Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Tea Party

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2010 10:15:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
People often joke that the Libertarian-esque Tea Party group are country rednecks who don't really know what they're talking about aside from whining about lower taxes. I've always defended them, mostly because I'm a huge fan of political activism, but also because I'm not necessarily against their cause. However, this group has proved critics right as it's surfaced that they shouted things like "N1GGER!" and "FAGG0T!" to members of Congress, even spitting on some of the representatives.

Now, freedom of speech is one thing but threats are another. Some signs said things like, "Kill the bill or face the November slaughter!" Granted you might not think that it's meant to be literal; however, another sign with a picture of a gun on it read, "Warning: If Brown can't stop it, a Browning [type of gun] can!" I mean wtf? Who exactly are they warning? I find it lol that they're holding up signs of Obama with a Hitler mustache as if it's a bad thing, but then in the same regard are threatening violence if they don't get their political way. Hmm. Pot? Kettle?

But yes, when I think of Hitler, that's exactly what comes to mind: health care.

*rolls eyes*

Anyway more pictures and information can be found here (and other sites, so spare me the liberal bias crap) -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... I'm just wondering if you guys think this party is really doing any good, making things worse, etc. Also, I know that a whole group cannot be classified by the actions of a few; however, these sentiments seem to be pretty widespread among the whole bunch. And one last thing - I haaate when people appeal to tradition in terms of policy (lol @ the sign "Bye bye Miss American Pie, Hello Socialism!"). Give me a break.
President of DDO
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2010 10:24:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The actions of that crowd were clearly despicable. The signs are very clearly not literal.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2010 10:41:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here's footage from one of the very first modern Tea Party Protests headed by the young, Alex Jones in 1997. It looks like it started off as a protest against the New World Order and the United Nations, but now it has been infiltrated by the Conservatives complaining about taxes and socialism (their favorite word.)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 3:32:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lulz they just won't quit...

Today, the TP literally forced their way into the House chamber and had to be escorted out by the sergeant at arms or whatever.

http://www.dailykos.com...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 3:37:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/20/2010 10:24:28 PM, mongoose wrote:
The actions of that crowd were clearly despicable. The signs are very clearly not literal.

The signs may not be literal (ie. they might not try to shoot the president or congress), but why have these threatening signs to begin with? "If Brown can't stop it A BROWNING can?" What the hell is that supposed to mean? And how is that [failed attempt at] intimidation helpful or different than what Hitler did? And how is Obama like Hitler? Hitler didn't concern himself with health care lol far from it. Besides, the Nazis weren't exactly socialist anyway. They may have tried to implement socialism, but it was more like an aristocracy and about promoting Nazi ideals rather than be all about the workers as socialism implies. People are stupid. Particularly conservatives.
President of DDO
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 3:41:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 3:37:50 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 3/20/2010 10:24:28 PM, mongoose wrote:
The actions of that crowd were clearly despicable. The signs are very clearly not literal.

The signs may not be literal (ie. they might not try to shoot the president or congress), but why have these threatening signs to begin with? "If Brown can't stop it A BROWNING can?" What the hell is that supposed to mean? And how is that [failed attempt at] intimidation helpful or different than what Hitler did? And how is Obama like Hitler? Hitler didn't concern himself with health care lol far from it. Besides, the Nazis weren't exactly socialist anyway. They may have tried to implement socialism, but it was more like an aristocracy and about promoting Nazi ideals rather than be all about the workers as socialism implies. People are stupid. Particularly conservatives.

I just laugh in people's faces when the try to say fascism and socialism are the same thing and that Hitler was socialist(or Obama for that matter...).
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 3:47:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 3:41:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just laugh in people's faces when the try to say fascism and socialism are the same thing and that Hitler was socialist(or Obama for that matter...).
Does the term National Socialism sound familiar to you?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 3:50:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The only thing the tea parties have provided is entertainment, and some admittedly catchy slogans.

Who remembers the sign that said "A zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lyin' African?" Was it to prove how non-racist the teabaggers are? >_>
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 3:50:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 3:47:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:41:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just laugh in people's faces when the try to say fascism and socialism are the same thing and that Hitler was socialist(or Obama for that matter...).
Does the term National Socialism sound familiar to you?

It's still fascism. Hitler was a master at propaganda. Hey, it worked to get the working class vote. :)
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 3:50:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 3:47:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:41:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just laugh in people's faces when the try to say fascism and socialism are the same thing and that Hitler was socialist(or Obama for that matter...).
Does the term National Socialism sound familiar to you?

