they included the word Socialist in their name is an idiot. No one calls the Democratic Republic of Korea a republic or a democracy. This may be hard to believe for conservatives these days, but historical conservatives used to embrace Socialist concepts readily and unashamedly.
edit on 25-8-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Your beloved capitalism enslaves people ketsuko.

One can no more opt out of engagement with that system, than one can opt out of a socialist system. Both require participation. The difference is, that socialism accepts that in order for any prosperity to be achieved, those who do not have work to do, because there are not enough jobs, must not be penalised for the failure of industry to provide them placement. Socialism accepts that once a person reaches a certain age, the state should see to their welfare without their having to raise so much as a finger, or pass bizarre tests to ensure they qualify. Socialism accept that those who are disabled to the point where they cannot work, must never be pressured into damaging themselves in order to earn something, drastically shortening an already difficult life, unless THEY feel that they want to for their own reasons.

Capitalism does not allow for these things, does not provide for the common good, does not accept responsibility for its actions and prevents people from opting out of it, by creating laws requiring attachment to grids, payment to companies with which the user may have a disagreement of a political and fundamental nature, by creating laws which require a person to have bills to identify themselves with, in order they get appropriately identified and can attain a passport, or a driving license, despite the fact that it should be possible to identify oneself without any paperwork at all. Babies born in the US do not get to opt out of having paperwork drawn up if the are born at hospital. No one gets to opt out of paying their taxes, whether they can afford to or not. No one gets to opt out of eating, or drinking, or paying for the "privilege" of use of substandard water systems (Flint Michigan).



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
No one gets to opt out of eating, or drinking, or paying for the "privilege" of use of substandard water systems (Flint Michigan).


In Flint, Overdue Bills for Unsafe Water Could Lead to Foreclosures
Le sigh...



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Precisely.

And yet it is socialism that is the trouble! In a pigs eye!



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, Krazy ... you can't expect the utility company to give away poisonous water for free now, can you?

They've got expenses and overhead ... and they've got to make a profit.

We'll just have to ignore that this is state-imposed larceny ... you know, for the good of the marketplace.

GRRR.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

As you well know, the United States, from its inception has been a mixed economy. Most modern economies are.

The Constitution itself, as pointed out, establishes communitarian principles.

Tom Paine's pamphlet "Agrarian Justice" is one of the earliest advocations for what would come to be called "socialism" but is also, really, advocating a mixed economy as well.

Balance in all things makes the most sense.

There is not now, nor has there ever been a "free market" ... that's just as idealistic (or more so) than any socialist utopia.


edit on 25-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
W aren't redefining what Nazism is. Nazism isn't a racist ideology. Not in this context. It is a political methodology in this context. The racist ideology doesn't matter in a free society because they have no power to do anything.

It is the leftists using a naziesque methodology which, IS a socialist, state controlled government.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes. One thing we've learned over the centuries our country has existed is that pure ideologies never work as intended and the best systems take the best of all ideologies. Too much Socialism is a bad thing, but too much Libertarianism is also a bad thing. However, each has good concepts that we can implement and have implemented. Rejecting half of that equation in the here and now is just spitting on the face of our ancestors. Even the ones that lived as early as 50 years ago.
edit on 25-8-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Do you know what Nazi's were, and not just the "Muh Hitler was a Socialist" but their entire ideology, and knowing that, you want to say that this is the "New Nazis"



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Wow, apparently I brought out all the socialist.

I find it funny that you anti American types are not denying that your rhetoric is nearly exactly the same as Hitlers but your argument is that the Nazis weren't socialist.

and that's just nonsense. Move to a socialiat country if you want to STEAL someones property.


You liberals are the most dangerous thing this country has ever faced. You are a threat to our way of life on this country.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: toysforadults

Nazis?

I think not.

Are the left carrying Swastikas? No. Are the left intolerant of people who are not the same skin tone as them? No, in fact the ability to even think in terms of skin tone and genetics when establishing whether someone is worthy of respect under the law, is a habit which is exclusively the property of forces other than the political left. Are the left fascist? No, we are not. We do not subscribe to authoritarian nationalism, but instead consider our nation of birth to be less important than our relationship as human beings, to all other human beings on the Earth, as equals, regardless of where we happen to be on the world at the time. We consider ourselves the natural enemy of the fascist, the Nazi, the Swastika bearing, genocidal maniacs who falsely consider supremacism a worthy path, despite the evidence of history which shows it to be scientifically and morally invalid, at best, if not down right evil, sociopathic and utterly unsupportable.



Progressivism and the left has a long history of eugenics and scientific racism. Natural enemy? Not so much.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
Do you know what Nazi's were, and not just the "Muh Hitler was a Socialist" but their entire ideology, and knowing that, you want to say that this is the "New Nazis"


Yes, the only different between the Socialist workers party of Weimar Germany and the modern left is the targeting of the billionaire class as Bernie puts it and thw Jews.

The rhetoric is nearly exactly the same.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
When Blacks Voted 80 Percent Democrat, Malcolm X Called Them 'Chumps'.

A black man who's fight was for the betterment of the black race called his own people chumps for voting democrat!!! It appears Malcom X was a visionary for what the Democrats were planning on and eventually did to the black community. And for some reason a majority of the black community are still democrats....SMH.


"You put them first," said Malcolm X, "and they put you last. 'Cause you're a chump. A political chump! ... Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can't keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you are dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party -- you're not only a chump but you're a traitor to your race."



The black community, over the last 50 years, has suffered an unparalleled breakdown in family unity. Even during slavery when marriage was illegal, a black child was more likely than today to be raised under a roof with his or her biological mother and father. According to census data, from 1890 to 1940, said economist Walter Williams, a black child was slightly more likely to grow up with married parents than a white child. What happened?



When President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1965, 24 percent of black babies were born to unmarried mothers. Today that number is 72 percent. Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said in 2008: "Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves."



Not only has family breakdown coincided with increased government spending, but the money has not done much to reduce the rate of poverty. From 1965 until now, the government has spent $15-20 trillion to fight poverty. In 1949, the poverty rate stood at 34 percent. By 1965, it was cut in half, to 17 percent -- all before the so-called War on Poverty. But after the war began in 1965, poverty began to flat line. It appears that the generous welfare system allowed women to, in essence, marry the government -- and it allowed men to abandon their financial and moral responsibility, while surrendering the dignity that comes from being a good provider. Psychologists call dependency "learned helplessness."


LINK






posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults




and that's just nonsense. Move to a socialiat country if you want to STEAL someones property.


EU or USA? Too big to fail anyone, quantitative easing further devaluating property maybe? No?



You liberals are the most dangerous thing this country has ever faced. You are a threat to our way of life on this country.


When oligarchy, corruption and thievery are your way of life then yes, quite possibly. Which is probably the reason why you folks come up with desperate threads on the foundation of "rock solid" sophistry.
edit on 25-8-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
Wow, apparently I brought out all the socialist.

I find it funny that you anti American types are not denying that your rhetoric is nearly exactly the same as Hitlers but your argument is that the Nazis weren't socialist.

You are a liar. There has not been a single person in this thread who has declared they want to annihilate all Jews.


and that's just nonsense. Move to a socialiat country if you want to STEAL someones property.

I already live in one. The US.



You liberals are the most dangerous thing this country has ever faced. You are a threat to our way of life on this country.

Lol. The ignorance.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Seems that the OP is little more than an attempt to troll based on subsequent commentary.

At least that explains the rank ignorance that was displayed.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join