Obama '08?

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Because Cyclo is an avowed communist and the Norks are his brothers in arms.
Cyclo supports North Korea and I'm pretty sure PrezBO would choose N over S.

Two possibilities here, H2oman:

One; you didn't read a ******* thing.

Two, you did read it but you are so stupid that you can't even comprehend what you read.

1 Reply

@JTT,

You ignored the third and correct possibility, Jtt.

You are suffering from a rectal cranial inversion.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Because Cyclo is an avowed communist and the Norks are his brothers in arms.
Cyclo supports North Korea and I'm pretty sure PrezBO would choose N over S.

That sounds pretty accusatory, but I have to admit that cyclops has told me that he likes some facets of Marxism and some of free market capitalism, so I do think it is logical to suspect that he might have some sympathies for communist regimes around the world.

I have reminded him that Fascism has in history been referred to as a "Third Way," which incorporated elements of communism and capitalism. That was the Fascism of Mussolini, which probably is considered a pretty good historical example of Fascism.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

That sounds pretty accusatory

Not anymore so than,

Because X is an avowed American.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
Because Cyclo is an avowed communist and the Norks are his brothers in arms.
Cyclo supports North Korea and I'm pretty sure PrezBO would choose N over S.
That sounds pretty accusatory, but I have to admit that cyclops has told me that he likes some facets of Marxism and some of free market capitalism, so I do think it is logical to suspect that he might have some sympathies for communist regimes around the world.

I have reminded him that Fascism has in history been referred to as a "Third Way," which incorporated elements of communism and capitalism. That was the Fascism of Mussolini, which probably is considered a pretty good historical example of Fascism.

I pretty sure Cyclo has openly stated his love for communism right here on A2K, but maybe it was just good old Marxism or your basic Fascism... I'm sure it wasn't Capitalism.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

With your reading skills you can't be sure of anything, h2oman.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

I pretty sure Cyclo has openly stated his love for communism right here on A2K, but maybe it was just good old Marxism or your basic Fascism... I'm sure it wasn't Capitalism.

As he has described what he believes to me, he apparently favors a combination of capitalism and socialism / Marxism. The closest political ideology that he comes to seems to be Fascism, which is that combination. Under Mussolini, it was described as a "Third Way." In other words, it was not pure socialism and it was not pure capitalism, it was a third way in between those two ways. Hitler's Fascism, called Nazism, also incorporated some capitalism along with socialism. Both Hitler's and Mussolini's Fascism leaned distinctly and extremely left from free market capitalism and away from the supremacy of individual rights and responsibilities of a to the right conservative idealogy. In both Communist and Fascist states, the State reigns supreme over the individual, because a strong state is necessary to enforce the idealogy, for the good of the whole or the state.

Fascists like capitalism only as long as it serves the state, by permission of the state under very strict regulation and control.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

"As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism."

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

"As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power:

One more post about this, to point out the elephant in the room, the word "collectivism" being a distinct part of the Fascist system. Collectivism is leftist, folks, no way around it, cyclops, and others that keep arguing in vain that Fascism was an extreme right wing philosophy.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, That's because you have no humanistic sensibilities. You even advocate for more tax cuts for the wealthy, when they themselves are willing to pay more taxes. Your understanding of economics, politics, and humanity is missing from your brain. You need to go back to the farm from which you emerged. You are a danger to society. Your god, money, has left you in animal stupor without any understanding that humans help other humans.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Collectivism is leftist, folks, no way around it, cyclops, and others that keep arguing in vain that Fascism was an extreme right wing philosophy.

cyclops, and others see nothing when they look in the mirror.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

okie wrote:
Collectivism is leftist, folks, no way around it, cyclops, and others that keep arguing in vain that Fascism was an extreme right wing philosophy.
cyclops, and others see nothing when they look in the mirror.

And they apparently cannot read the simplest of definitions with any comprehension. The simple fact that collectivism is leftist, apparently that basic truth simply escapes them completely.

1 Reply

@okie,

Fascism has nothing to do with collectivism - at all. Unless you mean 'collecting all the power and wealth in the hands of a dictator and his cronies.' There's never been an example of a fascist who gave a **** about the spread of wealth in their country, or in making sure things are fair or equal; they just do or say what they think people will support while they quietly maneuver themselves into total control.

