It would be really good if liberals would step out of fantasy land and pay attention to what they are destroying.

Don't get us wrong. Liberals are Americans. . .that are crappy about it.

They are Americans who hate what the founding fathers gave us. They, knowingly or unknowingly, follow Marx who was the polar opposite of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc.

What is completely absurd is the right in America want to get back to the freedoms that are protected by the Constitution and the left has the nerve to call us Nazis. The founders had nothing in common with Hitler. Nothing. Hitler was a Marxist.

"the right in America want to get back to the freedoms that are protected by the Constitution"

Some do. Some sure as hell don't

"Hitler was a Marxist"

No he wasn't

"Some do. Some sure as hell don't"

ALL DO!!! The only ones that don't aren't really conservatives. They are establishment Republicans. The only difference between an Establishment Republican and a Democrat is the name. In fact I have often wondered if you guys didn't just infiltrate the Republican party with your phony candidates.

Hitler was most definitely a Marxist. The two were almost identical. Both self hating Jews who wanted to exterminate all of the other Jews. Both were collectivists, Marx being the one to codified collectivism and Hitler being one who practiced collectivism. Marx loved Satan and wrote poems to him. Hitler was Satan or at least Satan Jr. But so was Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Mao, PolPot, Castro, the Kim dynasty in North Korea and Guevara. They were all the same.

"ALL DO!!! The only ones that don't aren't really conservatives"

That's a No True Scotsman fallacy. Some conservatives want to defend Constitutional freedoms, some don't.

"The only difference between an Establishment Republican and a Democrat is the name"

And the party. And the values. And the ideology. And the way they vote. But other than that, sure, maybe.

"In fact I have often wondered if you guys didn't just infiltrate the Republican party with your phony candidates"

Because we would need to do that?

"Hitler was most definitely a Marxist"

He wasn't

"The two were almost identical"

Not even close. Hitler made a huge deal about traditional family values, nationalism, etc. Marx didn't.

"Marx loved Satan and wrote poems to him. Hitler was Satan or at least Satan Jr"

Hitler wasn't Satan because Hitler actuelly existed

"But so was Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Mao, PolPot, Castro, the Kim dynasty in North Korea and Guevara. They were all the same."

No they weren't. They had similarities and they had differences. Also, Mussolini was very much not a socialist or communist.

this is the revisionist garbage indoctrinating young people and is almost exclusively taught by the neo-Nazis.

It was worth a shot :)

Because giving the right to vote to the citizenry is sooooooo unlike giving the right to vote to the citizenry?

Face it, if there was never an American Revolution there would never have been a Marxism. The only difference is here we had a neu-Aristocratic class who (reluctantly) progressed to allowing a republic with a vote limited to only monied land owning adult male WASPs for selecting representatives for a parliament as opposed to a concept calling for 100% democratic rule where the public contols all apparatus from govement to economy.

In the meantime, so-called Conservatives have become increasingly open about their autocratic leanings (after all, going back, real American Conservatives favored Monarchy. When they weren't able to maintain that link with Britain, they sought to crown George Washington). As there is currently something of a shortage of anyone with royal roots going back to the beginning of the USA, they opt for an Autocratic type. Hence their zeal for a wannabe dictator like Trump, and their admiration for the likes of Putin and whatever other self-adulating nutters in that soup. It isn't exactly an accident that the Jr Consevative set in particular can be given to festooning their walls with pictures of Hitler.

Hitler, btw, was not a Marxist. He sought to extirpate them from his party, from Gemany, and then from Spain and Russia. In fact, that was the excuse for people even here to like him, that he and the Nazis were a bullwark against the spread of Communism. Hitler was a Nazi. Those who idolize him are neo-Nazis. If they don't like it, imagine how the rest of us feel about their putrid stench?

Would you just look at the amazing construction of that gallows. It is incredible. It is the most amazing gallows I have ever seen. I'm just sure it will work beautifully ever single time it is used.

It must have taken them a whole minute to construct such a fine gallows. And 2x4 construction. You just can't beat that.

Blah blah blah.. Conservatives suck. blah blah blah. liberals are the saviors of the planet. blah blah blah.

Just more of your liberal lies.

"Hitler was a Nazi". And what is a Nazi? NationalSOZIALISTische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist Germans Workers Party. The NA comes from NAtional and the ZI comes from soZIalist. Nazi literally translates at National Socialist.

