What's the matter with Obama?

#51
#51
You cherry picked one man's comments and that somehow trumps 150 years of history? But I am the one that thinks facts are irrelevant?

Nobody tell him...

At the time Rainer Brüderle was the deputy leader of the FDP, Germany's major centrist political party.
He subsequently became Germany's Minister of Economics.

His comments were "cherry picked" by leading German news sources: Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel, etc
and also by news sources around the world, e.g. the New York Times.


Another cherry:

Is Obama Speech Site Contaminated by Nazi Past?

Andreas Schockenhoff of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats said, "the Siegessäule in Berlin is dedicated to a victory over neighbors who are today our European friends and allies. It is a problematic symbol."
 
#53
#53
At the time Rainer Brüderle was the deputy leader of the FDP, Germany's major centrist political party.
He subsequently became Germany's Minister of Economics.

His comments were "cherry picked" by leading German news sources: Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel, etc
and also by news sources around the world, e.g. the New York Times.


Another cherry:

Is Obama Speech Site Contaminated by Nazi Past?

Quick, how many people have lived in Germany in the 150 years since the construction of the Berlin Victory Column?

You now have now found two Germans who agree with you.

And yes, "another cherry" is an apt description
 
#54
#54
Did gs just call therealut a liberal?

What would you call unrealut?

2vaoa9s.jpg






Here comes the bull**** about Nazis being left wing again. I really wish people would read up on totalitarian regimes and how they fit into the linear political spectrum (hint: not at all)

They were left wing.

You're a fine example of 'a lie told often enough becomes the truth.' (attributed to the Nazi chief of propaganda.)

snkwp1.jpg
 
#55
#55
They were left wing.

You're a fine example of 'a lie told often enough becomes the truth.' (attributed to the Nazi chief of propaganda.)

No they weren't. We have had this argument countless times, and you are as wrong now as you were then, and your blogs aren't going to change anyone mind.

Now, oh wise one, when did therealut or myself ever call homeschooling "child abuse."

Like always, you won't be able to come up with an answer that doesn't involve "now what about Nigeria" or "you are just a product of islamo-whatever-the-****" because you lack the brain function to argue rationally, or admit that you are nothing more than a deluded, self-important asshat. Now that I have thoroughly flamed you, after the countless times you have called me an idiot, moron, brainless liberal, claimed that I had a mental disease, etc. etc. you can cry and quote VolFreak's philosophy like every other time.

Seriously, eat ****.
 
#56
#56
Quick, how many people have lived in Germany in the 150 years since the construction of the Berlin Victory Column?

You now have now found two Germans who agree with you.

And yes, "another cherry" is an apt description

And you've produced none to say other wise.

The truth of the matter is that the average German on the street still calls it the Hitler victory column.

Now back to your call of BS.
(man are you the slowest learner I've ever run across or what?)

The Nazi party, a left-wing liberal movement « itsnobody

The liberal atheist media has tried to portray the Nazis as a radical right-wing movement but any historian or politician who’s studied the Nazi party would find the exact opposite to be true.

”We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions”
- Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927. Cited in: Toland, John (1992). Adolf Hitler. Anchor Books. pp. 224–225. ISBN 0385037244.

Some liberals have claimed that Hitler retracted this statement, this claim of course turned out to be just another lie. Hitler never retracted this statement ever. Instead a historian claims that Hitler had regrets about using the word “socialism” simply because Hitler said “”Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether”. But claiming that socialism is an unfortunate word is a far cry from retracting his statement. Contrary to what liberals claim, Hitler continued to strongly oppose capitalism and never retracted this statement.

(Is this why liberals will NOT acknowledge that BHO is a socialist despite the fact that everything he says drips with socialist rhetoric?)gs

There is absolutely nothing conservative, pro-capitalist, or right-wing about the Nazis. Most conservatives are only anti-illegal immigration, not against all immigration like the Nazis were, ......

The Nazis or National Socialists were very fiscally left-wing on nearly all issues, although you can find some isolated incidences where the Nazis supported privatization of some industry, private property or something along those lines, the Nazis still were overall anti-capitalist (as well as anti-communist) and strongly opposed to capitalism.

The Nazis were also socially liberal on many issues as well.

