Conservatives say "Leftists did these these bad things", Leftists say "Conservative are Nazis so they will do these bad things"

[NAME REMOVED]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

Because your premise is full of shit.

Nazism didn't "deviate" from Marxism or any other strain of socialism. It was completely unrelated and antithetical.

Better question is why do you peddle this incredibly stupid and obvious myth when anyone with half a brain knows that the Nazis were right wingers.

-Nationalistic

-Militaristic

-Believed in "traditional family values" and "law and order"

-Valued private property

-favoured the interests of capital over labour

etc etc etc.

 

I would ignore Nationalist, or "Russian Imperialist" as I call him. 

He is not as educated as some, and needs to learn basic history. 

[Black Dog]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh I had no idea you two were buddies and had discussed this. 🙄Nobody's interested in more of your fabrications kiddo. At the end of the day the Nazis provided not only equal but better social services than existed before their time, which you tried to claim initially was absolutely against everything they believed in and they would never ever ever do that. Nope! No way! they never would!

"Socialism is when you have social programs and the more social programs you have the more socialism it is."

Quote

Now that you've been proven wrong you're trying to sell the idea that because they copied other socialists it means they weren't socialists. How stupid is that. 

Every single thing that you put forward turns out to be completely untrue and we provide evidence of that and I'm getting sort of tired and bored of proving you're wrong post after post after post.

The Nazis were socialists. They saw themselves as socialists, they believed in national socialism, their behavior exactly matches what we consider to be a socialist model today, and all your whining and crying and dishonesty doesn't change that. 

As we have proven, not just me but others, the nazis were absolutely a type of socialists. 

It's become clear that you are simply too stupid or dishonest to actually grasp the distinctions between socialism as it was and is understood to be and national socialism as practiced by the Nazis and no amount of explaining will ever get through. Read a book.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

Because your premise is full of shit.

Nazism didn't "deviate" from Marxism or any other strain of socialism. It was completely unrelated and antithetical.

Well we've already proven that that's wrong. It definitely wasn't Marxism and Hitler himself differentiated between his form of Socialism and Marxism. But it was still socialism and entirely related and not antihethical at all

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

etter question is why do you peddle this incredibly stupid and obvious myth

That's our line.

The case that they are socialists have been proven beyond any reasonable argument. They were called socialists, they deliberately chose that because they felt they weren't liberal or other form of left-wing, their behavior was socialist, they completely dominated the markets for the benefit of their social agenda, they brought in tons of social programs that would later become the Benchmark for All European social programs long after the war....

They were very obviously socialists. So why are you so desperate to promote the myth that they are somehow right wing?

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Because your premise is full of shit.

Nazism didn't "deviate" from Marxism or any other strain of socialism. It was completely unrelated and antithetical.

Better question is why do you peddle this incredibly stupid and obvious myth when anyone with half a brain knows that the Nazis were right wingers.

-Nationalistic

-Militaristic

-Believed in "traditional family values" and "law and order" and a strong leader.

-Valued private property

-favoured the interests of capital over labour

etc etc etc.

As we have seen in this thread, the NAZI Party also adopted many Socialist ideologies...none of which I'm gonna rehash here. But I would ask you...

Would you like a bigger shovel?

 

[Black Dog]

16 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

As we have seen in this thread, the NAZI Party also adopted many Socialist ideologies...none of which I'm gonna rehash here. But I would ask you...

The Nazis didn't adopt any socialist ideologies. Your own link above has Hitler explicitly rejecting those ideologies. they didn't believe in workers controlling the means of production. They didn't believe in equality for all and an end to class hierarchies.

They may have had a few select policies that were similar to what you'd see in socialist states, but so did many western democracies and the Nazis versions were always explicitly based on advancing the Aryan race, not the general welfare of the people.

Quote

Would you like a bigger shovel?

Why? I don't need to move your wife.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

The Nazis didn't adopt any socialist ideologies. Your own link above has Hitler explicitly rejecting those ideologies. they didn't believe in workers controlling the means of production. They didn't believe in equality for all and an end to class hierarchies.

You yourself pointed out that they adopted socialist practices in order to deny their benefits to the socialists.

You change your argument every other post and this is why you're looking like a completely Retarded uneducated buffoon.

In fact the Nazis absolutely did believe in the government (the people) Controlling the means of production. And they exercise that control extensively. They just didn't believe in the idea of the government owning the means of production.

They actually did much income redistribution, and absolutely believed in equality for all germans. They didn't think the lesser races were germans, but amongst germans they absolutely believed in equality.

 

This is already been proven. You're desperately changing your story and coming up with a new spin every other post to try desperately to recover from the fact that you've already been proven wrong.

