The Question that Makes Cowards out of Leftists

Yes, and they were all socialist, fascist, Marxist, leftist. What part confuses you?

As we already established, I don't believe those countries were Socialist.

So your job was to name a fascist regime that is NOT socialist, however none exist because all fascist countries are socialist and all socialist countries become fascist (they don't necessarily start out that way but they become fascist very quickly).

Here are the Fascist countries I listed that didn't call themselves Socialist: Francoist Spain, Austria under the Fatherland Front, Fascist Italy, the Empire of Japan, and the modern incarnations of Russia, Belarus, Cambodia, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
You didn't reply to this because you have no answer, which I expected.

OK, so quickly ... problems with the video:
1) Neither of the writers mentioned at the beginning of the video drafted a revolutionary Constitution to serve as the foundation for the greatest country in human history. They had opinions about nobility that the Founding Fathers specifically outlawed because the Founding Fathers were geniuses.
2) It's a waste of time to dwell on "when" a product is bestown value. All economics runs off the supply-demand curve.
3) Price does not equal Value. Price realization occurs when Price falls somewhere below the consumer-assigned Value while still remaining above the producer's costs. Incidentally, if Price were to always be the Value then there could never be a bargain.
4) Video is clearly trying to assign credit for Value, i.e. laborer or consumer. Stupid waste of time.
5) To believe the author of the video one must accept that the people mentioned somehow owned, and contiune to own, conservatism.
6) At the 5:56 mark, I am finished watching this video. It's crap. It's insulting actually, and it is by no means accurate. "Humans are innately unequal and society flourishes when power is doled out to the deserving." That is the doctrine of the DNC. I know of no conservative who has ever held that view.

So points 1 - 4 of that really have nothing to do with the point of the video, which was to outline the history and Fascist origins of Conservatism.
We can debate whether or not price equals value, but it's beside the point. The reason I linked this video is to show you why Fascism is a right-wing thing.

5) If you watched the entire video, you'd see how today's big Conservative thinkers are just regurgitating the Fathers of Conservatism. Jordan Peterson's whole "Top Lobster" thing is just right-wing hierarchy repackaged. The same goes for Ayn Rand's "Objectivity," which is still used by today's Right. Every influential conservative figure essentially makes the same argument about hierarchy in a different way, meaning there is an unbroken philosophical chain going all the way back to the original Right that opposed Democracy.

6) The DNC is definitely not left-wing, but they are more left-wing than the RNC. And if you look at the typical democratic policies, such as affordable healthcare and raising the minimum wage, they're all about making society more equal. Whereas republican policies are about helping the rich get richer while the poor are forced to sink or swim.

The correct answer is that modern conservatism is championed by Rush Limbaugh. On what point specifically do you and he disagree?

You're making my point for me, my dude. Limbaugh is a typical Righty. Capitalist economics, "small government" for the poor, bailouts for the rich, and disdain for Democracy. And as far as social policies go, he's against rights for women and LGBT people. Which makes sense, because the Right doesn't like oppressed groups moving up the hierarchy.

I'm a Social Democrat and I believe women and LGBT people should have equal rights. So I disagree with Limbaugh on quite a few things.
I agree with him on needing a border wall. So I guess we have that in common. But other than that, I disagree with him on pretty much everything.
 
As we already established, I don't believe those countries were Socialist.
Here are the Fascist countries I listed that didn't call themselves Socialist:

This part of our discussion has run its course. I have correctly explained to you that socialism quickly evolves into fascism and is, in fact, one manifestation of socialism. You are unable to accept this because you are a socialist and it is too much of a rude awakening for you to learn that you and Hitler are the same. You are of the same ideology. Yes, you have been correctly taught that Hitler was a monster ... but without missing a beat you gullibly allowed yourself to be manipulated into embracing his ideology. You are that guy in the audience cheering Hitler's speeches.

VAjB1OzHW8qVqkG3EI0a9jEBrLG9PMZ7XrsbUCFT411LOQkRUD3gp_fPSj0Wq_XwZ-xmJlxrvbaU10DVgc0togUWlA



You need to start owning it. You aren't going to be able to blame conservatives for what you advocate.

I'm a Social Democrat
* Yes, you are a socialist.
* You then respond "Not at all. I'm a Social Democrat. There's a HUGE difference."
* I point out that there's no difference.
* You throw a hissy-fit and insist there is some difference.
* I ask you to elaborate on these HUGE differences.
* You weasel-word some convoluted scrawl that amounts to socialism.
* I say "See, I told you."