Basically all of the Nazi’s economic policies were Keynesian as opposed to Austrian. This means the Nazis supported (and in fact did) things like running large deficits and using government programs to reduce unemployment. There is absolutely nothing pro-Austrian economist about the Nazis at all.

The Nazis had government-controlled capitalism, which is a form of socialism and essentially the exact opposite of free-market capitalism (where the government has little to no control). The Nazi government had control over corporations. The Nazis also had government-controlled wages and prices as well. All these policies are the exact opposite of far right-wing free-market Austrian economists policies.

It’s impossible to deny that the Nazis were pro-animal rights.

An absolute and permanent ban on vivisection is not only a necessary law to protect animals and to show sympathy with their pain, but it is also a law for humanity itself
- Hermann Göring, leading member of the Nazi party

The Nazis were the very first country in history to ban vivisection. The Nazis also made restrictions on hunting and banned commercial animal trapping. Many people who violated animal rights laws were sent to concentration camps.

So is being pro-animal rights more left or right?

The Nazis wanted the government to have unlimited power over all. This is once again a typical leftist viewpoint of wanting government power over personal freedom. Leftists and liberals constantly promote the idea of more government involvement, more government control, and bigger government claiming that it is a good thing for the government to have power over individuals and corporations.

When liberals argue that Hitler was some how right-wing their weak arguments usually involve:

- Pointing out quotes where Hitler spoke out against Marxism (ignoring the quotes where Hitler spoke out against capitalism and that most liberal Democrats are not Marxists)

- Intentionally ignoring the 25-point Program of the NDSAP

- Pointing out that Hitler was patriotic or believed in a strong national defense (while ignoring that many other ideologies on the left also believe in patriotism and building a strong national defense)

The simple fact is overall Hitler and the Nazis fit in closely to the left-wing liberal Democratic party. Their anti-communist and anti-capitalist views mesh very well with the modern liberal Democrat party, and there’s no way to deny this.

So how can anyone deny that Hitler and the Nazis were much more left-wing than right-wing on nearly every issue, and much closer to left-wing overall than right-wing?

Obamacare_Flag_Nazi_Logo_Troops.jpg


Propaganda_US_Peasants_Obam.png


Obamacare_Flag_Poster_telephone.jpg


Richard Poe, editor of Frontpage Magazine, sets the record straight:

Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a ``Third Way'' between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.

Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was ``socialist'' and that its enemies were the ``bourgeoisie'' and the ``plutocrats'' (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.

Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, ``On the Jewish Question,'' Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps.

The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer. The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least posing as a socialist. And the constant emphasis on the fact that the Nazis were nationalists, with barely an acknowledgment that they were socialists, is as absurd as labeling the Soviets ``internationalists'' and ignoring the fact that they were socialists (they called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Yet many who regard ``national'' socialism as the scourge of humanity consider ``international'' socialism a benign or even superior form of government.

According to a popular misconception, the Nazis must have been on the political right because they persecuted communists and fought a war with the communists in Russia. This specious logic has gone largely unchallenged because it serves as useful propaganda for the left, which needs ``right-wing'' atrocities to divert attention from the horrific communist atrocities of the past century. Hence, communist atrocities have received much less publicity than Nazi war crimes, even though they were greater in magnitude by any objective measure.

R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii documents in his book Death by Government that the two most murderous regimes of the past century were both communist: communists in the Soviet Union murdered 62 million of their own citizens, and Chinese communists killed 35 million Chinese citizens. The Nazi socialists come in third, having murdered 21 million Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and others. Additional purges occurred in smaller communist hellholes such as Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, and Cuba, of course. Communism does more than imprison and impoverish nations: it kills wholesale. And so did ``national socialism'' during the Nazi reign of terror.

But the history of the past century has been grossly distorted by the predominantly left-wing media and academic elite. The Nazis have been universally condemned -- as they obviously should be -- but they have also been repositioned clear across the political spectrum and propped up as false representatives of the far right -- even though Hitler railed frantically against capitalism in his infamous demagogic speeches.

At the same time, heinous crimes of larger magnitude by communist regimes have been ignored or downplayed, and the general public is largely unaware of them. Hence, communism is still widely regarded as a fundamentally good idea that has just not yet been properly ``implemented.'' Santayana said, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' God help us if we forget the horrors of communism and get the historical lessons of Nazism backwards.

