Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-23-2010, 10:10 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,477,016 times
Reputation: 4799

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
That's a rather novel excuse for approving of this and one which doesn't address the issue.
Today's liberals or the classic ones of the past?

Quote:
For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order.
Modern History Sourcebook: Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2010, 10:14 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,477,016 times
Reputation: 4799
Quote:
On March 3, 1789, the old Confederation went out of existence and on March 4 the new government of the United States began legally to function, according to a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (wings v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 420); however, it had no practical existence until April 6, when first the presence of quorums in both Houses permitted organization of Congress. On April 30, 1789, George Washington was inaugurated as President of the United States, so on that date the executive branch of the government under the Constitution became operative. But it was not until February 2, 1790, that the Supreme Court, as head of the third branch of the government, organized and, held its first session; so that is the date when our government under the Constitution became fully operative.
The Constitution of the United States: Questions and Answers

Sounds like they were in many "policy" sessions...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,496,494 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
"Liberals" are anything BUT Nazi/Fascist's.
closer than you think

liberals (ie progressives) were the one here IN AMERICA that were supporting hitler in the 1930's

Progressives also believed that industrialization had led to social “disintegration” and materialistic decadence throughout America.

progressives looked favorably on the policies and ideals of Italian and German fascism in the 1920s and 1930s;



"The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into smaller states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them." ....Zbigniew Brzezinski advisor to carter, clinton and obama.....""This is a form of Socialism known as fascism, and it will be the type of world government the power elite plans ultimately to bring about and control. In this government, the power elite will control politicians who will become government leaders who will promulgate laws, rules and regulations favorable to certain transnational corporations"""





As an ardent admirer of Marx, Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) called his version of Marxist socialism "Fascism" (2). Instead of nationalization--government ownership--of private business, Mussolini advocated government control of business via complete bureaucratic regulation.


""Fascism is a system in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation. In effect, fascism is simply a more subtle form of government ownership than is socialism."" Mussolini




here is the start of the progessives in america......1888, the year [when socialist] Edward Bellamy's novel Looking Backward burst on the American scene.” Set in the year 2000, this futuristic book depicts a utopian society run with the hierarchical efficiency of a military battalion. All workers in this idealized world belong to a unified “industrial army” that labors within the confines of an economy controlled by a coterie of central planners who are deemed to be more capable of fostering prosperity and productivity than is a free marketplace. A preacher in the story lauds the earthly paradise, while the population at large looks back upon the “age of individualism” with a blend of amusement and derision.

Bellamy's book became immensely influential, selling hundreds of thousands of copies. It was particularly effective at setting afire the hearts of idealistic young people who were moved by the author's vision of a socialist utopia. All across America, “Nationalist Clubs” were formed to advocate for “the nationalization of industry and the promotion of the brotherhood of humanity.”

its not hard to undersatnd

the progressives (aka todays liberals which took over the democratic party) have been in bed with the elite since the late 1880's..

these are the same people that created the fed, the same people that passed the income tax amendment in 1913, the same people that suppored the european socialists and the nasi's, and the fascists

progressives have helped in some areas (child labor laws, etc) but their sole intent is to 'socialize' the united states, to either "nationalize" the entire country and its corporations (main stream socialist way), or to so over regulate the corporations (the fascist way)

progressives (aka liberals) were the ones who supported hitler, progressives are owned by the european banks

Up until ww2, fascist and progressives were the same thing....But they dropped the term fascist due to public outcry and stuck with the term progressive ever since. Aside from being a complete nut of a dictator, Hitler had extremely liberal political policies and highly regulatory government agencies. He even had unviersal health care.

H.G. Wells was of the greatest influences on the progressive mind in the twentieth century (and, it turns out, the inspiration for Huxley's Brave New World). Wells didn't coin the phrase as an indictment, but as a badge of honor. Progressives must become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis," he told the Young Liberals at Oxford in a speech in July 1932.

This is why the fake liberals of today call themselves "liberal". They hijacked the word after progressive was tainted with Hitler, Eugenics, population control, economic fascism, etc.

In a laudatory review of Roosevelt's 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, "Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism."