Hitler wasn't socialist...certainly not so on social issues.

Socialism advocates social freedom.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 3:52:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 3:50:02 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
The only thing the tea parties have provided is entertainment, and some admittedly catchy slogans.

Who remembers the sign that said "A zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lyin' African?" Was it to prove how non-racist the teabaggers are? >_>

Bro, racist as it may be, that's hilarious!
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 3:54:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/20/2010 10:15:11 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Also, I know that a whole group cannot be classified by the actions of a few.

At 3/21/2010 3:37:50 PM, theLwerd wrote:
People are stupid. Particularly conservatives.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 4:04:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
theLwerd wrote in two separate posts, combined here for a single response
People often joke that the Libertarian-esque Tea Party
Was.
group are country rednecks who don't really know what they're talking about aside from whining about lower taxes. I've always defended them, mostly because I'm a huge fan of political activism, but also because I'm not necessarily against their cause. However, this group has proved critics right as it's surfaced that they shouted things like "N1GGER!" and "FAGG0T!" to members of Congress, even spitting on some of the representatives.
Right. They have been taken over. See Geo's first video.

Now, freedom of speech is one thing but threats are another. Some signs said things like, "Kill the bill or face the November slaughter!" Granted you might not think that it's meant to be literal; however, another sign with a picture of a gun on it read, "Warning: If Brown can't stop it, a Browning [type of gun] can!" I mean wtf? Who exactly are they warning? I find it lol that they're holding up signs of Obama with a Hitler mustache as if it's a bad thing, but then in the same regard are threatening violence if they don't get their political way. Hmm. Pot? Kettle?
Well, violence is what's going to happen to them if their opponents get their political way, so I don't see what's the issue here. The UHC bill as it is written requires all Americans to buy healthcare. What effectively happens when people do not follow the law is they are hauled into prison, or if they refuse that, they get shot. Which is violent. So it's violent either way.

Anyway more pictures and information can be found here (and other sites, so spare me the liberal bias crap) -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... I'm just wondering if you guys think this party is really doing any good, making things worse, etc.
Making things worse. Allowed the rise of the Coffee Party. Which in a sense I guess is a good thing since that was a total flop and revealed to be top-down (led by an Obama campaign guy), but it's still making a bad image overall.
Also, I know that a whole group cannot be classified by the actions of a few; however, these sentiments seem to be pretty widespread among the whole bunch.
It is indeed sad.

And how is Obama like Hitler? Hitler didn't concern himself with health care lol far from it.
Hmm. At least on one level that is not true, as Hitler did concern himself with eugenics, which is a part/type of healthcare. I believe I learned something about Hitler doing a healthcare (something we would recognize as healthcare) plan for the nation, but that might've been Bismarck.
Besides, the Nazis weren't exactly socialist anyway. They may have tried to implement socialism, but it was more like an aristocracy and about promoting Nazi ideals rather than be all about the workers as socialism implies.
That's not the point is it? The people using the word socialist in this context are clearly attempting to use it in a derogatory manner. And really, both Hitler, Stalin, and even Mao all claimed that their programs were going to be good for the people. It didn't happen, and it has never happened. That is probably what people are alluding to when they tag Obama as socialist: all talk, no walk, and that's all the change we'll get.
People are stupid. Particularly conservatives.
People are stupid. Particularly anyone who thinks in the left-right paradigm, and refuses to attempt to understand other points of view.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 4:09:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 3:50:15 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:47:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:41:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just laugh in people's faces when the try to say fascism and socialism are the same thing and that Hitler was socialist(or Obama for that matter...).
Does the term National Socialism sound familiar to you?

It's still fascism. Hitler was a master at propaganda. Hey, it worked to get the working class vote. :)

Obama is also a master at propaganda, and look, it got the working class AND the young adults AND the african americans to vote. Obama's up two on Hitler.

At 3/21/2010 3:50:15 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:47:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:41:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just laugh in people's faces when the try to say fascism and socialism are the same thing and that Hitler was socialist(or Obama for that matter...).
Does the term National Socialism sound familiar to you?

Hitler wasn't socialist...certainly not so on social issues.