112312_600.jpg


Obamacare_Flag_Poster_Hush.jpg


Obamacare_Flag_Poster_Profit.jpg


The Nazis also had something else in common with the modern left: an obsessive preoccupation with race. Hitler and his Nazis considered races other than their own inferior, of course. Modern ``liberals,'' who vociferously oppose the elimination of racial quotas, seem to agree.

They apparently believe that non-white minorities (excluding Asians, of course) are inferior and unable to compete in the free market without favoritism mandated by the government. Whereas Hitler was hostile to those racial minorities, however, modern white ``liberals'' condescend benevolently. Hitler's blatant and virulent form of racism was eradicated relatively quickly and very forcefully, but the more subtle and insidious racism of the modern left has yet to be universally recognized and condemned.

As noted in Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' autobiography; "the racism of the northeastern (democrat) liberals was far worse than that of the KKK I had grown up with in South Carolina.

Add to that the fact that in the 1930s when Hitler was gaining power through the democratic process, he was universially recognized as being a left wing politician.
 
#57
#57
Much confusion in this discussion concerning the distinction between an economic model and a political or governance one.

You can be socialist (or communist) and authoritarian. Conversely, you can be communist and have a lot of civil liberties. Just because most of us have experience with just one form of it, or consciousness of a handful of examples of a particular type of economic model associated with a political model, does not mean that one necessarily follows the other.

Hitler was authoritarian. What were his economics? Does it matter at this point? We didn't defend Great Britain because of any sort of concern over spreading Nazi economics.
 
#58
#58
1) I don't need to produce a bunch of people that say otherwise, the fact that the damn thing is still standing is good enough.

2) It has taken me less than thirty years to "learn" what I have about European political history and Totalitarianism. I am going to venture to say that gs is much older than I am, and he is still a dumb****... advantage: me
 
#59
#59
Quick, how many people have lived in Germany in the 150 years since the construction of the Berlin Victory Column?

You now have now found two Germans who agree with you.

And yes, "another cherry" is an apt description

LOL, that is definitely some twisted logic. Those two Germans are spokespeople for two of Germany's largest political parties which together represent a good majority of the German people.

By the way Hitler did not just move the column. It originally had three sections and he added a fourth section making it taller. The fourth section was to celebrate the annexation of Austria in 1938 so he definitely owned it.

Speaking about it still standing, the French wanted to blow it up but the English vetoed it. I doubt that this was because the French were still upset about the Franco-Prussian war.

Another interesting fact is that this area of Berlin was captured by the Polish First Army which suffered over 10,000 casualties in the battle. On May 2, 1945 the Polish (not the USSR) flag was hoisted on Hitler's Victory Column. Today, May 2 is Flag Day in Poland, a national holiday.
 
#60
#60
LOL, that is definitely some twisted logic. Those two Germans are spokespeople for two of Germany's largest political parties which together represent a good majority of the German people.

By the way Hitler did not just move the column. It originally had three sections and he added a fourth section making it taller. The fourth section was to celebrate the annexation of Austria in 1938 so he definitely owned it.

Speaking about it still standing, the French wanted to blow it up but the English vetoed it. I doubt that this was because the French were still upset about the Franco-Prussian war.

Another interesting fact is that this area of Berlin was captured by the Polish First Army which suffered over 10,000 casualties in the battle. On May 2, 1945 the Polish (not the USSR) flag was hoisted on Hitler's Victory Column. Today, May 2 is Flag Day in Poland, a national holiday.

And the beat goes on.

Obama Snubs Freedom Fighter, Lech Walesa - Leah Barkoukis

Apparently an invitation to the White House is only offered to those who aren’t too “political” or in other words, have fought against socialism (oh, semantics…). Seeing that Lech Walesa successfully led Poland’s revolt against Soviet communism, I guess that puts him on the blacklist.