Marx did not start socialism but socialism was never the same after Marx. ALL socialists since Marx are Marxists.

How many times a month I show you these?

Keep up the lying. It's soooooo worth the rubles.

Why should I read a quote that you made up? Hitler wasn't about "privatizing" anything. That's the fatal flaw in your comment. He took control of everything. He let the business owners who supported him stay in control, like Mussolini, but like all socialists, fascists, communists and nazis, the means of production was controlled by the government.

Just like how Democrats think the government needs to control private businesses right now.

nice logic you got going there dipshit.
you make your mommy proud.

would you PLEASE, the for the love of GOD and everything holy.
read robert paxton or hannah arrendt on the subject of fascism.
please,
pretty please,
ill give you a cookie.

BTW if you want to really know what fascism then look at what Benito Mussolini did in Italy. Mussolini is the father of fascism. All other definitions (and there a gazillion of them) do not matter to me because they were created for political posturing.

The only other definition that matters is Klaus Schwab. Not that he defined what fascism is but that he is a modern fascist. He borrowed from Mussolini and HItler to create the World Economic Forum's "Great Reset". He buried most of what his intentions are behind climate change legislation. This is exactly why climate change is pushed so very hard but only by politicians and not scientists (unless those scientists have been bought and paid for by the global fascists).

Since Mussolini there have been a lot of people on the political left, specifically, who have been trying to redefine fascism and nazism. The reason why is because prior to WWII, the early 20th century Progressives (Democrats in America) were in love with Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. Their house of cards started to collapse in about 1928 when the New York Times (who had been sitting on this information for a while) finally printed an article about the atrocities in the Soviet Union. But prior to this all of the variations of collectivism were praised.

Author H.G Wells referred to himself a "liberal fascist".

Cole Porter later erased lyrics from his song, "You're the Top". He originally wrote:
"You’re the top!
You’re a Coolidge dollar.
You’re the nimble tread
Of the feet of Fred Astaire,
You’re Mussolini,
You’re Mrs. Sweeney."

The America Nazi Party (all Democrat) held a huge rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City back in the 1920's.

The Democrats of the early 20th were all in love with all of those horrible people.

So just before WWII the socialists and communists decided they needed to distance themselves from the fascists and nazis. I don't know why they thought to hang on to communism and socialism but they did. Not all of them. A lot (most of them) abandoned all four of those systems of government.

Since then people have come up with all sorts of variations, especially of fascism. They completely twist it so much that some even equate capitalism with fascism. They called it right-wing when it clearly is just another form of collectivism which is on the socialist left. It is to the right of socialism and communism but it is far to the left of the US constitution.

but i am quite familiar with history, and the history of fascism.
hence my suggestion of reading Robert Paxton.
his book "anatomy of fascism" is probably the best book on the subject.

you rightly point out Mussolini and left leaning fascism, but then conveniently ignore how nazi fascism was born from the right, and then proceed to imply that the nazis were socialists. (They were not).

this is why i suggested reading Hannah Arendt.

but I digress.
my main point is that i do appreciate you took the time to write down our thoughts and i wanted you to know that i respected the effort.

/salute

"nazi fascism was born from the right"

On the right side of the left. It is still very very far left of the US Constitution.

What everyone needs to understand (and this is not my idea) is that the left right scale that has been taught in schools is wrong.

On the left end of the scale is total and complete government control over the lives of the individual. On the right end of the scale is total anarchy, no government at all. The far right is NOT nazis, it is anarchists. Nazis are for total government control over the lives of the individual. They can only belong on the left. You can put them to the right of communism but they are both at the far left end.

The United States was founded at the right side but not the right end of the scale. The most of the founders did NOT want to recreate the monarchy of England. Monarchies are also at the left end of the scale because the monarchs have complete control over the lives of the individuals. They knew about socialism as well but I am not sure if socialism was called socialism back then. They did speak out against "leveling", the idea of stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

The government that the founders created for us was based on the most freedom possible without causing harm to other people. The conservatives of today and the libertarians want to return to that America. The America that we have lost by allowing our federal government to become totalitarian.

This is why trying to equate those who support individual liberty with nazis is just absurd. Nazis are NOTHING like us. Not even close. They clearly share much more with the Democrat party who has along with the Republican party leadership as pushed this country dangerously close to the extreme left.

Do you even know what "republic" means. It can be applied to all sorts of types of government. The latin for "republic" is "respublica". "Res" meaning affair, matter or thing and publica meaning the people.