Socialism advocates social freedom.
That's not all it advocates. It's why I'm not a socialist anymore :P
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 4:12:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 3:50:15 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:47:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:41:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just laugh in people's faces when the try to say fascism and socialism are the same thing and that Hitler was socialist(or Obama for that matter...).
Does the term National Socialism sound familiar to you?

Hitler wasn't socialist...certainly not so on social issues.

Socialism advocates social freedom.
That's not all it advocates. It's why I'm not a socialist anymore :P

?

You implied that Hitler was socialist. Obviously he wasn't, because socialists believe in social freedom and equality. Generally, socialists tend to disapprove of massive genocide and torture.

So, I'm asking why you think Hitler was socialist. Clearly he was a Nazi Fascist.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Anarcho
Posts: 887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 4:19:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 4:12:38 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:50:15 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:47:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:41:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just laugh in people's faces when the try to say fascism and socialism are the same thing and that Hitler was socialist(or Obama for that matter...).
Does the term National Socialism sound familiar to you?

Hitler wasn't socialist...certainly not so on social issues.

Socialism advocates social freedom.
That's not all it advocates. It's why I'm not a socialist anymore :P

?

You implied that Hitler was socialist. Obviously he wasn't, because socialists believe in social freedom and equality. Generally, socialists tend to disapprove of massive genocide and torture.

So, I'm asking why you think Hitler was socialist. Clearly he was a Nazi Fascist.

They think so because anything with big government is Socialist even though Hitler killed the Communist Party there.
InsertNameHere wrote: "If we evolved from apes then why are apes still around?

This is semi-serious btw. It's something that seems strange to me. You'd think that entire species would cease to exist if other ones evolved from them."

Anarcho wrote: *facepalm*
Anarcho
Posts: 887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 4:20:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Need to rewrite that. They think so because anything with big government is automatically Socialist. He even killed the Communist Party members there.
InsertNameHere wrote: "If we evolved from apes then why are apes still around?

This is semi-serious btw. It's something that seems strange to me. You'd think that entire species would cease to exist if other ones evolved from them."

Anarcho wrote: *facepalm*
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 4:39:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There are many many many claimants to the title "socialism" with a meaningful ideology. Including Hitler himself. The common thread is state control of the economy. If socialism were defined in terms of opposition to "mass genocide and torture," Reagan would be a socialist and Stalin would not.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 4:45:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 4:12:38 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:50:15 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:47:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:41:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just laugh in people's faces when the try to say fascism and socialism are the same thing and that Hitler was socialist(or Obama for that matter...).
Does the term National Socialism sound familiar to you?

Hitler wasn't socialist...certainly not so on social issues.

Socialism advocates social freedom.
That's not all it advocates. It's why I'm not a socialist anymore :P

?

You implied that Hitler was socialist. Obviously he wasn't, because socialists believe in social freedom and equality. Generally, socialists tend to disapprove of massive genocide and torture.

So, I'm asking why you think Hitler was socialist. Clearly he was a Nazi Fascist.
I don't particularly appreciate your accusation that I'm stupid and I can't see that Hitler was a Nazi Fascist, but I'll give you leeway because you're PoeJoe. You've done, let's say, rather childish and very inconsistent things before.

Fascism and Socialism on the whole are not incompatible. While it is true that a part of socialism is advocating for social freedoms, that is not a doctrine that extends throughout the belief system: a commonly pointed out stopping point is economics, where socialism advocates entitlement to other people's labors, which is, from that other persons' point of view, not freedom, but enslavement. Socialism, in the economic sense, can be seen as similar to fascism, kind of like how both an apple and a tomato are both fruits. Both systems do not allow for what you think of as "lol", the system of "laissez-faire capitalism".
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 5:00:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 4:45:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 4:12:38 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:50:15 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:47:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:41:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just laugh in people's faces when the try to say fascism and socialism are the same thing and that Hitler was socialist(or Obama for that matter...).
Does the term National Socialism sound familiar to you?

Hitler wasn't socialist...certainly not so on social issues.

Socialism advocates social freedom.
That's not all it advocates. It's why I'm not a socialist anymore :P

?

You implied that Hitler was socialist. Obviously he wasn't, because socialists believe in social freedom and equality. Generally, socialists tend to disapprove of massive genocide and torture.

So, I'm asking why you think Hitler was socialist. Clearly he was a Nazi Fascist.
I don't particularly appreciate your accusation that I'm stupid and I can't see that Hitler was a Nazi Fascist, but I'll give you leeway because you're PoeJoe. You've done, let's say, rather childish and very inconsistent things before.