So let's get started ...

You're a socialist. [for your convenience I have put your response here so you can just copy-paste] "Not at all. I'm a Social Democrat. There's a HUGE difference."

...I believe women and LGBT people should have equal rights.
LGBTQIATIOAPP have all the same rights. You just want a gay-marriage law ... but your socialist ideology requires you to be completely unreasonable ... and violent. You have to treat all others, even ones who have never even thought about the issue, as VICTIMIZERS. You would be far more successful in getting what you want if you would stop creating enemies out of people who are not your enemies and stop intentionally insulting half the country who probably already agree with you in the first place. Many conservatives want gay marriage as well. I did for a long time. The principal demographics that oppose gay marriage are Christians and blacks. But socialists are stupid. They don't take their case to the Christians and the blacks. Instead, they get in the faces of "conservatives" (newsflash: not the same set of people) and insult them and even get violent with them. This happened to me and so now my official position is "Hey LGBTQIATIOAPP, Fuck You. I actively supported you for 25 years and now I am going to take pleasure in messing with you in every way I can, just for the fun of it. Did I mention Fuck You?"

I would be elated to have a gay marriage law ... but I am going to actively fight against it just to mess with LGBTQIATIOAPP. Their wide-eyed sad face crying about being VICTIMS doesn't work on me. I've got a barrel full of "Fuck You"s for them. There are plenty to go around.

My position is that "Gay Marriage" should just be "Marriage." Any two people should be able to marry. Your desire for this type of marriage reform is exactly the same as desiring an increase in the maximum speed limit on interstate highways, i.e. You push to get the law changed. The left has instead chosen to essentially take the approach that sufficiently becoming ashsoles should get the legislation passed. Let me know how that works out.

So points 1 - 4 of that really have nothing to do with the point of the video,
Of course they did. They were direct comments to what the video was covering. The conclusion of the video's author is based on bogus assumptions and is therefore dismissed.

... you'd see how today's big Conservative thinkers
The video completely misrepresents conservative thought.

On what specific point do you and Rush Limbaugh disagree. Hint: it seems clear that you don't have the vaguest idea what positions Rush Limbaugh holds. Let's read some of your errors.

But other than that, I disagree with him on pretty much everything.
I knew it. As far as you know, you don't disagree with him on anything. You have no idea what his positions are on anything other than what I told you ... and I know that right now you are itching to rush to Media Matters so you can soak up lots more erroneous misinformation about Rush. The absolutely LAST thing you would ever do is to listen to the Rush Limbaugh show and find out what he actually says. I realize that your slavemasters won't permit it.

Limbaugh is a typical Righty. Capitalist economics, "small government" for the poor, bailouts for the rich, and disdain for Democracy. And as far as social policies go, he's against rights for women and LGBT people. Which makes sense, because the Right doesn't like oppressed groups moving up the hierarchy.
So you were gullible and got lulled into some petty gossip discussions akin to those had by teenage girls at the mall, and you were told all sorts of juicy bits about that bad-guy Rush Limbaugh ... except that very little of it was true.

Yes, he's a purveyor of sound economics and of the need for smaller government. He is not in favor of bailouts. He has disdain for Marxism, yes, especially when it is being called by the euphemism "democracy." He staunchly supports equal rights for women and LGBTQIATIOAPP.

So, aside from a gay marriage law (Rush Limbaugh is a Christian) and your leftist desire for a bloated, omnipotent government that has the power and inclination to punish the successful by confiscating their wealth and redistributing it to the laziest cancers of society for the crime of having added value to society and for having made conscientious losers feel bad, ... on what other specific point do you and Rush Limbaugh disagree? Thus far, on every specific issue you have correctly mentioned about Rush, you and he are in agreement. You know of no specific issues of which you and he disagree. ... and you know I'm just waiting for you to come back with more misinformation about Rush Limbaugh's positions so I can further mock your inability to just listen to his show. It will be too funny.

Oh, and I fully expect you to get his positions correct. If you regurgitate the lies of others, you become just as much a liar as the liars whose lies you regurgitate.

rush-limbaugh.jpg


6) The DNC is definitely not left-wing,
I have bad news for you. The DNC has annexed Bernie Sanders and your socialism. The DNC owns you. More specifically, the DNC owns the people who own you. The reason Bernie is not the DNC's nominee for President is that he is being chastized by his owners, i.e. the DNC, because he didn't behave like a good boy.