This whole line of idiocy you're spewing is barely even worth my notice, Okie. Let alone a response. You're lucky that I take the time to even say anything to you on this topic at all, because you've made it perfectly clear that you aren't interested in an actual discussion of facts, and you don't care what anyone else has to say - you know you're right and that's the end of it. Right?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fascism has nothing to do with collectivism - at all. Cycloptichorn

How come even the name itself defies your statement, cyclops? Where do you think the word fascism came from? http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
"As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power:
You cannot prove your argument that Fascism only involved the idea of a dictator ruling for his own benefit. What you are purposely ignoring is the fact that collectivism requires a dictator to manage it, and so that is what fascism was about. Capitalism could also exist, but only for the benefit of the State or common good. You ignore that one of the primary principles of the Nazi Party was also "Common Good over Individual Good."

We could also talk about communism. To be consistent, you would have to recognize that since it is commonly administered by dictators, that would also make communism a right wing idealogy. It would be silly to argue that. But that is precisely what you are arguing in regard to fascism, and it is frankly nonsensical, cyclops. You will have to do better than that. You will have to prove the economy was free market capitalism without the state calling the shots, taking property, or directing that it all be done at the behest of the state. You know you can't do that, and so I believe you have lost the debate already.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fascism has nothing to do with collectivism - at all. Cycloptichorn

How come even the name itself defies your statement, cyclops? Where do you think the word fascism came from? http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
"As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power:

This is ******* ridiculous. You're so ignorant of history that you will believe any old bullshit that seems like it supports your contention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces

Quote:

Origin and symbolism

The traditional Roman fasces consisted of a bundle of white birch rods, tied together with a red leather ribbon into a cylinder, and often including a bronze axe (or sometimes two) amongst the rods, with the blade(s) on the side, projecting from the bundle. They were carried by the lictors who accompanied the magistrates. The axe often represents the power over life or death through the death penalty, although after the laws of the twelve tables, no Roman magistrate could summarily execute a Roman citizen.[3] It was used as a symbol of the Roman Republic in many circumstances, including being carried in processions, much the way a flag might be carried today.

The Fasces has nothing to do with collectivism, Okie. At all. You literally have no ******* clue what you are talking about. The Fasces appears on the flag of our National Guard. It appears on the flag of both the House of Reps AND the Senate. The official SEAL of the United States has crossed Fasces on it. The statue of freedom on top of the Capitol building is ringed with Fasces. It's a symbol of power and authority and has nothing to do with collectivism.

You would have realized this if you had bothered to do even ten ******* seconds of research. But you can't be bothered. What does that say about you, man?

Quote:

You cannot prove your argument that Fascism only involved the idea of a dictator ruling for his own benefit. What you are purposely ignoring is the fact that collectivism requires a dictator to manage it, and so that is what fascism was about. Capitalism could also exist, but only for the benefit of the State or common good. You ignore that one of the primary principles of the Nazi Party was also "Common Good over Individual Good."

Collectivism doesn't require a dictator to manage it. This is another bullshit assertion on your part.

You also don't seem to realize that Marx and Collectivism were popular ideas in Germany at the time. Hitler and his bunch said what they thought people would want to hear - and it worked long enough for them to seize power. They then immediately dropped any pretense of collectivism in favor of a dictatorship. This is elementary, Okie. Not advanced history. Basic history.

Quote:

You know you can't do that, and so I believe you have lost the debate already.

I want you to explain to me, in detail, why I should ever bother responding to you again on this topic. Because this weak **** is disappointing. You do no scholarship at all and don't bother to check even basic facts to see if they are right. I'm pretty close to cutting you off, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You do no scholarship at all and don't bother to check even basic facts to see if they are right. I'm pretty close to cutting you off, Okie.
Cycloptichorn

Feel free to go ahead with that, cyclops, it would also save me from wasting time here to debate you. I think the primary problem my arguments present to you is that I have taken an uncluttered, cut to the chase assessment of Hitler and Fascism, rather than accepting the spin of liberal history professors that have come to some liberal consensus about this. Instead of accepting conventional wisdom, I have instead simply looked at the basic facts about what happened in history. Facts are stubborn things, cyclops, and therein lies your frustration. The fact is that any personal freedom, free market capitalism, or conservatism that is true right wing idealogy as we understand it now, they only existed under Fascism or Nazism to a lesser extent as allowed by and for the State, so that the so called "Common Good," or collectivism / collective good trumped the rights and responsibilities of individuals. Therefore, simple common sense says in no uncertain terms that Fascism or Nazism were no way right wing or conservative systems or idealogies, cyclops, end of story. You can accuse me of ignorance until the cows come home, but it makes no difference, facts and the truth of history still stand. You can choose to ignore the lessons of history, and in so doing you will help facilitate the same old mistakes that were made. That is a sad thing, in my opinion, and I will continue to try to fight against that ignorance.