You're accusing me of accusing you of stupidity. When did I do that?

In any case, you're now also accusing me of being childish and inconsistent.

Fascism and Socialism on the whole are not incompatible. While it is true that a part of socialism is advocating for social freedoms, that is not a doctrine that extends throughout the belief system: a commonly pointed out stopping point is economics, where socialism advocates entitlement to other people's labors, which is, from that other persons' point of view, not freedom, but enslavement. Socialism, in the economic sense, can be seen as similar to fascism, kind of like how both an apple and a tomato are both fruits. Both systems do not allow for what you think of as "lol", the system of "laissez-faire capitalism".

Well, I'd argue that given the current economic state of the world, socialism is simply providing more equality and thus freedom for the greater amount of people, but not even getting into that...

As I see it socialism implies two things: a government-regulated economy and social freedom. These are two different things.

Fascism is against social freedom, and is for government intervention in the lives of its citizens. In this way, socialism and fascism are not compatible.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 5:05:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As I see it socialism implies two things: a government-regulated economy and social freedom.

That's modern liberalism. Socialism refers to a government-owned economy and well, socialists disagree on the rest ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 5:09:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 5:00:29 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 4:45:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 4:12:38 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:50:15 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:47:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:41:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just laugh in people's faces when the try to say fascism and socialism are the same thing and that Hitler was socialist(or Obama for that matter...).
Does the term National Socialism sound familiar to you?

Hitler wasn't socialist...certainly not so on social issues.

Socialism advocates social freedom.
That's not all it advocates. It's why I'm not a socialist anymore :P

?

You implied that Hitler was socialist. Obviously he wasn't, because socialists believe in social freedom and equality. Generally, socialists tend to disapprove of massive genocide and torture.

So, I'm asking why you think Hitler was socialist. Clearly he was a Nazi Fascist.
I don't particularly appreciate your accusation that I'm stupid and I can't see that Hitler was a Nazi Fascist, but I'll give you leeway because you're PoeJoe. You've done, let's say, rather childish and very inconsistent things before.

You're accusing me of accusing you of stupidity. When did I do that?
You accused me that I couldn't see that Hitler was clearly a Nazi Fascist. Which is tantamount in this society to being stupid.

In any case, you're now also accusing me of being childish and inconsistent.
Would you like me to bring up the evidence? I haven't checked, but I'm willing to bet that it's on DDOWiki somewhere.

Fascism and Socialism on the whole are not incompatible. While it is true that a part of socialism is advocating for social freedoms, that is not a doctrine that extends throughout the belief system: a commonly pointed out stopping point is economics, where socialism advocates entitlement to other people's labors, which is, from that other persons' point of view, not freedom, but enslavement. Socialism, in the economic sense, can be seen as similar to fascism, kind of like how both an apple and a tomato are both fruits. Both systems do not allow for what you think of as "lol", the system of "laissez-faire capitalism".

Well, I'd argue that given the current economic state of the world, socialism is simply providing more equality and thus freedom for the greater amount of people, but not even getting into that...
lol, how would it do that?

As I see it socialism implies two things: a government-regulated economy and social freedom. These are two different things.

Fascism is against social freedom, and is for government intervention in the lives of its citizens. In this way, socialism and fascism are not compatible.
Would you like to explain how exactly Fascism is against social freedom? I would also like a definition of "social freedom", as I think we probably conceive of the concept fundamentally differently. My belief of "social freedom" led me to anarcho-capitalism, you see...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 5:34:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 5:09:21 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 5:00:29 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 4:45:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 4:12:38 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:50:15 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:47:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:41:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just laugh in people's faces when the try to say fascism and socialism are the same thing and that Hitler was socialist(or Obama for that matter...).
Does the term National Socialism sound familiar to you?

Hitler wasn't socialist...certainly not so on social issues.

Socialism advocates social freedom.
That's not all it advocates. It's why I'm not a socialist anymore :P

?

You implied that Hitler was socialist. Obviously he wasn't, because socialists believe in social freedom and equality. Generally, socialists tend to disapprove of massive genocide and torture.

So, I'm asking why you think Hitler was socialist. Clearly he was a Nazi Fascist.
I don't particularly appreciate your accusation that I'm stupid and I can't see that Hitler was a Nazi Fascist, but I'll give you leeway because you're PoeJoe. You've done, let's say, rather childish and very inconsistent things before.