21


And if you look at the typical democratic policies, such as affordable healthcare and raising the minimum wage, they're all about making society more equal.
Hardly. The DNC is all about destroying the lives of its opponents and by grabbing support by offering free stuff. The DNC appeals to those whose economics proficiency is abysmal.

Whereas republican policies are about helping the rich get richer while the poor are forced to sink or swim.
Like I said, people whose economics proficiency is abysmal.

As a matter of fact, I bet that if you were to ditch all of your denial, you would probably be a conservative. It's funny that you are required to virtue-signal to leftists how much you hate how you would probably be if you weren't required to so virtue-signal.

Too funny.
 
This part of our discussion has run its course. I have correctly explained to you that socialism quickly evolves into fascism and is, in fact, one manifestation of socialism. You are unable to accept this because you are a socialist and it is too much of a rude awakening for you to learn that you and Hitler are the same. You are of the same ideology. Yes, you have been correctly taught that Hitler was a monster ... but without missing a beat you gullibly allowed yourself to be manipulated into embracing his ideology. You are that guy in the audience cheering Hitler's speeches.

How come you won't reply to my list of Fascist countries that didn't claim to be Socialist?
Francoist Spain, Austria under the Fatherland Front, Fascist Italy, the Empire of Japan, and the modern incarnations of Russia, Belarus, Cambodia, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

You're a socialist. [for your convenience I have put your response here so you can just copy-paste] "Not at all. I'm a Social Democrat. There's a HUGE difference."

Well, yeah. Social Democracy allows for private property and doesn't want Anarchy. Those are some pretty big differences, are they not?

LGBTQIATIOAPP have all the same rights. You just want a gay-marriage law ... but your socialist ideology requires you to be completely unreasonable ... and violent. You have to treat all others, even ones who have never even thought about the issue, as VICTIMIZERS. You would be far more successful in getting what you want if you would stop creating enemies out of people who are not your enemies and stop intentionally insulting half the country who probably already agree with you in the first place. Many conservatives want gay marriage as well. I did for a long time. The principal demographics that oppose gay marriage are Christians and blacks. But socialists are stupid. They don't take their case to the Christians and the blacks. Instead, they get in the faces of "conservatives" (newsflash: not the same set of people) and insult them and even get violent with them. This happened to me and so now my official position is "Hey LGBTQIATIOAPP, Fuck You. I actively supported you for 25 years and now I am going to take pleasure in messing with you in every way I can, just for the fun of it. Did I mention Fuck You?"

Um..... yeah.... not sure what to do with all that craziness.

So anyway, Limbaugh is against equal rights for women, gays, and trannies. So I'm not a fan of that.
I do agree that some people take LGBT rights too far. A private company should be allowed to deny service or fire someone for any reason, including sexual orientation. So I would support Limbaugh's right to not hire gay people. However, I still disagree with his homophobia.


My position is that "Gay Marriage" should just be "Marriage." Any two people should be able to marry. Your desire for this type of marriage reform is exactly the same as desiring an increase in the maximum speed limit on interstate highways, i.e. You push to get the law changed. The left has instead chosen to essentially take the approach that sufficiently becoming ashsoles should get the legislation passed. Let me know how that works out.

Actually, the Left wanted exactly what you said your position is. All we wanted was the government to recognize same-sex marriage as a valid form of marriage. And they did, so we've moved on from that issue.

The video completely misrepresents conservative thought.

How so?

I knew it. As far as you know, you don't disagree with him on anything. You have no idea what his positions are on anything other than what I told you ... and I know that right now you are itching to rush to Media Matters so you can soak up lots more erroneous misinformation about Rush. The absolutely LAST thing you would ever do is to listen to the Rush Limbaugh show and find out what he actually says. I realize that your slavemasters won't permit it.

Here are some things I disagree with Limbaugh on.

He's against welfare policies, blaming the "welfare state" for various problems.
He thinks the drug laws are too lenient. I believe the drug war should end, all drugs should be legal.
He's very pro-war, even supporting the Iraq War. He also supported the torture used by the Bush admin.
He's against environmental regulations and denies climate change is real, because of course he does.
He thinks consent shouldn't be taken seriously, which essentially means he thinks rape is ok.
He supports Trump, even defending him during the Ukraine scandal, which to me was the worst thing Trump has done.