The Nazis were socialists. They believed in controlling the means of production for the purpose of advancing the national good, which they believed was expansion through military conquest. They had a number of wealth redistribution policies and took much of the wealth into the government for the benefit of the people as they saw it. They had extensive welfare programs and radically expanded the government's involvement in such programs.

They were socialists. This is what socialism looks like. If it wasn't for the maniacal homicidal xenophobic racist tendencies socialists today would be saying they weren't incredible government  

[Black Dog]

44 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well we've already proven that that's wrong. It definitely wasn't Marxism and Hitler himself differentiated between his form of Socialism and Marxism. But it was still socialism and entirely related and not antihethical at all

It was, I've already explained how and you have no response because you cannot explain how socialism, an ideology centred on the principles of the workers owning the means of production and eliminating the class distinctions between owners and employees, is compatible with Nazism which rejected all of that.

Quote

That's our line.The case that they are socialists have been proven beyond any reasonable argument.

LOL, nope. As i already said above, your argument is based on a stupefyingly absurd premise and requires completely rejecting the commonly understood definition of socialism (something you and Hitler have in common).

Quote

They were very obviously socialists. So why are you so desperate to promote the myth that they are somehow right wing?

Because fascism is an inherently right wing ideology.

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

It was, I've already explained how and you have no response because you cannot explain how socialism, an ideology centred on the principles of the workers owning the means of production and eliminating the class distinctions between owners and employees, is compatible with Nazism which rejected all of that.

 

No you just made that up. And as we have already demonstrated multiple times above socialism Does not require the state or workers ownership of the means of production at all. In fact there are many models of modern socialism that involve a private marketplace that is controlled by the government. Socialism requires the government or the people to control the means of production not necessarily own it and that is well known and established.

You have completely failed and every time you open your mouth you how badly you will lie and distort facts in order to desperately cling to your absurd notions.

The Nazis were socialists. As Hitler said they were not marxists and they were not liberals but they were a type of socialist and by modern definitions they certainly qualify.

The fact that you don't even understand that socialism does not require the ownership of the means of production by the state or the people demonstrates how utterly uneducated you are on the subject. You should avoid conversations where you have no idea what you're talking about. It just makes you look foolish

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

 

Because fascism is an inherently right wing ideology.

Almost all models that require state control for the supposed benefit of the people in the nation are left-wing models. Fascism was no different and I actually posted some time ago a series of Articles and commentaries which made that point extremely well.

By it's very nature socialism is about control. It wants to control the means of production for the benefit of society, it wants to control the behavior of its citizens and what is and isn't acceptable for the benefit of society, it wants to control belief and ideology again for the benefit of society. These are the Hallmarks of socialism.

Proponents believe that such control would lead to a much better and more harmonized and equitable society. But the problem comes when somebody decides that the goals of society should be something which isn't very good. And that's generally why socialistic social or socialism models don't wind up working well

[Black Dog]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You yourself pointed out that they adopted socialist practices in order to deny their benefits to the socialists.

So did Otto von Bismarck, was he a socialist too? Socialism is not "government doing stuff for the people."

Quote

You change your argument every other post and this is why you're looking like a completely Retarded uneducated buffoon.

Aw sweetie, are you having a hard time following along? Get one of your caregivers to explain it, that might help.

The problem, as usual, is you're simpleton who struggles to hold complex ideas in his head. You don't understand that national socialism was an ideology riven with contradictions that borrowed liberally (pun intended) from various other schools of thought. To you it has to be black and white, one or the other.

Quote

In fact the Nazis absolutely did believe in the government (the people) Controlling the means of production. And they exercise that control extensively. They just didn't believe in the idea of the government owning the means of production.

Government and the people are not interchangeable in this context. Every form of socialism advocates for democracy, the Nazis rejected democracy and universal equality as liberal bullshit.

Quote

They actually did much income redistribution, and absolutely believed in equality for all germans. They didn't think the lesser races were germans, but amongst germans they absolutely believed in equality.

Yeah that's the key distinction and another point as to why they weren't socialists. 

Quote

This is already been proven. You're desperately changing your story and coming up with a new spin every other post to try desperately to recover from the fact that you've already been proven wrong.

No, I'm just trying to beat you over the head with the problems with your argument, but as usual you just repeat the same bullshit over and over.

Quote

They were socialists. This is what socialism looks like. If it wasn't for the maniacal homicidal xenophobic racist tendencies socialists today would be saying they weren't incredible government  

Even if one could separate the good bits and the maniacal homicidal xenophobic racist tendencies (an absurd proposition given the ideology that was rooted in maniacal homicidal xenophobic racist tendencies) I doubt many socialists wold celebrate a regime that promoted class divisions, massively privatized state industries, maintained private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and market exchange.