Generally speaking there are two ways governments look at "people". socialists, nazis, fascists, communists and all other collectivists look at people as a whole, a group or a collective. A decisions made are made for the collective.

Our government, when it was founded, looked at people as a group of individuals. E Pluribus Unum or many ones. The individual is where all political power resides.

So when our nation was formed we called ourselves a "republic" referring to how the government viewed the affairs of the people. The government served the individual, not the collective. We sometimes call ourselves a "constitutional republic" and if you truly understand the first 3 words of the Constitution then you understand, "We The People". The constitution was written from the people to tell the government how they will serve us and what they cannot do to us.

North Korea, China and other communist nations calls themselves a republic as well. But remember the word does not specifically mean our government or a government based on freedom of the individual.

North Korea is a communist nation. They look at the collective and not the individual. Their government pertains the the affairs of the collective. China care nothing for the individual. The individual is expendable.

All socialist nations look at the individual as expendable.

Socialists (and all other collectivists) claim to look after the needs of the people or collective. It is a one-size fit all approach to government. The individual needs are trampled on because the individual means nothing. Collectivists claim that it is the will of the people who determines how the government is run. That is the reason why collectivists use the word democracy so much. But no where in the history of socialism has there ever been a collectivist nation where the will of the people was decided by an honest democratic vote. The will of the people is ALWAYS decided by the government in collectivist nations. So-called "experts" decide what everyone needs and they take by force from those who have a little more and give to themselves (mostly) and the rest trickles down to those who have less.

What quote? It's not even my meme. You've been told this how many times already?
THESE are Hitler quotes.

Hitler INVENTED privitization. Literally was the first gov't to engage in the practice.
Mussolini was a Corporatist. Hitler was more about Corporatocracy, like our gov't for quite a while now, but especially the GOP - - since their inception.

"Just like how Democrats think the government needs to control private businesses right now."

You mean like them price controls and increased subsidies their critics keep calling for, even as far as wanting gov't to get directly involved in production itself to make up for current shortages?

Hitler was criminally insane from day one. He joined the German Socialist Party when he was in his early 20's. From there he constructed his National Socialism and formed the NAZI party. Germany had just fallen into a financial collapse because Kaiser Wilhelm printed too many Marks and devalued the currency to nothing (sound familiar?). Hitler rose to power with all sorts of claims about National Socialism.

I doubt you will read this (because you told me you hate go to links provided to you) but this is the 1920 Nazi Party platform from the US Holocaust Museum.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform

This is what Hitler used to get attention. Notice his claims of equality. That is not found in the US founding fathers documents. The only equality they ever mentioned is that we are born equal. No one person is born royal or above another. But from their, depending on our choices and our circumstances we do not remain equal.

Socialism is all about equality of outcome. Everyone having the same.

Once Hitler rose to power, he no longer had need of the people or the politics that gave him that power. He was Der Fuhrer and that is all that mattered. He never governed as a socialist or even a Nazi. He governed as a Hitlerist and he make things up as we went along.

The thing that all socialists miss is that it was first socialism and then national socialism that gave Hitler all of the power he needed because socialism (and all of it's variations) transfers all political power away from the individual and concentrates it in the hands of the one or the few. That is the story of every time socialism is tried.

The fact of the matter is you just cannot concentrate all political power into the hands of a few and EVER expect anything different than what you get with Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, the Kim Dynasty, etc.

All political power belongs in the hands of the individual citizens and the government is subservient to the will of the individual. That is how this country was founded but it is no longer who we are. Too many eggheads think that it is good to have a little socialism to control businesses. They completely miss the point that in a free market the consumers have control over all businesses future existence. In a true free market the government is forbidden to do anything at all for a business. Government is completely cut off from business and businesses MUST bow to their customers or they will die.

Money again.

Fiat Currency. For the nth time, look it up.

You're having fun with that fiat currency stuff, aren't you?

You keep repeating the same bs. I'm just glad it's from a script because I feel kinda guilty when people post walls of it only for me to not read it because facts are still facts still, and they're not going to change regardless what St Petersburg said to post.