I'm sure there are plenty of other things. But yeah, not a fan. He is unintentionally funny sometimes when he gets mad and spergs out, so at least there's that.

I have bad news for you. The DNC has annexed Bernie Sanders and your socialism. The DNC owns you. More specifically, the DNC owns the people who own you. The reason Bernie is not the DNC's nominee for President is that he is being chastized by his owners, i.e. the DNC, because he didn't behave like a good boy.

No, the reason he isn't the nominee is because both parties are owned by big business. The DNC is less terrible, no doubt, but neither party puts the working-class first.
 
How come you won't reply to my list of Fascist countries that didn't claim to be Socialist?
I did. They are totally socialist. They just aren't don't "claim" to be socialist.

OK, I will acknowledge that three of those you listed could be easily argued as not socialist, i.e. Japan, Saudi Arabia and Iran ... but Iran is exactly the same, it just isn't technically socialism.


Look, I have to cut out right now. I had written a long blurb about Wolverine and the computer froze and I lost the post. The short answer is there was no internet 40 years ago and so you aren't likely to find the stages of evolution from when Wolverine had no regenerative abilities to the full-blown regeneration on steroids that Wolverine is simply presumed to have today.

Also, Batman started out a gun-toting vigilante.

2151020-batman-Odyssey-2-1.jpg

NRmJEQa_2gKfbOBabpOVktdzrnGBpf6tMjTeJgbz0ZbnjhkBhltsJLZ2OjcOdJL2Rv4DcCEoijfXcWulgrAtiniQrXZdu8gQkTtMGReba39g2xyf42Ht9CviZrk

guns04.jpg


I'll get to the rest tomorrow.
 
I did. They are totally socialist. They just aren't don't "claim" to be socialist.

OK, I will acknowledge that three of those you listed could be easily argued as not socialist, i.e. Japan, Saudi Arabia and Iran ... but Iran is exactly the same, it just isn't technically socialism.

The Fascist governments of Austria, Spain, and Italy, you think they were Socialist?

Also, Batman started out a gun-toting vigilante.

Yeah, he also used to kill. I think modern Batman is way better. His refusal to kill, because he's afraid he won't be able to stop, really adds a depth to his character that sets him apart from most superheroes.
 
If you think Trumpers are not barking mad, you belong on another planet - nobody cares which, as long as it is in some distant nebula! :)

Guess what Skippy here I am. If leftists were human there would be some redeeming quality about them but as it is all the left is a steaming pile of dog sh it.
 
As we already established, I don't believe those countries were Socialist.



Here are the Fascist countries I listed that didn't call themselves Socialist: Francoist Spain, Austria under the Fatherland Front, Fascist Italy, the Empire of Japan, and the modern incarnations of Russia, Belarus, Cambodia, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
You didn't reply to this because you have no answer, which I expected.



So points 1 - 4 of that really have nothing to do with the point of the video, which was to outline the history and Fascist origins of Conservatism.
We can debate whether or not price equals value, but it's beside the point. The reason I linked this video is to show you why Fascism is a right-wing thing.

5) If you watched the entire video, you'd see how today's big Conservative thinkers are just regurgitating the Fathers of Conservatism. Jordan Peterson's whole "Top Lobster" thing is just right-wing hierarchy repackaged. The same goes for Ayn Rand's "Objectivity," which is still used by today's Right. Every influential conservative figure essentially makes the same argument about hierarchy in a different way, meaning there is an unbroken philosophical chain going all the way back to the original Right that opposed Democracy.

6) The DNC is definitely not left-wing, but they are more left-wing than the RNC. And if you look at the typical democratic policies, such as affordable healthcare and raising the minimum wage, they're all about making society more equal. Whereas republican policies are about helping the rich get richer while the poor are forced to sink or swim.



You're making my point for me, my dude. Limbaugh is a typical Righty. Capitalist economics, "small government" for the poor, bailouts for the rich, and disdain for Democracy. And as far as social policies go, he's against rights for women and LGBT people. Which makes sense, because the Right doesn't like oppressed groups moving up the hierarchy.