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, Black Dog said:

So did Otto von Bismarck, was he a socialist too? Socialism is not "government doing stuff for the people."

 

You're claiming that providing a social safety net and Welfare isn't somehow for the people?

You've lost your damn mind

Quote

Aw sweetie, are you having a hard time following along? Get one of your caregivers to explain it, that might help.

LOL and there it is, your usual and predictable admission you know you're wrong and that you're butthurt and angry about it  

 

And the rest of your usual drive is once again you trying to change your story and come up with some sort of angle that you haven't tried before.

And yes I do tend to repeat myself. Funny thing about the truth is that it doesn't change. Your stories are all lies and fictions so you change them constantly, I tell the truth and the truth doesn't alter

The Nazis were socialists. They thought so, Hitler thought so, their behavior says so, their social programs say so, modern definitions of the term say so.

You just hate the idea because you feel it makes your left wing ideology look bad. Trust me it doesn't. You're woke leftist ideology looked bad long before we started talking about Hitler

[Nationalist]

52 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

The Nazis didn't adopt any socialist ideologies. Your own link above has Hitler explicitly rejecting those ideologies. they didn't believe in workers controlling the means of production. They didn't believe in equality for all and an end to class hierarchies.

They may have had a few select policies that were similar to what you'd see in socialist states, but so did many western democracies and the Nazis versions were always explicitly based on advancing the Aryan race, not the general welfare of the people.

Why? I don't need to move your wife.

You're wrong...you can't admit it...you're acting like a child now...Pup.

One of these days, you're gonna run into someone like me and you're gonna wake up in the hospital...if that hasn't already happened. You are a disgusting little person, hiding behind a monitor. Do you have the balls to say such things to anyone to their face?

I fckin' doubt it.

[Black Dog]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No you just made that up. And as we have already demonstrated multiple times above socialism Does not require the state or workers ownership of the means of production at all. In fact there are many models of modern socialism that involve a private marketplace that is controlled by the government. Socialism requires the government or the people to control the means of production not necessarily own it and that is well known and established.

Yeah: democratic governments, you absolute dipshit.

Quote

The fact that you don't even understand that socialism does not require the ownership of the means of production by the state or the people demonstrates how utterly uneducated you are on the subject.

Sigh. Your own definition of socialism was"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Under the Nazis the means of production, distribution, and exchange were not owned or regulated by the community as a whole. They were owned in large part by private actors and regulated by an undemocratic and authoritarian cabal.

Quote

 

. You should avoid conversations where you have no idea what you're talking about. It just makes you look foolish

 

This from the guy who said there was no right wing in Germany, lmao.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Black Dog said:

Yeah: democratic governments, you absolute dipshit.

 

You mean like china?

There are many many non-democratic socialist models that involve private ownership in the marketplace

One thing that always makes you entertaining is that no matter how stupid you have been or how dumb what you just said was you will always strive to be even stupider and Dumber the next time  

 

[Black Dog]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You're claiming that providing a social safety net and Welfare isn't somehow for the people?

You've lost your damn mind

No I'm saying it's not socialism, you dummy. Wow, you really are illiterate.

Quote

And yes I do tend to repeat myself. Funny thing about the truth is that it doesn't change. Your stories are all lies and fictions so you change them constantly, I tell the truth and the truth doesn't alter

Nah, the reality is you don't have the wit or mental capacity to make good arguments, so you rely on repetition to bore your opponents to death.

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You're wrong...you can't admit it...you're acting like a child now...Pup.

One of these days, you're gonna run into someone like me and you're gonna wake up in the hospital...if that hasn't already happened. You are a disgusting little person, hiding behind a monitor. Do you have the balls to say such things to anyone to their face?

I fckin' doubt it.

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, Black Dog said:

No I'm saying it's not socialism, you dummy. Wow, you really are illiterate.

 

That's funny because it's not what you said but okay, so your claim is that providing a social safety net and Welfare for the benefit of the people isn't socialistic at all?

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

Nah, the reality is you don't have the wit or mental capacity to make good arguments, so you rely on repetition to bore your opponents to death.

LOL the funny thing is little doggy that not only that I whoop your ass hardcore in this thread but I wasn't alone in doing it. You picked a position that was so bad that two other people also beat you up mercilessly like a yappy Chihuahua  

This is your greatest feeling, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and even in the face of undeniable arguments and even despite the fact that every single thing you put forward is proven to be wrong you still cling to your ideology because it's not based on fact it's based on tribalism.

But it is absolutely Hilarious to watch so by all means keep going  

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

No I'm saying it's not socialism, you dummy. Wow, you really are illiterate.

