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 10-25-2013, 12:43 PM
 
Location: California
1,027 posts, read 1,372,178 times
Reputation: 844

Advertisements

Historically most political regimes or movements that were socially conservative and had a strong nationalist ideology, naturally believed in strong government with lots of control over business and economics. The three just seem to intrinsically go together, since military, nationalism, and state regulation of "immorality", all imply big government, which also implies a strong government role in business, finance, taxation, to ensure the ideals of the state. Examples of regimes include the monarchist/royalist, fascist and communist.

What confuses me is the modern American ideology of "conservatism" which is big on organized religion, nationlism and militarism, yet advocates for small government, especially in business an economics. Is this philosophically compatible? How is small government ideology intrinsically compatible with evangelical Christianity, especially when the latter implies a strong government role in regulating marriage, reproductive activities, adult media, alcohol and narcotics? And how is small government-fiscal conservatism philosophically compatible with strong militarism and a very aggressive foreign policy, especially when the latter implies loads of bureaucracy and big government spending?

Do these ideologies intrisically fit together in any way, or are they just seperate ideolgies from different incompatible movements that have been meshed together?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-25-2013, 12:54 PM
 
11,086 posts, read 8,494,665 times
Reputation: 6392
You're talking about the 'nationalism' of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. They were all socialists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 01:04 PM
 
5,915 posts, read 4,794,970 times
Reputation: 1398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
You're talking about the 'nationalism' of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. They were all socialists.
Yup, Nazi - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 01:11 PM
 
4,130 posts, read 4,444,434 times
Reputation: 3041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
You're talking about the 'nationalism' of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. They were all socialists.
Labels only. The first thing Hitler did when he got into power was murder all the communists and socialists.

Just like how Burma and China call themselves a republic under opposite ends of the authoritarian specturm.

Critical thinking allows people to look past labels and see the actions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 01:35 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,934,447 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surftown831 View Post
Historically most political regimes or movements that were socially conservative and had a strong nationalist ideology, naturally believed in strong government with lots of control over business and economics. The three just seem to intrinsically go together, since military, nationalism, and state regulation of "immorality", all imply big government, which also implies a strong government role in business, finance, taxation, to ensure the ideals of the state. Examples of regimes include the monarchist/royalist, fascist and communist.

What confuses me is the modern American ideology of "conservatism" which is big on organized religion, nationlism and militarism, yet advocates for small government, especially in business an economics.
When you ignore reality, and make up stuff like "militarism", then of course, you can't comprehend what people think.


Quote:
Is this philosophically compatible?
How could it be? You imagined it.

Quote:
How is small government ideology intrinsically compatible with evangelical Christianity, especially when the latter implies a strong government role in regulating marriage, reproductive activities, adult media, alcohol and narcotics?
More false assumptions.

Quote:
And how is small government-fiscal conservatism philosophically compatible with strong militarism and a very aggressive foreign policy, especially when the latter implies loads of bureaucracy and big government spending?
you're still imagining a lot of nonsense, which means you can't comprehend how it could possibly be coherent.

Quote:
Do these ideologies intrisically fit together in any way, or are they just seperate ideolgies from different incompatible movements that have been meshed together?
No, it's basically just a lot of nonsense dreamed up by liberals.

If you wish to understand what people like me think, you have to ask, and actually ACCEPT what I say I think as true. After all, I am the ONLY expert on what I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 01:39 PM
 
11,086 posts, read 8,494,665 times
Reputation: 6392
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer View Post
Labels only. The first thing Hitler did when he got into power was murder all the communists and socialists.

Just like how Burma and China call themselves a republic under opposite ends of the authoritarian specturm.

Critical thinking allows people to look past labels and see the actions.
Read a history book. Hitler borrowed huge sums of money to finance work projects like building the autobahn, as well as building up the military. He was as big of a socialist as F D R.

He hated communists and killed them when he could. He believed they were modern day slavers.

Hint: arrogance doesn't work for the uninformed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 02:03 PM
 
Location: California
1,027 posts, read 1,372,178 times
Reputation: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
When you ignore reality, and make up stuff like "militarism", then of course, you can't comprehend what people think.
mil·i·ta·rism noun \ˈmi-lə-tə-ˌri-zəm\
: the opinions or actions of people who believe that a country should use military methods, forces, etc., to gain power and to achieve its goals

Militarism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


You're obviously too uneducated to participate in this discussion. Thanks for trying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 02:12 PM
 
4,130 posts, read 4,444,434 times
Reputation: 3041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
Read a history book. Hitler borrowed huge sums of money to finance work projects like building the autobahn, as well as building up the military. He was as big of a socialist as F D R.

He hated communists and killed them when he could. He believed they were modern day slavers.

Hint: arrogance doesn't work for the uninformed.
Having a functional road system is socialist? Seriously?