Yes, Hitler joined what had been an established Socialist party as that was more efficient than starting a new party from scratch without even having the funding to do so. Yes, early on he gave some token speeches in support of their platform. Yes, he used the Brownshirts as his thugs, then literally had them EXTERMINATED in the Night of the Long Knives when they started demanding he do something in favor of their Socialist stance and he had run out of use for their thuggery. Yes, he became more openly Fascist and that was that. Yes he put red triangle patches on Communists and Socialists in his concentration camps. Yes, he sent forces to aid Franco's Fascists in Spain fight against the Socialist Loyalists. Yes, he went to war with the USSR....

PS: "Kaiser Wilhelm printed too many Marks and devalued the currency to nothing (sound familiar?)"

No, it doesn't - other than of you repeating that lie too.

The post-WWI Mark was pegged to the Dollar and was doing fine till the Great Depression began, thus it then went into freefall.
France demanding reparations be paid immediately didn't help either.
That's why to this day we don't push it when it comes to debt owed to us. We don't want to give rise to another Hitler. That's why during the Cold War 70% of the grain the Soviets used to feed themselves came from the USA - AT A DISCOUNT. We could have theoretically starved them into submission or even obsolesence, but that wouldn't have happened. It's why we're still dealing with Putin and keep the money flowing to China. Heck, until Obama we were Iran's biggest oil custmer, albeit via 3rd party companies to skirt our own sanctions we demanded the rest of the world to keep to.

Is this making sense?

Did you go to that link with the Nazi party platform on it? Just checking because there are elements in it found in the Democrat party platform. There is a later Nazi party platform that I could not find online, this time, that was almost a 1 to 1 copy. This one is not but there are a lot of things in common.

The platform is very socialistic. They demand nationalization of all corporations. They demand that all workers be a part of a union.

Hitler used socialism to get power and control because socialism is a platform that lends itself to giving power and control to a dictator or oligarchy. And thanks for finally admiting that I was right all along.

Socialists, fascists, nazis and communists are all very murdery. If you differ by 1% from the other then the killing starts. That is how it has always been with collectivists.

There is one and only one way to devalue the currency and cause inflation. Print too much. Even if it is based on gold the more money printed the lower the value of each bill. This is why counterfeiting is illegal. If private citizens print forged currency it devalues the real currency as long as the forger can spend that forged money.

Governments are no different but it is legal for them to devalue currency. It shouldn't be but it is.

How you are not understanding that is amazing. All you are doing is pointing at vague events and saying that caused inflation. That's just crap.

Money has value. That value is not always a 1 to 1 relation. It was close to that when we were on the gold standard. When Nixon took us off of gold and put us in the oil standard that let foreign agents influence the value that backed our money. It was a colossally stupid mistake. Nixon was a Keynesian and didn't care about the long term. I doubt we could ever go back to a gold standard without collapsing the economy. It would have to be done gradually over the course of decades and because there are Democrats that will never ever happen.

The more currency in circulation the lesser the value if each note. That is just a fact. That is inflation. Businesses operate on the value of their product. They have to because the other businesses they get their resources from operate that way. When it takes more dollars to equal that value then you have inflation. If the government gradually cut back on the money supply the value of the dollar will increase and prices will drop.

That is just how the economy works.

https://imgflip.com/i/7lsqxi

Well you better get in your last best shots about me under this name cuz once it's gone I have no control over it but if I managed to find it while still active before I delete it at least I'll be able to see how you really feel about me and everybody else in image flip to make the decision regardless of

https://imgflip.com/i/7lsqxi
Yeah here's a link to my last posting under this account name cuz it's going to die whether or not if I get a chance to delete it for the phone that the accounts on her is shut off because I'm going through a new phone carrier and service so you best jump in while you can because when I come back through a different name you're not going to recognize it what's going to be a name kind of similar but different characteristics not sure yet how I'm going to do that one but if I wasn't mad Titan what would he do

No links.

I can't be arsed to do your homework for you, no less so after I refutted your "But the name says" rebuttal with quotes from Hitler himself, as well as lists of actions he took against Socialists even within his own party.

Enough.

Homework? For me? I put the link there for your own knowledge, nothing more.

What you said about liberals is false
What you said about conservatives is also false

Then coming from you I must be correct.

So if I say something, you think the opposite is true?

White people are not superior to black people

Have fun defending that

When did I ever say they were? I've met black people who were much smarter, better looking, better skilled, etc than me. How could I ever think I am superior to black people. I don't think I'm superior to any race and that includes white people. I'm just me. Just somewhere in the middle of all of this madness.

I'm an individual, not a collective. Racial superiority is a collectivist issue and we all know who the collectivists are, don't we?