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.


hitler came into power as the candidate of 'hope and change',, his plans slowly moved from being helpful to dreadful,,



simple things like 'nationalizing' corporations, removing the guns from the people,,blame the jews (or the modern version 'the zionists'),,duty of the state(government) to PROVIDE for the people,,division of profits (redistribution of wealth),,,, DO THESE SOUND FAMILIAR, YES THE ARE THE TALKING POINTS OF THE DNC AND MOVEON.ORG....THEY ARE ALSO PART OF HITLERS 25 POINTS
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,537,557 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
closer than you think

liberals (ie progressives) were the one here IN AMERICA that were supporting hitler in the 1930's

Progressives also believed that industrialization had led to social “disintegration” and materialistic decadence throughout America.

progressives looked favorably on the policies and ideals of Italian and German fascism in the 1920s and 1930s;



"The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into smaller states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them." ....Zbigniew Brzezinski advisor to carter, clinton and obama.....""This is a form of Socialism known as fascism, and it will be the type of world government the power elite plans ultimately to bring about and control. In this government, the power elite will control politicians who will become government leaders who will promulgate laws, rules and regulations favorable to certain transnational corporations"""





As an ardent admirer of Marx, Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) called his version of Marxist socialism "Fascism" (2). Instead of nationalization--government ownership--of private business, Mussolini advocated government control of business via complete bureaucratic regulation.


""Fascism is a system in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation. In effect, fascism is simply a more subtle form of government ownership than is socialism."" Mussolini




here is the start of the progessives in america......1888, the year [when socialist] Edward Bellamy's novel Looking Backward burst on the American scene.” Set in the year 2000, this futuristic book depicts a utopian society run with the hierarchical efficiency of a military battalion. All workers in this idealized world belong to a unified “industrial army” that labors within the confines of an economy controlled by a coterie of central planners who are deemed to be more capable of fostering prosperity and productivity than is a free marketplace. A preacher in the story lauds the earthly paradise, while the population at large looks back upon the “age of individualism” with a blend of amusement and derision.

Bellamy's book became immensely influential, selling hundreds of thousands of copies. It was particularly effective at setting afire the hearts of idealistic young people who were moved by the author's vision of a socialist utopia. All across America, “Nationalist Clubs” were formed to advocate for “the nationalization of industry and the promotion of the brotherhood of humanity.”

its not hard to undersatnd

the progressives (aka todays liberals which took over the democratic party) have been in bed with the elite since the late 1880's..

these are the same people that created the fed, the same people that passed the income tax amendment in 1913, the same people that suppored the european socialists and the nasi's, and the fascists

progressives have helped in some areas (child labor laws, etc) but their sole intent is to 'socialize' the united states, to either "nationalize" the entire country and its corporations (main stream socialist way), or to so over regulate the corporations (the fascist way)

progressives (aka liberals) were the ones who supported hitler, progressives are owned by the european banks

Up until ww2, fascist and progressives were the same thing....But they dropped the term fascist due to public outcry and stuck with the term progressive ever since. Aside from being a complete nut of a dictator, Hitler had extremely liberal political policies and highly regulatory government agencies. He even had unviersal health care.

H.G. Wells was of the greatest influences on the progressive mind in the twentieth century (and, it turns out, the inspiration for Huxley's Brave New World). Wells didn't coin the phrase as an indictment, but as a badge of honor. Progressives must become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis," he told the Young Liberals at Oxford in a speech in July 1932.

This is why the fake liberals of today call themselves "liberal". They hijacked the word after progressive was tainted with Hitler, Eugenics, population control, economic fascism, etc.

In a laudatory review of Roosevelt's 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, "Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism."

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.


hitler came into power as the candidate of 'hope and change',, his plans slowly moved from being helpful to dreadful,,



simple things like 'nationalizing' corporations, removing the guns from the people,,blame the jews (or the modern version 'the zionists'),,duty of the state(government) to PROVIDE for the people,,division of profits (redistribution of wealth),,,, DO THESE SOUND FAMILIAR, YES THE ARE THE TALKING POINTS OF THE DNC AND MOVEON.ORG....THEY ARE ALSO PART OF HITLERS 25 POINTS




You really should take the time to learn the differences between socialism, communism and fascism.

Simple primer: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,496,494 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post


You really should take the time to learn the differences between socialism, communism and fascism.