So are things like licensing physicians to make sure they can practice medicine, making sure drugs work, and making sure food is safe and labeled correctly also evil socialism?

I don't think you know what socialism is, but it certainly doesn't advocate for a dictator and centralized military power. The theory also tries to end debt, interest, profit and even money. Taking on debt is not a socialist ideal. Please learn the difference between communism and socialism. I dislike pure socialism, but at least I know what it is.

Can you source where Hitler said Communists are modern day slavers? The only thing that comes up when I try and google it is some blog post from aryanism.net, and I am sure as **** not going to a white power blog to read it. If that's your source, that pretty well ends the conversation.

Hint: Calling someone uniformed when you don't know your stuff is funny to watch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,817 posts, read 19,351,537 times
Reputation: 9616
the NASI's were the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) and they are very close to the MODERN liberal

the FACT is HISTORY has shown us what happens when you turn a blind eye.





simple things like 'nationalizing' corporations, nationalization of all trusts(banks),social security, eminate domain(agrarian reform) , removing the guns from the people, demand the end of capitolism, state(country) provided education, blame the jews (or the modern version 'the zionists'),.. 'fairness doctrine"( censorship of talk radia), redistribution of wealth).....COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD .........

DO THESE SOUND FAMILIAR, YES THE ARE THE TALKING POINTS OF THE LIBERALS, THE DNC AND MOVEON.ORG..................
......
.....
....
THEY ARE ALSO A LARGE PART OF HITLERS 25 POINTS




hitler came into power because germany (after ww1) was in economic depression and he was the candidate of 'hope and change',, his plans slowly moved from being helpful to dreadful,,he took true socialism, and spun it with fascism and the next thing you know he is a liberaL dictator.



fascism/socialism/communism/marxism don't REQUIRE a dictator..but any time you make the government so big and powerful a totalitarian or dictator could easily step in

liberalism leads to dictators


do you even know what right/left mean...it means to show a DIFFERENCE ie one the ONE hand this, to the OTHER hand this.....democrats are right wing compared to liberals

naziism, fascism, comunism, socialism , marxism ALL come from the progressive movement..ALL are about REDUCING individual RIGHTS and freedoms

the american liberals are the SAME as the european fascists of the 1930'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

Quote:
Quote:



"""You know I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does. I'm perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths""""...FDR, May 1941
As an ardent admirer of Marx, Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) called his version of Marxist socialism "Fascism" . Instead of nationalization--government ownership--of private business, Mussolini advocated government control of business via complete bureaucratic regulation.


Quote:
Quote:



"""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
sounds just like american liberals


Quote:
Quote:
"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." vlad lennin
or how about someone more current..a advisor to carter, bush1, clinton , cheney and obama: ....and Zbigniew Brzezinski ..........




Quote:



Quote:
....Zbigniew Brzezinski .....""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"""
notice the GLOBALIST theme
-----------------------------------
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,817 posts, read 19,351,537 times
Reputation: 9616
and this goes back decades:

FDR gave a speech in Troy, NY, 3 March 1912, in which he laid out his philosophy - he placed the "liberty of the community" over "the liberty of the individual."

"The Russian newspapers during the last election (1932) published the photograph of Franklin D. Roosevelt over the caption 'the first communistic President of the United States'." -- Senator Thomas D. Schall

Stalin called FDR in Dec 1933, "a decided and courageous leader." In 1934 he praised FDR's "initiative, courage and determination".


FDR defined Freedom of Religion as Stalin did.

FDR defined Freedom of Speech as Stalin did, i.e. he used the Marxist formulation 'Freedom of Information' in his speeches.

FDR pressed a bill to eliminate the right to bear arms, the guarantee of all others.

FDR told Churchill that "an unwritten Constitution is better than a written one." When reminded there was the Constitution, FDR said after his 1936 inauguration "Yes, but it's the Constitution as I understand it - flexible enough (to do what he wanted)." He admiringly told Churchill that Stalin didn't have to worry about Congresses and Parliaments, "he's the whole works." In a letter to a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, FDR wrote- " I hope your committee will not permit doubt as to Constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation." FDR did not believe in Constitutional checks and balances - he tried to destroy and was prepared to defy the Supreme Court and Congress. He did not believe in advise and consent or the rule of law - he waged war and made treaties without Congressional approval. He did not believe in representative democracy and often said that since Congress did not reflect the will of the people they should be ignored.


FDR defined democracy just as Joseph Stalin did - as the mere act of voting. (Of course he believed it was good to lie to the people to influence their votes. He also engaged in vote fraud - he won the 1928 NY Governor's race solely with massive vote fraud in Buffalo.) In a famous speech FDR said "The truth of the matter was that the public neither knew or understood what was involved...In other words, public opinion would be easy to manipulate." So much for the public will.




FDR brought fascism to the united states


Quote:
A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order , and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." Saul alinski
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 06:35 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