Why are American Republicans so moronic?

Now I was just debating with people who were obviously Tea Party members. Because they posted their comments in all caps. I was browsing Yahoo news and saw a new update on Adolf Hitler. Now I'm shock that many of them kept copy on another by calling Adolf Hitler a leftest and a socialist. Of course President Obama was brought up.
I bet many of these people are fans of Glenn Beck and that's were they get their so called news from daily. Daily on his program Beck claims that he's a expert in historical facts. Of course Glenn Beck is a liar. but that doesn't mean people still believe him. Hitler was no Socialist. He used socialist sentiments to gain favor with the trade unions and religious factions of the time but turned on them once he rose to power. Hitler was a fascist and a far-right wing authoritarian.

Fascism is far right-wing and can be understood as corporate or private controlled government.
Communism is far left-wing and can be understood as government controlled industry and economy. Both extremes are two sides of the same economic coin and lead to Authoritarianism. The United State is currently being torn between the two. Neither work on their own. Until Americans get their collective heads out of their partisan @sses, a functioning parallel system will not be impossible.

most older christians are republican. that should explain why they are hypocritical idiots who type in all caps.

Now really, let's be fair here.....99% of the people in power are complete morons, both repub and dem alike!!! I thought that much would be obvious by now! The whole repub/dem charade has been painfully obvious for a Looooooong time.

The real morons??
Us, because we keep electing these sellouts.

reply to post by mpriebe81


The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ Those words were utter by President Regan. I agree with you but groups are corrupted.

Well, I don't know if it's fair to say morons. Maybe so!
Republicans tend to dislike, or fear change. They seem to believe there is some inherant value in preserving the status quo, not getting that change is inevitable. Christians seem to feel the same way.
Fear seems to be a motivating factor here, fear of almost everything!
Money is also a biggie! Repubs LOVE their money!

"Hitler was no Socialist. He used socialist sentiments to gain favor with the trade unions and religious factions of the time but turned on them once he rose to power. Hitler was a fascist and a far-right wing authoritarian."

Are you daft?

Hitler wasn't a socialist. He just used socialist policies. Oh.

You realize NAZI is an acronym? Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (“German National Socialist Workers’ Party”).

No, not a socialist. [Cough]

Hitler favored gun control, statist control of industry; was anti Judeo-Christian. Hitler was even a proponent of vegetarianism.

In fact, many of the things associated with 21st century American Progressivism are derivative of the time period spanning from McKinley to FDR. Its pretty clear in the historical record that fascism was the "in" thing at the time. Hitler cribbed some of his most profound ideas from the American progressives (eugenics, forced sterilization). Mussolini was beloved by the American progressives. It wasn't until after WWII that 'fascism' became a dirty word.

The reason the tea party folks call Nazi's leftists is because they share a branch with Naziism on the phylogeny of political philosophy and pursue similar statist control designs [healthcare, energy, education, etc]

Yea, maybe before you call people stupid, you should, uh, look in the mirror.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by tetrahedron]

reply to post by tetrahedron


Well yeah, Hitler was a Socialist just like Obama isn't a Corporatist.

It's all about the money and Hitler knew how to play the game. He wasn't stupid, he duped one of the most intelligent, industrial and humane societies in the world into becoming a place that is as close to hell on earth as possible.

Lying was a major part of his ideology. What he had going on was not Socialism, neither was USSR or any of the so called 'Socialist States'.

I can call myself a Jay-Z, but does that make me Jay-Z? No, just because you refer to yourself as something, that doesn't mean you are what you say you are.

[edit on 6/23/2010 by Misoir]

reply to post by tetrahedron


Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy. Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s. Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism. In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety. They advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.

Fascism is strongly opposed to core aspects of the Enlightenment and is an opponent of liberalism, Marxism, and mainstream socialism for being associated with failures that fascists claim are inherent in the Enlightenment. Fascists view egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism as failed elements of the Enlightenment.

Before I say anything, I just want to point out that I'm neither Republican nor am I a Democrat. Therefore I have no bias.

Now, I think we can both agree that each side is at each others throats (and soon, literally they will be). The amount of hate between both parties is unnerving to say the least. It is something you'd expect to see in a pre-civil war era, which is exactly where we're headed.

So, that being the case, there is very little time for listening to the other side. The second one side tries to listen to the other, they go from 0 (pissed off) to 60 (really pissed off) in 3 seconds flat. So, basically there is no communication. No communication = assumptions, assumptions lead to accusations, which leads to conflict. It's basic human programming; yes programming.

No offense, but you people are seriously deluded.

Socialism as purported by Karl Marx in 'Das Capital' is one thing which does not perfectly resemble socialism in practice.

"What he had going on was not Socialism, neither was USSR or any of the so called 'Socialist States'."

Straight up ignorance.