3 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I think the primary problem my arguments present to you

Stop there. The primary problem with your arguments is that you do zero research and you post things which are completely and totally false. Just like your latest obsession with 'Fasces.' You were totally wrong. You didn't even bother to check if you were right, you just cut-and-pasted because it sounded good. Didn't you? I mean, do you disagree with this?

This is the heart of intellectual honesty, Okie - admitting when you didn't have your facts straight. Are you willing to do so?

On one hand, you say that I 'ignore the facts and truths of history.' But on the other hand, you refuse to read any history that disagrees with your position, because it's "accepting the spin of liberal history professors that have come to some liberal consensus about this." What evidence do you have that the vast majority of world historians are wrong, but you - who has zero training in history or the study of it at all - are right? Why should anyone believe your narrative and disbelieve everyone else's?

It's a ridiculous proposition. I learned Nazi and WW2 history from a professor who spent 50 years of his life studying it. He had lived in Germany for 2 decades studying original documents of the Nazi party as well as helping to unearth new documents from private collections. Why should I believe that everything that this guy said was wrong, and you are right? After all, you've done no scholarship. You have no primary sources to back up your assertions. You don't even have logic. You only have an opinion. But you don't seem to realize that your opinion isn't convincing to anyone at all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

...facts and the truth of history still stand.

And why, dearest okie, do YOU ignore them?

You, and that's my honest belief, no nothing but picture book knowledge about the history of the Nazi period.
And even less about Fascism.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

You will have to prove the economy was free market capitalism without the state calling the shots, taking property, or directing that it all be done at the behest of the state. You know you can't do that, and so I believe you have lost the debate already.

So, are you arguing that the RIGHT only allows free market capitalism without any state interference? Then you are arguing that the RIGHT doesn't exist at all.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I think the primary problem my arguments present to you is that I have taken an uncluttered, cut to the chase assessment of Hitler and Fascism,

No, you have completely ignored what Hitler said and put your spin on it okie.

Hitler said they had to oppose the left because it had been taken over by Jews and to give in to them would result in Bolshevism.

Quote:

"One of the principle reasons for the legislation in Germany is the necessity to combat Bolshevism. This legislation is not anti-Jewish, but pro-German. The rights of Germans are thereby to be protected against destructive Jewish influences.

Quote:

Today I will once more be a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshivization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."

Hitler thought that Marxism was victory for the Jews.

It's rather hard to ignore Hitler's own words, isn't it okie?

Quote:

"And thus the Left is forced more and more to turn to Bolshevism. In Bolshevism they see today the sole, the last possibility of preserving the present state of affairs. They realize quite accurately that the people is beaten so long as Brain and Hand can be kept apart. For alone neither Brain nor Hand can really oppose them. So long therefore as the Socialist idea is coined only by men who see in it a means for disintegrating a nation, so long can they rest in peace.

"But it will be a sorry day for them when this Socialist idea is grasped by a Movement which unites it with the highest Nationalist pride, with Nationalist defiance, and thus places the Nation's Brain, its intellectual workers, on this ground. Then this system will break up, and there would remain only one single means of salvation for its supporters: viz. to bring the catastrophe upon us before their own ruin, to destroy the Nation's Brain, to bring it to the scaffold - to introduce Bolshevism.

"So the Left neither can nor will help. On the contrary, their first lie compels them constantly to resort to new lies.

Hitler was NOT a leftist. Nor did he see himself as a leftist.

1 Reply

okie's self-love is inversely proportional to his knowledge of history. He loves himself to the point of fanaticism while he understands nothing of history.

Oh, his knowledge of politics is even more deficient than his knowledge of history.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know