Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

What liberals really think

28 posts in this topic

Posted

The "rain on your wedding day" type irony or the "good advise you just can't take" type irony?

The "free ride when you've already paid" kind of irony.

(I know what you mean, you think I don't know what irony means, but in this case ironic can be used to describe an unbeknownst hypocritical stance... it's in the dictionary)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Stalin: Communist and Fascist

Mao: Communist and Fascist

Hitler: Socialist (sort of) and Fascist

What's wrong with grouping these three together?

Fascism is based on the concept of social darwinism, the furthest thing from communism and socialism. Dictatorships are dictatorships and I think the general consensus is that neither stalin nor mao led truly communistic regimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The "free ride when you've already paid" kind of irony.

(I know what you mean, you think I don't know what irony means, but in this case ironic can be used to describe an unbeknownst hypocritical stance... it's in the dictionary)

Don't come with that dictionary crap! It's a well know fact that irony is not in the dictionary, thus it's ironic.

It's very similar to the fact that gullible is not in the dictionary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Fascism is based on the concept of social darwinism, the furthest thing from communism and socialism. Dictatorships are dictatorships and I think the general consensus is that neither stalin nor mao led truly communistic regimes.

Social Darwinism is a component of all changing government systems. (It was even evident in our last election here in good old america) People seem to associate social darwinism automatically with eugenics, which I believe to be false. (another arab-muslim type confusion)

Generally fascists dictators use another method to gain power, (hitler, quasi-socialism; mao and stalin, communism) and then use fascism to keep power. All dictators essentially have to be fascist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Don't come with that dictionary crap! It's a well know fact that irony is not in the dictionary, thus it's ironic.

It's very similar to the fact that gullible is not in the dictionary.

Really? Not in the dictionary? Isn't that ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Really? Not in the dictionary? Isn't that ironic.

You learn quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Social Darwinism is a component of all changing government systems. (It was even evident in our last election here in good old america) People seem to associate social darwinism automatically with eugenics, which I believe to be false. (another arab-muslim type confusion)

Generally fascists dictators use another method to gain power, (hitler, quasi-socialism; mao and stalin, communism) and then use fascism to keep power.

eugenics?.... dunno about all that.

Capitalism has a large aspect of social darwinism in it, in that the fit prosper and the unfit fall by the wayside. Fascism takes this to an extreme. Communism is the exact opposite of this. Fascism=/dictatorship, dictatorial power is a part of a fascistic government but is hardly the defining characteristic. Fascism is heavily nationalistic and rabidly corporate, communism being inherently based in class can be, by definition, neither of those things.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong in your assessment of leadership tactics by individuals, I'm saying to define Stalin or Mao as communistic or Hitler as socialistic is a misrepresentation of communist, socialist, and fascist ideals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Still waiting on the vagina pic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Woman: Oh. How do you do?

King Arthur: How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Whose castle is that?

Woman: King of the who?

King Arthur: King of the Britons.

Woman: Who are the Britons?

King Arthur: Well, we all are. We are all Britons. And I am your king.

Woman: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.

Dennis: You'rw foolin' yourself! We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working class...

Woman: Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.

Dennis: Well, that's what it's all about! If only people would...

King Arthur: Please, please, good people, I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?

Woman: No one lives there.

King Arthur: Then who is your lord?

Woman: We don't have a lord.

Dennis: I told you, we're an anarco-sydicalist commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week...

King Arthur: Yes...

Dennis: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...

King Arthur: Yes I see...

Dennis: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs...

King Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis: ...but by a two thirds majority in the case of...

King Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

eugenics?.... dunno about all that.

Capitalism has a large aspect of social darwinism in it, in that the fit prosper and the unfit fall by the wayside. Fascism takes this to an extreme. Communism is the exact opposite of this. Fascism=/dictatorship, dictatorial power is a part of a fascistic government but is hardly the defining characteristic. Fascism is heavily nationalistic and rabidly corporate, communism being inherently based in class can be, by definition, neither of those things.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong in your assessment of leadership tactics by individuals, I'm saying to define Stalin or Mao as communistic or Hitler as socialistic is a misrepresentation of communist, socialist, and fascist ideals.

Fascism is heavily nationalistic but does not need to be rabidly corporate.

The trouble is that there is disagreement between people in what the term fascism actually means. If we're talking strictly about mussolini's original form of government, you're right. But the term fascism has broadened over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Woman: Oh. How do you do?

King Arthur: How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Whose castle is that?

Woman: King of the who?

King Arthur: King of the Britons.

Woman: Who are the Britons?

King Arthur: Well, we all are. We are all Britons. And I am your king.

Woman: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.

Dennis: You'rw foolin' yourself! We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working class...

Woman: Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.

Dennis: Well, that's what it's all about! If only people would...

King Arthur: Please, please, good people, I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?

Woman: No one lives there.

King Arthur: Then who is your lord?

Woman: We don't have a lord.

Dennis: I told you, we're an anarco-sydicalist commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week...

King Arthur: Yes...

Dennis: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...

King Arthur: Yes I see...

Dennis: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs...

King Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis: ...but by a two thirds majority in the case of...

King Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?

strange women, lyin in ponds, distributin swords is no basis for a system of government!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is the love and compassion shared by most libs...Nothing surprising at all...Just typical.

Hate oozes from them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites