Obama Rejects Capitalist System

yes, Nazisim is fascism, combined with the Nazi idelgoly.

And for eugenics. How many people you think, that are against mixed marriages are on the right side of the spectrum?

 

Why do people keep posting links that contain two different words and act like there is a correlation between the two?

And I suppose you never thought of the fact that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were part of the Axis powers during WWII. So most likely, that's why the article took the time to point out the similarities.

And of course there were similarities between Nazism and Fascism. They were both anti-Semites. They both hated Christianity. They both hated Capitalism and Communism.

Communism was mentioned a few times in that article as well, as there is a relation between Socialism and Communism. No one actually agrees that Nazism is Communism. Just like no one will actually agree that Socialism is the same as Communism.

 

That one is easy.... Liberals by their very nature are extremely idealist. They want things that more often than not are impossible to achieve in the real world, with real people in it. Now that Obama is the Pres. he is bound by the rules of reality just like the rest of us. Meaning that all of the idealism of what he wants and wanted to do collides with reality. Probably a really frightening thing for him. To finally understand that reality cannot be ignored.

Is it really any wonder that these people are angry with him? When you promise you can spin straw into gold and do not deliver to a mob of people that elected you to do it is understandable. It is far easier to complain and whine from the sidelines, than it is to achieve goals in the "real world". Most of the far left upset with Obama will never be satisfied.... because what they want is just not possible....

 

There are similarities but Nazism is no more Racism than it is Communism.

Eugenics has nothing to do with mixed marriage.

 

It is a variety of fascism. That appears to be the prevailing opinion among historians. It isn't exactly identical to Mussolini's form but it's about as close as you're going to get in terms of a comparable ideology during that time period.

The difference basically lies in racial views and interpretation of history.

 

Do you mean Fascism?

Eugenics has nothing to do with mixed marriage.[/QUOTE]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics

One of the arguements againest mixed marriages, is two differnt races coming together.

 

Arguments against mixed marriages was used to promote racism. Racist regimes would never encourage interracial marriages or mixed breeding in the first place. So eugenics does not play a role here.

Eugenics has to do with improving the quality of a particular race by eliminating the prospect of the so called "feeble-minded" to reproduce. It also encourages "worthy" people to contribute to society and the "worthless" to perish.

 

It's a belief anyone can have not just the state, and the orginal question was:

Name any Right Wing people who supports eugenics.

I know, I just posted the defention of it.

 

The opposite of wealth redistribution?

 

Anyone can believe in Eugenics but no one on the right supported it. Socialist, Progressives, Nazis and Social Darwinist all supported this and these are not people who are aligned with right. You've pretty much shown that by your failure to answer my question.

Also you're confused. Eugenics is not racism. Eugenics deals with genetic defects make sure those with them don't reproduce. Racism is a believe that one race is superior to another.

 

What exactly isn't achievable? Universal health care (other countries have it)?. More stringent environmental regulations (other countries have that)?. Equal rights for homosexual Americans (other countries have that)?. I'm confused as to what you mean by this, unless you mean he doesn't have the votes. And that would only be because the parties could not agree, not that something would be inherently unachievable.

 

You are very correct, GiveUsLibertyin2012.

This part was very good.

"Does he lack leadership abilities or competence? Is he arrogant and out of touch with America? Is he a pleaser first and foremost, rather than someone who cares about getting the job done? Does he not understand how the economy works?

“‘Yes, we can!’ has devolved into ‘Hey, we might,’” Maureen Dowd wrote in The New York Times."



Obama schmoozes with bankers and very wealthy potential donors. This event took place at a $35,800-a-plate dinner with Wall Street executives in a posh Manhattan restaurant. Could this seriously undercut the image he has tried so carefully to craft? Here is the greatest authoritarian and one of the phoniest and most insincere presidents we have ever had!

 

Fair enough question.... Let me try to answer it in a way that makes sense to me.

When asked if poverty can be eliminated in a society, most liberals will not only say it can be.... but they will emphatically tell you that we are a prosperous enough nation where no one needs to EVER be poor. It "feels good" to say that. But if you look at the math of the situation you would quickly realize that if you honestly, earnestly tried to redistribute enough wealth so that no one made say under 30k/ year, you would bankrupt the country in the process.

Liberals are great idea people. They often come up short on implimentation... and details about how to put their ideas into practice. They often view these matters as trivial, and easy to solve. But often the case is anything but that.

I think defending SS is a great example of where liberal type thinking goes astray. I have previously posted here (and given statisitcal proof) that SS is unsustainable. It was made unsustainable when it was first started. It has just taken this long for it to unravel. Most Ponzi schemes are much shorter lived than SS has been. Yet most liberals will continue to claim there is a way to "fix it" to make it better, to "keep it going" because it is helping so many people. I have already shown that it takes more than 14 years for the average salary person to just "break even" on what they have given to SS working for a lifetime. Had the govt allowed people to invest that money, or even put it into a bank account making .01% interest for all of those years it would have yielded MUCH more money once retired. Yet over and over liberals seem to completely discount the facts, no matter how many times, or in how many ways it is shown....

 

Ok I think you are right on this. I don't think you can ever completely eliminate poverty. And some people are misguided (with good intentions) in trying to do this. I just want to lower the barriers as much as possible.

I think keeping abstract ideas grounded in reality is a must when it comes to political policies. I don't think you are completely right on this, but I think there is a tendency amongst some on my side to sometimes forget the practical side of things. The rich can't be taxed forever, and people's every action cannot be controlled.

I don't agree it's a ponzi scheme necessarily, but I don't disagree that it could be better managed. And conservative stable private sector investments (so they don't go under when the market goes south) can yield decent gains for retirees, more so than a lot of people get from SS. However, what happens if people have an emergency and all of those funds run out? That is my only real issue with privatization, and that it would need to be heavily regulated so people are not taken advantage of.

 

Name a company the right has taken over. I showed you one the left has taken over.
GM for one, so now who's playing fasicisim???


Hitler was a fascist, and did just what the left is doing, taking over healthcare and taking over companys, one bite at a time.

...