America's Future? Fascist or Socialism?

Share it works

NO IT'S ALL MINE...lol

NO ITS IS ALL MINE, thaks

lol

There is no "middle" option?
I know what you meant but fascism is a type of socialism. So they are basically the same thing as they both use a strong central authority to maintain control. Unlike most republicans who want to diminish the powers of the federal government.

What is Britain?

Britain is a country about 3500 miles east of New York.

that would be under...where is Britain located...

so let me make it clearer...What kind of Government does Britain have?

Well they have a strong central government that maintains control... Socialist. What is your point?

They have many freedoms...just like here. And Britain has nothing in common with Hitler's Germany...who you guys say Hitler was Socialist... Nope...he was a Fascist...Now to make the point further...the GOP are Fascist right? Of course they are not...the GOP are about as Fascist as Hitler was a Socialist....

They both have (had) strong central governments to maintain order. The government is much more intrusive than the right want's ours to be. It would be inaccurate to say the the far right is fascist because they believe that the states should decide what amount of government intrusion there should be.

Britain has nothing in common with Hitler's Germany...who you guys say Hitler was Socialist... Nope...he was a Fascist....

that's my point...so it stupid for you guys to say Socialists are just like Hitler's Germany...or even call Obama a Socialist Nazi for the very same reasons you point out about the right being called Fascist..

When did I say that Hitler was Socialist? I said that Fascism is a form of Socialism because they both rely on strong federal governments to maintain order. Why do you put words in my mouth? Also why are you so angry?

okay so what was Hitler?...

A Nazi. I have already told you that fascism is a type of socialism kind of like how bourbon is a type of whiskey. They are basically the same thing! Nazi is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei however, so Hitler called himself a socialist.

Well BB ...Hitler was far from being a Socialist...England and France and all of the other Socialist European nations didn't roast Jews...

You are being obtuse. Fascism is a form of Socialism because they both rely on strong federal governments to maintain order. England and France and all of the other Socialist European nations rely on strong federal governments to maintain order. All I am saying is that Hitler called himself a Socialist and you call him a Fascist but they are basically the same thing! What is the difference between Scotch, Bourbon, and Whisky? Nothing. Only where they are made, the drinks them selves differ very little. You are quibbling over a very minor distinction.

America has been relying on it Government since day one to maintain order in this nation....that what government laws are suppose to do stupid.... And Fascist and Socialist are two different things...one would have to be totally stupid to not see that... What is the difference between chocolate and vanilla ice cream? They taste different stupid...

The United States (used to and should again) only relied on the federal government for infrastructure, defense, and some law enforcement, While the states handled every thing else. This worked (and will work) because the demographics of this country are so different, the same economic policies would not work in New York and South Carolina for example because living expenses are so much higher in the north.

What than are the differences between Fascist and Socialist? I will tell you now that it is not as vast as chocolate and vanilla, much closer to my Scotch, Bourbon, and Whisky argument.

Definition of FASCISM
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascist) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial fascism
Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

As you can now` see...on Socialism..there is no Fascist in the definition....

So what this proof?
1 your stupid.
2 Hitler lied to Germany. Nazis' were never Socialist...they just hid under that banner.

You are pretty quick with the name calling...
1) Have you ever herd that all bourbons are whiskeys but not all whiskeys are bourbon? Well all Fascists are Socialists but not all Socialists are Fascists. You should try to look for Socialist ideals in Fascism not the other way around.
2)"So what this proof?" I think you mean "prove". I have a hint for you when you are trying to call someone stupid you should not mix up your tenses because you come off looking retarded.

you been calling me names forever...lol
You have the idea in your head...first you said they are the same...then I broke that wall down...so went with similar...then down came that wall because, I put up the definitions... well, now your Fu(ked....lol....anymore stupid things` to say?

I have been using the "bourbons are whiskeys but not all whiskeys are bourbon" argument sense the beginning. and you have still not countered.

Would you like a little cherry in your Fascism? Or a lime in your Socialism?
And the dictionary has done all the countering for me ...thank you...

"stands for a centralized autocratic government" sounds an awful lot like "...any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership."

You can not advocate a centralized autocratic government with out governmental ownership.

Your definitions have only strengthened my argument that all Fascists are Socialists but not all Socialists are Fascists.

lol...that's what you want to see...
Well let me know where the next roasting of Jews event takes place in a Socialist government....

How are you still not getting this? Not all Socialist governments are Fascist. Jesus I knew libs ignore facts but your immune to logic too?

now your just playing games...you have no logic...just what in your head...which is pretty empty....

I have laid out a logical progression of thoughts that has very clearly illustrated my point. And you ignored all of that because you don't know any better, you do whatever the far left tells you.

now your just playing games...you have no logic...just what in your head...which is still pretty empty....

What are you saying? I have said that that all Fascists are Socialists but not all Socialists are Fascists. from the beginning and used your definitions to prove it. Your only counter has been to ask "Where the next roasting of Jews event takes place in a Socialist government is?" That serves 2 purposes...
1) It completely ignores my point.
2) It shows that you know nothing about the form of government that you advocate for.
You cover up your lack of knowledge like your buddy Obama dose by finger pointing with no regard to the actual facts.

okay bb ,anything you say....

It's the better choice

Under Soros most likely socialist.

I think that this extreme polarization of American politics will die down somewhat and eventually cooler heads will prevail, people are sick of the Glen Beck/Sarah Palin type rhetoric and the same can be said about Keith Olberman and others from the far left.

While I am not thrilled about the direction that the Tea Party has dragged the Republican party towards, calling them fascists simply goes too far. And despite the socialism tag the Tea Party has tried to brand our president with it is simply not true, its just another exaggeration from those wanting to frighten the American people about our president of color with an Muslim name. While Barrack Obama's past may have been that of a liberal he has actually governed as a moderate for the most part and many dems including myself complain about his willingness to compromise.

I suspect that someone like John Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, or even Tim Pawlenty will end up winning the GOP nomination and that the extremist candidates like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, or even Newt Gingrich will be viewed as unacceptable to the centrist voters who tend to decide close elections.

But then again only time will tell? God help us if we continue down this path of non-stop partisan attack mode which is not in the nation's best interest.
P.S. I only voted socialist because there was no moderate option.

moderate= libprog light-
fewer calories...same ...great?...taste-

Taste great and less filling, unlike the bitter tea being poured down out throats since the midterm elections.

the one where you voted for the socialist-???
that election???

were my choice -
moderate beer -
or libprog beer-
i would go with tea-

Tea is for Brits or pinkie finger pointing little prima donnas.

stunning rebuttal-
stunningly lame ...that is-