All this, of course, comes off the heels of the president’s “Polish death camp” gaffe, which caused a firestorm of outrage in Poland and was met by a less than sincere response from the administration.
-----------------------

But why the rebuff? Administration officials told the Journal it was just that Walesa is too “political.” Considering President Obama recently awarded the Medal to the honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, Dolores Huerta - interpret as you will.
----------------------

“The likelihood is that President Obama didn’t want Walesa in the White House because Walesa has made critical remarks toward the president’s policies and in 2010 warned that the United States was slipping toward socialism. But rather than taking the mature and diplomatic path and respecting Walesa’s right to have a differing perspective, Obama chose to shun his lifetime of achievements.”

Add to that the fact that instead of attending the funeral of the Polish president who died tragically when flying to commemorate the Soviet masacre of Polish officers in WWII, BHO chose to play golf.

The Soviets successfully blamed the masacre on the Germans for around forty years or more but eventually the truth came out just as in the future we will find that the murder of 8,000 civilians in the Srebrenica area was genocide by the muslim forces who successfully blamed it on the Serbs, thanks to the NY Slimes and a sorry administration in charge in Washington.

I had forgotten about the added section of the column to commemorate the anexation of Austria, and that's funny considering the brilliant BHO with his Harvard education said to the Austrians; "I don't speak Austrian."

Little wonder since the Austrians speak the German language.







emainvol
1) I don't need to produce a bunch of people that say otherwise, the fact that the damn thing is still standing is good enough.

2) It has taken me less than thirty years to "learn" what I have about European political history and Totalitarianism. I am going to venture to say that gs is much older than I am, and he is still a dumb****... advantage: me

ADVANTAGE? :eek:lol:

When you resort to name calling you have lost any intelligent debate, game set match.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps some of what you have learned may be wrong?

The Red Side of Life: Opening Obama’s Playbook – by Ayn Rand

“The Fountainhead” is to “Atlas Shrugged” what “Animal Farm” is to “1984.” Just like “Animal Farm” is not about farming, “Fountainhead” is not about architecture – it is about socialist ascent. While “Atlas Shrugged” is all the rage these days – and appropriately so – I strongly suggest that anyone who is truly interested in defeating Obama in November read “The Fountainhead,” because it subtly lays bare the Obama playbook.
---------------------

(excerpts from Fountainhead:)

Here’s another. Kill man’s sense of values. Kill his capacity to recognize greatness or to achieve it. Great men can’t be ruled. We don’t want any great men. Don’t deny the conception of greatness. Destroy it from within. The great is the rare, the difficult, the exceptional. Set up standards of achievement open to all, to the least, to the most inept—and you stop the impetus to effort in all men, great or small. You stop all incentive to improvement, to excellence, to perfection... Don’t set out to raze all shrines—you’ll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity—and the shrines are razed.
-------------------

Here’s another way. This is most important. Don’t allow men to be happy. Happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient. Happy men have no time and no use for you. Happy men are free men. So kill their joy in living.
-----------------

Of course, you must dress it up. You must tell people that they’ll achieve a superior kind of happiness by giving up everything that makes them happy. You don’t have to be too clear about it. Use big vague words. ‘Universal Harmony’—‘Eternal Spirit’—‘Divine Purpose’ —‘Nirvana’—‘Paradise’—‘Racial Supremacy’—‘The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.’
------------------

Men have a weapon against you. Reason. So you must be very sure to take it away from them. Cut the props from under it. But be careful. Don’t deny outright. Never deny anything outright, you give your hand away.
------------------

Can you rule a thinking man? We don’t want any thinking men.


Ex KGB defector and university professor Yuri Bezmenov once said, “It is worth noting that the stated goal of the communist dialect is to nudge people from the truth a little bit at a time, until they are so convinced of false realities, that they are no longer capable of discerning the truth even when they see it in front of their own eyes.”


obama_2012_putin.jpg







lawgator
1 Much confusion in this discussion concerning the distinction between an economic model and a political or governance one.

You can be socialist (or communist) and authoritarian. Conversely, you can be communist and have a lot of civil liberties. Just because most of us have experience with just one form of it, or consciousness of a handful of examples of a particular type of economic model associated with a political model, does not mean that one necessarily follows the other.

Hitler was authoritarian. What were his economics? Does it matter at this point? We didn't defend Great Britain because of any sort of concern over spreading Nazi economics.