Nah, the reality is you don't have the wit or mental capacity to make good arguments, so you rely on repetition to bore your opponents to death.

 

Twerp.

[WestCanMan]

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I tell the truth and the truth doesn't alter

If you apply that standard to the Hunter laptop case, how many times did the Dembs' story change?

• Joe: "I'm a badass and I unilaterally hired and fired the top prosecutors in Ukraine" turned into "Huh? No one really talks about that. It's kind of like it never happened, from our POV."
• "The prosecutor was fired because he wasn't investigating corruption" turned into "The prosecutor had just won court orders to seize Zlochevsky's assets when he was fired, and the new CEO let Zlochevsky off the hook."
• Joe, loudly and rudely, about 5x: "I never had any knowledge of nor involvement in Hunter's overseas business dealings!!!!" turned into: "So I talked to a bunch of board members. So what? That's not a crime."
• MSM: "We'll start to take this seriously if we find a cheque made out to Joe." Year later: "Here's the cheque." MSM: "We don't see nuthin'!!"
• At first Hunter did nothing wrong in Ukraine and China, now Hunter has a pardon that covers all the time he was working with Burisma and the Chinese gov't.

That Kash Patel guy scares the sh1t outta the Dmbs.

[BeaverFever]

On 11/28/2024 at 12:15 PM, WestCanMan said:

The general pattern of the threads here, if you look at them all, take the form of

1. conservatives calling leftists out for their mismanagement, known lies, abysmal failures, racist policies, etc
2. leftists calling conservatives names, making dire predictions of what they'll do, and citing anonymous sources to make serious claims

This Opposite-of-reality reporting brought to you by the crowd that brought you the fabricated justification for the Iraq war, the financial meltdown, Obama birther lies,  so many lies that the terms “fake news” “gaslighting” and “alternative facts” became some of the most common expressions in the public lexicon, Putin and Orban adulation, blatant Trump/Kushner bribery and an attempt to steal the 2020 election and end US democracy permanently. 

[WestCanMan]

43 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

This Opposite-of-reality reporting brought to you by the crowd that brought you the fabricated justification for the Iraq war, the financial meltdown, Obama birther lies,  

You had to go back to when Dubya was president to get 3 things to b1tch about, and:

1. The Iraq war = bi-partisan. Pimped by all media. 
2. Birther movement - started by Dems in 2004, wasn't picked up on by the GOP until 2008.
3. Financial meltdown. Not much of a conspiracy story, nor a GOP-induced phenomenon. Dubya didn't invent the NINJA loan.

Quote

 so many lies that the terms “fake news” “gaslighting” and “alternative facts” became some of the most common expressions in the public lexicon,

• "Fake News" has exclusively come from the left for at least the past ten years. 
• Conservatives are just accused of conspiracy theories, not lies, but all the conspiracy theories of the past ten years are just called the truth now, so it turns out that laftard media was just lying to you about everything.  
• “Alternative facts” doesn't even mean what you think it does, you're just an 1diot who got sucked in by more fake news.... FYI Kelly Conway said that referring to the fact that Trump based his estimate of the relative crowd sizes on transit ridership data for that day, which is all the data that was available when he made that claim. In other words, what he said was an educated guess, not a lie. When K Conway said "alternate facts" she slightly misspoke, she should have said "the only data we had available at the time" and left it at that. 
• FYI a lie is when you know that something is false, yet you say it anyways. Being wrong isn't the same as lying, f-tard, and Trump was just wrong.
• Also, there are material lies, which are lies of extreme consequence, and this would be the exact opposite of that if it was a lie - it makes no difference whose inauguration was bigger. But again it was not "a lie", dummy. Your desperate attempt to claim this was some sort of material lie just underlines how little you actually have to complain about.
• The best example of gaslighting that you have ever seen in your lifetime is leftard media saying "mostly peaceful protests" for the least 3.5 years of O'Blahblah's presidency, and then again for 4 months in 2020. FYI when people are bing killed, businesses are being looted and set on fire, and cops are being assaulted and killed, that's not peaceful. Get a new dictionary, dumbass.

Quote

Putin and Orban adulation, blatant Trump/Kushner bribery and an attempt to steal the 2020 election and end US democracy permanently. 

🤣 You have 8 boosters or the moon is made of f'ing cheese. 

Beaveyboy: "OMG, a few hundred dudes - without so much as a single gun - almost conquered the US and set up a thousand-year reich".

🤣 I get a kick out of your posts, dude. 

There are a lot of people here who I'd accuse of knowing that they're lying when they spout Demi platitudes/narratives, but bless your wee heart, I think you really believe the sh1t that comes out of your mouth.