I'm a Social Democrat and I believe women and LGBT people should have equal rights. So I disagree with Limbaugh on quite a few things.
I agree with him on needing a border wall. So I guess we have that in common. But other than that, I disagree with him on pretty much everything.

So if a country doesn't call itself socialist it's not socialist?
 
So if a country doesn't call itself socialist it's not socialist?

No, if a country doesn't attempt to have collective ownership, it's not Socialist. I don't consider countries like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to have been Socialist, despite claiming to be so.

However, IBDaMann claimed that all "Socialist" countries become Fascist. So I gave him some countries that were Fascist but didn't even claim to be Socialist.
 
No, if a country doesn't attempt to have collective ownership, it's not Socialist. I don't consider countries like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to have been Socialist, despite claiming to be so.

However, IBDaMann claimed that all "Socialist" countries become Fascist. So I gave him some countries that were Fascist but didn't even claim to be Socialist.

Again what they claim and what they are aren't necessarily the same. Your examples worked on centralized ownership of the means of production. Those are failed systems. Always have been always will be.
 
Again what they claim and what they are aren't necessarily the same. Your examples worked on centralized ownership of the means of production. Those are failed systems. Always have been always will be.

Yes, that's my point. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union weren't Socialist, even though they claimed to be.
 
Did they centralize the means of production?

The Nazis didn't. Most companies in Nazi Germany were private.
The Bolsheviks did, but without collective ownership, that's just State Capitalism. You could say State Capitalism isn't real Capitalism, I think that's a fair argument, but it definitely isn't Socialism.
 
The Nazis didn't. Most companies in Nazi Germany were private.
The Bolsheviks did, but without collective ownership, that's just State Capitalism. You could say State Capitalism isn't real Capitalism, I think that's a fair argument, but it definitely isn't Socialism.

Oh you're splitting a hair. The govt controlled Soviet production and the Nazis allowed private ownership but forced govt control. Fact is capitalism is the only moral and just economic system known to man.
 
Last edited:
Oh you're splitting a hair. The govt controlled Soviet production and the Nazis allowed private ownership but forced govt control. Fact is capitalism is the only moral and just economic system known to man.

Well all countries have government control. America is Capitalist, but we still have regulations and some of our companies are nationalized.
I agree that the government shouldn't control all industry like in the Soviet Union, but collective ownership is a majorly important aspect that would have changed Soviet history. So I don't think it's splitting hairs.
 
Well all countries have government control. America is Capitalist, but we still have regulations and some of our companies are nationalized.
I agree that the government shouldn't control all industry like in the Soviet Union, but collective ownership is a majorly important aspect that would have changed Soviet history. So I don't think it's splitting hairs.

America has too much regulation on business but thats a different topic.

I think you define collective ownership to mean the people own the means of production. Is that accurate? I think it would be good to establish definitions.
 
America has too much regulation on business but thats a different topic.

I think you define collective ownership to mean the people own the means of production. Is that accurate? I think it would be good to establish definitions.

Yeah. According to both early Socialists and later Marxists, the idea is that corporate decisions would be handled through Direct Democracy, that way everyone working for the company has a say.
So a country like China doesn't really have Socialism.
 
Yeah. According to both early Socialists and later Marxists, the idea is that corporate decisions would be handled through Direct Democracy, that way everyone working for the company has a say.
So a country like China doesn't really have Socialism.

Well right they're communists just like the Soviet union was. So strictly worker owned means of production is socialism. Well in my oparinion it's all splitting hairs as capitalism was not a part of any of those systems. I say again capitalism is the only moral and just system.
 
Well right they're communists just like the Soviet union was. So strictly worker owned means of production is socialism. Well in my oparinion it's all splitting hairs as capitalism was not a part of any of those systems. I say again capitalism is the only moral and just system.

According to Marxist theory, society needs to move from Capitalism to Socialism to Communism. And Communism is stateless and classless. So China isn't Communist either because they have a government. Many Communists who aren't Marxists don't want a Socialism stage, they just want to eliminate the government now, but they still define Communism as no state, no class.

Capitalism leaves hard working people poor. I say the most moral system is Social Democracy. We should have private property and a welfare state.
 
There's women that make a living out of it. They're right down there with welfare moms. In fact the 2 crossover each other often.

I guess you run with a bad crowd. I don't personally know that. Even if it's true, it couldn't happen if the men wrapped it up each and every time, right, Sparky?
 
Back
Top