Simple primer: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini
correct..and you should CONTINUE the quotes

""Fascism is a system in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation. In effect, fascism is simply a more subtle form of government ownership than is socialism."" Mussolini


As an ardent admirer of Marx, Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) called his version of Marxist socialism "Fascism" (2). Instead of nationalization--government ownership--of private business, Mussolini advocated government control of business via complete bureaucratic regulation.


or how about someone more current..a advisor to carter, bush1, clinton and obama: ....Zbigniew Brzezinski ..........
"The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into smaller states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them." ....Zbigniew Brzezinski advisor to carter, clinton and obama.....""This is a form of Socialism known as fascism, and it will be the type of world government the power elite plans ultimately to bring about and control. In this government, the power elite will control politicians who will become government leaders who will promulgate laws, rules and regulations favorable to certain transnational corporations"""



dont belive me.....here is HGWells in 1932
H.G. Wells was of the greatest influences on the progressive mind in the twentieth century (and, it turns out, the inspiration for Huxley's Brave New World). Wells didn't coin the phrase as an indictment, but as a badge of honor. Progressives must become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis," he told the Young Liberals at Oxford in a speech in July 1932.



the history is there, just because you dont like that people like mussilini and hitler tarnished the name of progressives, doesnt mean it didnt happen

This is why the fake liberals of today call themselves "liberal". They hijacked the word after progressive was tainted with Hitler, Eugenics, population control, economic fascism, etc.

In a laudatory review of Roosevelt's 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, "Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 02:03 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,477,016 times
Reputation: 4799
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post


You really should take the time to learn the differences between socialism, communism and fascism.

Simple primer: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini
Instead of one quote, read the whole doctrine written by the man most notable for it.

Modern History Sourcebook: Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932

You'll hear a new phrase soon, "State Capitalism"...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,863,405 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
I really think it is time to start "Impeach So & So" pages on Facebook.

This is crazy. The idea that judges would appear so partisan.
I am not so concered with their appearing partisan, I am concerned when they make partisan rulings, as they did with Citizens United. They overturned 100yrs of Law with that one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,285,332 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Here's a story about another gathering of the Republican uber-rich. That in itself is not remarkable as the Koch's have been funding these things for years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us...koch.html?_r=1

What's interesting is this from page 2 of the article:

"...And he notes that previous guests have included Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, Gov. Haley Barbour and Gov. Bobby Jindal, Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, and Representatives Mike Pence, Tom Price and Paul D. Ryan..."

Why are Supreme Court justices involved in planning sessions for either political party? What business do they have involving themselves in partisan politics?
I have passed up this thread from knowing what it would amount to if one read the link. This afternoon I heard The Donald, you know Donald Trump, say to a Fox interviewer that the day when the "rich" start leaving this nation is very near. Most of them aren't as crazy about redistribution of their wealth as they in accruing more of it. He was alluding to the fact that most of them can, and will, move out to save some of their earned wealth to countries where they aren't required, through taxation, to support all those who don't have the wealth they have.

Trump was asked why he is staying and he replied that he has stayed up to now, but he wasn't sure about the future.

I think we need fewer of these people around since none of them employ others in large numbers so they will be welcome taking their wealth with them. The Donald is not a poor man although he may not have as much as the Koch brothers do. I don't know about that but I will not spend time trying to take away their wealth to pay for universal health care, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,285,332 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
I really think it is time to start "Impeach So & So" pages on Facebook.

This is crazy. The idea that judges would appear so partisan.
Yeah, fire those SOBs so Obama can appoint some real left leaners to replace them. Yeah, that should work very well to get the redistribution of the wealth of all those rich bastages that will be at the meeting. That is what stillkit is talking about, you know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,285,332 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
Which Supreme Court Justices attend Soros meetings?
Soros keeps his meetings secret so the NYT won't be talking about them. Actually he keeps his money circulating among all his groups so that it is well laundered before it gets to its new homes. Well, he has managed to do that, but recently Glenn Beck made him so mad that he just forked over $1 million to Media Matters right out in the open. He had never done that before. I wonder how long he can allow Beck to live since he gets so mad at Beck that h he comes right out in the open.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:47 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top