So doing the same thing and expecting different results makes sense to you?

young_obama.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#61
#61
Question, GS: if this column is simply the Hitler Victory Column and it represents Hitler's victories and stands for the supremacy of Nazi ideology, then why don't the Germans tear it down? If by simply speaking in front of the column Obama was paying homage to the Nazis (leftists always pay homage to extreme right-wing dictators), then how is it that the entire state of Germany is not paying homage to Hitler and the Nazis every day that they allow the column to remain standing in its place?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#62
#62
Question, GS: if this column is simply the Hitler Victory Column and it represents Hitler's victories and stands for the supremacy of Nazi ideology, then why don't the Germans tear it down? If by simply speaking in front of the column Obama was paying homage to the Nazis (leftists always pay homage to extreme right-wing dictators), then how is it that the entire state of Germany is not paying homage to Hitler and the Nazis every day that they allow the column to remain standing in its place?

At least you acknowledge BHO is a leftist.

BTW, Hitler was also a leftist socialist.

I can't answer your two question, maybe some people are just fond of their left wing dictators. (you know how Jimmy Carter is)

Why is there a huge monument to Moussolini in Brindisi, Italy?
 
#63
#63
At least you acknowledge BHO is a leftist.

BTW, Hitler was a fascist.

I can't answer your two question, maybe some people are just fond of their left wing dictators. (you know how Jimmy Carter is)

Why is there a huge monument to Moussolini in Brindisi, Italy?

Fixed Your Post. Hitler was not a left.
 
#64
#64
Fascists are left wing socialists.

Obama and the democrats have used both communistic and fascistic methods to advance their brand of socialism against the American free interprise system.
(with the help of rinos also)

112083_600.jpg


Propaganda_US_Worker_Flag.png


Propaganda_US_Toil_Patriot2.jpg


Obama_Newsweek_Stoned_Pres.jpg


Obama_Prophet_of_Choom.jpg
 
#66
#66
... you know Fascism is a far-right ideology, right?

Negatory rubber ducky.

If you believe so, you have been misled.

Fascism was properly considered left wing socialist
ideology during the 1920s and throughout WWII.

After the end of WWII the communist party launched
a propaganda campaign to cast fascism as right wing.

Ex KGB defector and university professor Yuri Bezmenov
once said, “It is worth noting that the stated goal of the
communist dialect is to nudge people from the truth a
little bit at a time, until they are so convinced of false
realities, that they are no longer capable of discerning
the truth even when they see it in front of their own
eyes.”

Fascism is so far removed from right wing conservatism
that it isn't even in the same ball park.

I keep telling you this over and over but you never
seem to get it.

Obama_Choom_Choom.jpg
 
#67
#67
I know Obama's no bueno, don't worry.

You're still mostly wrong. Far right doesn't necessarily mean conservative in the larger spectrum of things.

I shouldn't have to educate you on why nationalism is far right. Hitler hated Communism for a reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#69
#69
I know Obama's no bueno, don't worry.

You're still mostly wrong. Far right doesn't necessarily mean conservative in the larger spectrum of things.

I shouldn't have to educate you on why nationalism is far right. Hitler hated Communism for a reason.


Educate me!

I have a sprectum of things nailed to the wall that you can't even imagine.

Don't worry, I never worry or fear either!






You damned liar, Hitler was far left of Stalin by about a half inch or less. :salute:
 
#70
#70
Labels. Conservative, Liberal, Right, Left, all depends on what prospective an individual is looking at. For instance classic Liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries is nothing like the liberalism of today's America.

Hitler would be considered right wing with his nationalistic and pro-military views. He also abolished labor unions, which were left and center-left at the time.

It is true, the Nationalist Socialist party did have a left or socialist wing but that was largely silenced on the Night of Long Knives when Hitler, Goering, Himmler and the SS did away with the SA and some of the leaders of the Nazi party who believed in the socialist aspect of the NSDP.
 
#71
#71
That said, Hitler was not a free market capitalist. The government under him controlled what was produced and also controlled prices, and worker's wages. He also set up a caste system of sorts, and made it more difficult to change professions. I don't attribute that to leftist ideology however, more simply authoritarianism set up for the purpose of eliminating opposition and fueling the German war machine.