You're accusing me of accusing you of stupidity. When did I do that?
You accused me that I couldn't see that Hitler was clearly a Nazi Fascist. Which is tantamount in this society to being stupid.

I never said that you couldn't see that Hitler was a Nazi Fascist. Just stating the obvious. In fact, if I thought you couldn't see that Hitler was a Nazi Fascist, what would be the point of me bringing it up? If I thought that, my statement would mean nothing.

In any case, you're now also accusing me of being childish and inconsistent.
Would you like me to bring up the evidence? I haven't checked, but I'm willing to bet that it's on DDOWiki somewhere.

Fascism and Socialism on the whole are not incompatible. While it is true that a part of socialism is advocating for social freedoms, that is not a doctrine that extends throughout the belief system: a commonly pointed out stopping point is economics, where socialism advocates entitlement to other people's labors, which is, from that other persons' point of view, not freedom, but enslavement. Socialism, in the economic sense, can be seen as similar to fascism, kind of like how both an apple and a tomato are both fruits. Both systems do not allow for what you think of as "lol", the system of "laissez-faire capitalism".

Well, I'd argue that given the current economic state of the world, socialism is simply providing more equality and thus freedom for the greater amount of people, but not even getting into that...
lol, how would it do that?

I don't want to get into this, but just to state my position: rich ppl are manipulating the middle class and the government in ways that are unfair and illegal (e.g. deception, law breaking, political bribes and influence, etc.). It is therefore fair to redistribute wealth and make it harder for the rich to become more rich and become more--for a lack of a better word--evil.

As I see it socialism implies two things: a government-regulated economy and social freedom. These are two different things.

Fascism is against social freedom, and is for government intervention in the lives of its citizens. In this way, socialism and fascism are not compatible.
Would you like to explain how exactly Fascism is against social freedom? I would also like a definition of "social freedom", as I think we probably conceive of the concept fundamentally differently. My belief of "social freedom" led me to anarcho-capitalism, you see...

I define "social freedom" as the right to do whatever you want without breaking the law and without infringing upon other people's right to do what they want. I separate this from "economic freedom," because, unfortunately, our current economic atmosphere requires force for true equality to be achieved.

Fascism is against social freedom, because...well, you can't exercise these freedoms when an authoritarian government is telling you what you can and cannot do on your own private property.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 5:38:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I define "social freedom" as the right to do whatever you want without breaking the law and without infringing upon other people's right to do what they want. I separate this from "economic freedom," because, unfortunately, our current economic atmosphere requires force for true equality to be achieved.
That does not follow. If you require force to achieve equality, you cannot at once favor equality and the right to do whatever you want without infringing on others rights (including "breaking the law" in there renders your definition meaningless as you can outlaw anything and poof). Pick one.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 5:39:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
After all, economic freedom is nothing more than doing things on your own property without involving the property of nonconsenting persons ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 5:45:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 5:34:03 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

I don't want to get into this, but just to state my position: rich ppl are manipulating the middle class and the government in ways that are unfair and illegal (e.g. deception, law breaking, political bribes and influence, etc.). It is therefore fair to redistribute wealth and make it harder for the rich to become more rich and become more--for a lack of a better word--evil.

So, instead of trying harder to catch the evil rich people, arrest them, and get tons of revenue from them, you just lump all of the rich people together, still leaving enough to bribe with, but taking money from all of them, not just the evil ones. Sounds like a brilliant generalization and stereotype.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 5:46:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 5:05:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As I see it socialism implies two things: a government-regulated economy and social freedom.

That's modern liberalism. Socialism refers to a government-owned economy and well, socialists disagree on the rest ^_^

Someone's never heard of Thomas Hodgkin.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 5:50:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 5:46:39 PM, Reasoning wrote:

Most people have never heard of Thomas Hodgkin. And no one really cares either. except maybe doctors

The kind of socialists that still actually exist, those are the ones that matter, and their forebears, not some guy whose wikipedia page doesn't even mention politics
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 6:02:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 5:34:03 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 5:09:21 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 5:00:29 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 4:45:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 4:12:38 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:50:15 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:47:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/21/2010 3:41:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just laugh in people's faces when the try to say fascism and socialism are the same thing and that Hitler was socialist(or Obama for that matter...).
Does the term National Socialism sound familiar to you?

Hitler wasn't socialist...certainly not so on social issues.