Communism = International Socialism [USSR, Cuba, Angola, Cambodia, Laos, et al]
Fascism = National Socialism [ NAZI Germany, WWII Italy, Pinochet's Chile, etc]

Whether or not the systems designed on socialist tenants resemble the 'socialism' you seem to think is actual 'socialism,' is irrelevant.

Nothing straight was ever built from the crooked timber of humanity.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by tetrahedron]

Confronting problems and issues head on is an important quality to handling those problems and effectively dealing with issues. Confrontation, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. Confrontation is not confront. It is not a fine line that makes the distinction, it is a wide gap between Confrontation and confront. This thread has opted for confrontation at the expense of confront. Indeed, confronting problems will all to often devolve into confrontation, and even the most diplomatic of souls can find themselves, when attempting to confront an issue or problem, stuck in confrontation. So, when a thread is offered as confrontation as the starting point, one has to ask what is the goal?

Originally posted by tetrahedron

Nothing straight was ever built from the crooked timber of humanity.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by tetrahedron]

I'm not sure where you got that, or if you in fact penned it.....but I like, I like!!

You are absolutely correct on the topic of socialism, but you obviously didn't need me to tell you that

The reality of a situation isn't redefined by a textbook statement.

“Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.”

Yes, the tautological fascism is a variant of pure socialism applies here.

“Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems…”

What do you think socialists do? Try and not integrate the corporations into the government? In any advanced mixed economy [Germany, US, UK, France, etc: socialist-capitalist] a swing towards socialism must NECESSARILY involve corporatism.

“Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndic lists…”

The core practices of fascism were practiced as early as T. Roosevelt in the US. Semantics.

“Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.”

Fascists [socialists, capitalists, tribalists, Methodists, racists] believe that a nation…Yea this is a sweeping statement applicable to many groups.

“Fascism is strongly opposed to core aspects of the Enlightenment and is an opponent of liberalism, Marxism, and mainstream socialism…”

Now here is maybe the only good point in your post. Fascism is decidedly anti-enlightenment. The US Constitution is considered one of the pinnacles of the enlightenment and as such is hated by the devotees of the ’living constitution’ movement in the contemporary US. Again, the socialists in the US correctly identify the Constitution as a limiting factor on expanding government power and thus must use subterfuge in the judiciary to circumvent restrictions.

“…is an opponent of liberalism…,” which should read, ““…is an opponent of classical liberalism…” Classical liberalism is of course contemporary libertarianism [Ron Paul!] and is 180 degrees away from modern US liberals (progressive fascists).

[edit on 23-6-2010 by tetrahedron]

reply to post by mpriebe81


Immanuel Kant, IIRC.

Second line.

Republicans and Religion works very similar to one another. They both spew absurd nonsense and lies with the addition of creating fear. They both rely on folks who refuse to think and read for themselves.

Troll Alert! Troll Alert!

The REAL question is "Why are people who hold so dear to the two-party system so moronic!?" Since the OP seems to fit the bill so nicely, perhaps the OP could provide some insight???

It seems like there is a HUGE contingency of us who grasp and understand the fallacy known as the two-party system. But obviously we have failed at bringing along those slower members of forums - again, as evidenced by the OP.

Originally posted by tetrahedron
"Hitler was no Socialist. He used socialist sentiments to gain favor with the trade unions and religious factions of the time but turned on them once he rose to power. Hitler was a fascist and a far-right wing authoritarian."

Are you daft?

Hitler wasn't a socialist. He just used socialist policies. Oh.

Actually Hitler wasn't a socialist. He was a Nazi. Which was a strange mixture of the left and right.

They were trying to create a society with classes divided by talent and merit. Those that worked harder would be able to advance to higher classes. Which is not unlike conservative beliefs that hard work should be awarded while laziness should not. At the same time believing in private property.

If you look at their embracing of Lutheranism while rejecting Catholicism and their anti-homosexuality policies, they would be like many conservatives today.



[edit on 23-6-2010 by Kaploink]

reply to post by kozmo


You read me all wrong. I don't support the two party at all and I believe both parties are corrupted.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Now I was just debating with people who were obviously Tea Party members. Because they posted their comments in all caps.

Generalize much? So if I type in all italics am I obviously gay?

So if I type in all bold am I obviously born again?

What the hell does one have to do with the other?

Now I'm shock that many of them kept copy on another by calling Adolf Hitler a leftest and a socialist.

Really? Really "you shock"? You DO know what NAZI stands for, right? Its an acronym.

Of course Glenn Beck is a liar. but that doesn't mean people still believe him.

What? I really truly do not know what that means.

Hitler was no Socialist.

You would be correct in saying that hitler wasn't JUST a socialist. Hes was crazy too. And power hungry. and had little guy syndrome. So he was a crazy, little, angry, power hungry SOCIALIST!

Both extremes are two sides of the same economic coin and lead to Authoritarianism.

Now THAT I understand, and would agree with you on.

Dorian Soran