Hitler said a lot of things to get elected. He might rail against capitalism when talking to the working class, but he catered to the industrialists and big businesses. They are who got him into power.
 
#72
#72
That said, Hitler was not a free market capitalist. The government under him controlled what was produced and also controlled prices, and worker's wages. He also set up a caste system of sorts, and made it more difficult to change professions. I don't attribute that to leftist ideology however, more simply authoritarianism set up for the purpose of eliminating opposition and fueling the German war machine.

Hitler said a lot of things to get elected. He might rail against capitalism when talking to the working class, but he catered to the industrialists and big businesses. They are who got him into power.

Both Hitler and Stalin could easily be categorized as social conservatives and fiscal liberals. One might make the statement that Obama's ideology leans fiscally toward Hitler and Stalin; however, that is not a scary statement. Thus, individuals just say that he leans toward Hitler and Stalin as a fear tactic.

Social conservatives lean just as much toward Hitler and Stalin as Obama's ideology leans toward them fiscally; I would say that the social policies are much scarier.

However, as for how they have actually governed, both Bush (who would be labeled a social conservative) and Obama (who would be labeled a fiscal liberal) have governed as nothing more than populist centrists. Both have driven the economy to shambles and neither have done much to grant any greater, or less, liberty; they were/are terrible governors.
 
#73
#73
Labels. Conservative, Liberal, Right, Left, all depends on what prospective an individual is looking at. For instance classic Liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries is nothing like the liberalism of today's America.

Hitler would be considered right wing with his nationalistic and pro-military views. He also abolished labor unions, which were left and center-left at the time.

It is true, the Nationalist Socialist party did have a left or socialist wing but that was largely silenced on the Night of Long Knives when Hitler, Goering, Himmler and the SS did away with the SA and some of the leaders of the Nazi party who believed in the socialist aspect of the NSDP.

Liberalism today = socialism (both fascistic and communistic methodology may be used as well as the democratic process to achieve that end.)

Before he abolished the labor unions he used them to win elections.

Fascism was a word coined by Moussolini meaning to bundle. In other words to use the democratic process to gain power you bundle together all sorts of special interest groups, but once in power those groups have served their purpose and can be disposed of.

z0n7q.gif


Artful-Dodgers-11.jpg


cchoom.jpg






Both Hitler and Stalin could easily be categorized as social conservatives and fiscal liberals. One might make the statement that Obama's ideology leans fiscally toward Hitler and Stalin; however, that is not a scary statement. Thus, individuals just say that he leans toward Hitler and Stalin as a fear tactic.

Social conservatives lean just as much toward Hitler and Stalin as Obama's ideology leans toward them fiscally; I would say that the social policies are much scarier.

However, as for how they have actually governed, both Bush (who would be labeled a social conservative) and Obama (who would be labeled a fiscal liberal) have governed as nothing more than populist centrists. Both have driven the economy to shambles and neither have done much to grant any greater, or less, liberty; they were/are terrible governors.

What are you smoking?

s5iix0.jpg


Forward_Obama_Psychedelic.jpg


bong1c.jpg
 
#74
#74
Liberalism today = socialism (both fascistic and communistic methodology may be used as well as the democratic process to achieve that end.)

What are you smoking?

I guess I will put this here since you did not respond to it in the Romney thread.

GS, I have a question for you: Do you think Medicare should be abolished?
 
#75
#75
I guess I will put this here since you did not respond to it in the Romney thread.

I'll try to get around to that thread in a while.

If it were up to me I wouldn't abolish medicare, if for no other reason than people have made decisions based on government promises and when the government reneges on it's promises then we have a big problem.

I oppose mandatory participation in midicare and social security should also be optional.

I would revise or reform medicare though, particularly looking to rid the program of fraud, profiteering and inefficiency. I'll give a more detailed answer when I get back to that thread.

The route we are headed, especially if obamacare isn't properly ruled as unconstitutional is headed for a bridge out total train wreck.

The Canadian government is presently spending 60% of it's budget on health care and has a growing problem actually delivering the heath care it has promised it's citzens.

Meanwhile back at the ranch house:

goldberg.JPG
 

VN Store



Back
Top