Socialism advocates social freedom.
That's not all it advocates. It's why I'm not a socialist anymore :P

?

You implied that Hitler was socialist. Obviously he wasn't, because socialists believe in social freedom and equality. Generally, socialists tend to disapprove of massive genocide and torture.

So, I'm asking why you think Hitler was socialist. Clearly he was a Nazi Fascist.
I don't particularly appreciate your accusation that I'm stupid and I can't see that Hitler was a Nazi Fascist, but I'll give you leeway because you're PoeJoe. You've done, let's say, rather childish and very inconsistent things before.

You're accusing me of accusing you of stupidity. When did I do that?
You accused me that I couldn't see that Hitler was clearly a Nazi Fascist. Which is tantamount in this society to being stupid.

I never said that you couldn't see that Hitler was a Nazi Fascist. Just stating the obvious.
I interpret the line "So, I'm asking why you think Hitler was socialist. Clearly he was a Nazi Fascist" to mean that "socialist" and "Nazi Fascist" are mutually exclusive, and that I believe in the former. Which in turn means that you said that I couldn't see that Hitler was a Nazi Fascist.
In fact, if I thought you couldn't see that Hitler was a Nazi Fascist, what would be the point of me bringing it up? If I thought that, my statement would mean nothing.
Not true. It can mean that you think I'm stupid and your post was just pointing it out to everyone else. Which is why we are discussing what we are discussing, as I thought that was the most probable motivation.

In any case, you're now also accusing me of being childish and inconsistent.
Would you like me to bring up the evidence? I haven't checked, but I'm willing to bet that it's on DDOWiki somewhere.

Fascism and Socialism on the whole are not incompatible. While it is true that a part of socialism is advocating for social freedoms, that is not a doctrine that extends throughout the belief system: a commonly pointed out stopping point is economics, where socialism advocates entitlement to other people's labors, which is, from that other persons' point of view, not freedom, but enslavement. Socialism, in the economic sense, can be seen as similar to fascism, kind of like how both an apple and a tomato are both fruits. Both systems do not allow for what you think of as "lol", the system of "laissez-faire capitalism".

Well, I'd argue that given the current economic state of the world, socialism is simply providing more equality and thus freedom for the greater amount of people, but not even getting into that...
lol, how would it do that?

I don't want to get into this, but just to state my position: rich ppl are manipulating the middle class and the government in ways that are unfair and illegal (e.g. deception, law breaking, political bribes and influence, etc.). It is therefore fair to redistribute wealth and make it harder for the rich to become more rich and become more--for a lack of a better word--evil.

I believe that as well, you see. I just believe that BECAUSE rich people are the ones who MADE the government (if you look up the Constitutional Convention, it was all rich people, they didn't really represent their constituencies, and they made it behind closed doors and didn't really release the document to the public. The Anti-Federalists had to argue back against something they didn't know), and the rich are PERFECTLY FINE within the legal system right now, that they have probably taken over the government, and therefore, any government action is probably designed for their benefit. All these corporations - how do they get so rich? They have selective protection by the law. They privatize profits and socialize costs, and you better believe they do. Before I couldn't really point out evidence, now we have the 23T Banker Bailout.

The state, in short, is an addiction forced onto us by the elite.
To use the state to fix the state is retarded.

As I see it socialism implies two things: a government-regulated economy and social freedom. These are two different things.

Fascism is against social freedom, and is for government intervention in the lives of its citizens. In this way, socialism and fascism are not compatible.
Would you like to explain how exactly Fascism is against social freedom? I would also like a definition of "social freedom", as I think we probably conceive of the concept fundamentally differently. My belief of "social freedom" led me to anarcho-capitalism, you see...

I define "social freedom" as the right to do whatever you want without breaking the law and without infringing upon other people's right to do what they want. I separate this from "economic freedom," because, unfortunately, our current economic atmosphere requires force for true equality to be achieved.
In that case, social freedom exists even in the most totalitarian of governments. You do, and will always, have the right to do whatever you want without breaking the law and without infringing upon oher people's right to do what they want, which is also part of the law.

Fascism is against social freedom, because...well, you can't exercise these freedoms when an authoritarian government is telling you what you can and cannot do on your own private property.
I just proved that n-o-t-h-i-n-g the state does can be against social freedom.

I hope you are going to redefine social freedom. This is not very fun.

Almost as deadweight as a Volkov conversation.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?