What if?

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead

That said....he most asssuredly would have won. The sheer expense of killing millions upon millions of Jews, homosexuals, Communists, and anyone else he didn't particularly like is the only reason we're not calling the U.K. New Hitlerland.

Really? I could have sworn it was this little thing called invading Russia.


They didnt have a chance after the 2nd front opened.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Matthiasa

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Matthiasa

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
What if Obama wasn't a socialist?

what if you knew what socialism was?

What if you did?

Obama IS a socialist. He has been, and still is in favor of forced redistribution of wealth.

Only thing is that is not what socialism is... so try again?

Who owns GM? Government. Check.
Who controls GM? Government. CEO fired, Barney Frank decides not to close his district's plant. Check.
Who owns majority of Citi? Government. Check.
Who owns stake in B of A? Government. Check.

So that covers means of production (GM - cars), and capital (banks).

Pleaze do explain, what iz socializm?

He said socialism was the forced redistribution of wealth, which it is not.
I know the government is shifting to a more socialist stance in how to run the economy, with what its been doing, but that was not what I was commenting about.

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Matthiasa
snip

Redistribution of wealth is most certainly a form of, and part of socialism.

Come on, you're like Clinton saying head wasn't sex.

Forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with authoritarianism.

Forced redistribution of wealth is both socialist in nature AND authoritarian. Socialism and communism require authoritarianism to work. Socialism/communism and authoritraianism go hand in hand in hand.

 

[alkalinetaupehat]

Taupe's law:

Any discussion which has reached the point of proving Godwin's law will, if allowed to continue, digress into a random political "discussion" involving the current president and at some point sex.

+cookie?

 

[Matthiasa]

Originally posted by: Amused

snip

Forced redistribution of wealth is both socialist in nature AND authoritarian. Socialism and communism require authoritarianism to work. Socialism/communism and authoritraianism go hand in hand in hand.

Socialism doesn't not require authoritarianism, not even in practice.
"Communism" on the other hand in practice has always went hand in hand with authoritarianism since its just a guise, due to no sane person wanting to vote in or fight for having a dictatorship to run the country they live, baring extraordinary circumstances.
However I would never call that real communism.

 

[Wag]

WTF?!?!? Where's Marvel Comic's The Watcher when you need him?😕

 

[So]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
What if Obama wasn't a socialist?

what if you knew what socialism was?

What if you did?

Obama IS a socialist. He has been, and still is in favor of forced redistribution of wealth.

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Who owns GM? Government. Check.
Who controls GM? Government. CEO fired, Barney Frank decides not to close his district's plant. Check.
Who owns majority of Citi? Government. Check.
Who owns stake in B of A? Government. Check.

So that covers means of production (GM - cars), and capital (banks).

Pleaze do explain, what iz socializm?

Shouldn't we be in P&N if we're going to fling this kind of feces about?
Was it socialism when Bush did it?

Damn right it was!

 

[0roo0roo]

more sharing tech with japan/not attacking the soviets and they mighta won a stalemate at the very least.

 

[Sea Moose]

This is thread is completely derailed, but i do pose some questions

What if Hitler decided not to invade Russia? And if he simply held his ground on the Russia Front ( Remember Russia and German had treaties early on in the nazi development)
What if he focused on taking england?

I think that in his madnes he got greedy. If he didn't make this one mistake, Europe would be speaking german.

Another what if: what if japan invaded Australia. Apparently they already had a new currency planned. I think Australia would be speaking japanese and Australians would have been either exterminated or made into slave labour.


The world would be a very different place.

Russia would be a Superpower.Germany a super power, America Would be a super power, Japan would be a super power <-- with the best Uranium, China would be a super power.

England Australia france and a lot of smaller countries would be gone forever. And eventually the superpowers would clash. Who knows?

 

[runestone]

Hey Rolo, where did ya go?
Threw out this hand grenade of a thread and left?!!

 

[sandorski]

He certainly would still be villified for destroying Europe, but not as much as he is.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Matthiasa

Originally posted by: Amused

snip

Forced redistribution of wealth is both socialist in nature AND authoritarian. Socialism and communism require authoritarianism to work. Socialism/communism and authoritraianism go hand in hand in hand.

Socialism doesn't not require authoritarianism, not even in practice.
"Communism" on the other hand in practice has always went hand in hand with authoritarianism since its just a guise, due to no sane person wanting to vote in or fight for having a dictatorship to run the country they live, baring extraordinary circumstances.
However I would never call that real communism.

Of course socialism requires authoritarianism. How else would you turn humans into worker bees and go against human nature? How else would you force egalitarianism?

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Cheesehead

That said....he most asssuredly would have won. The sheer expense of killing millions upon millions of Jews, homosexuals, Communists, and anyone else he didn't particularly like is the only reason we're not calling the U.K. New Hitlerland.

Really? I could have sworn it was this little thing called invading Russia.


They didnt have a chance after the 2nd front opened.

If they weren't killing everyone, they could have conscripted many of the people to the East, and had a more comparable fighting force to the Russians, as well as have their own fighting force less split.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Matthiasa

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
What if Obama wasn't a socialist?

what if you knew what socialism was?

What if you did?

Obama IS a socialist. He has been, and still is in favor of forced redistribution of wealth.

Only thing is that is not what socialism is... so try again?

Who owns GM? Government. Check.
Who controls GM? Government. CEO fired, Barney Frank decides not to close his district's plant. Check.
Who owns majority of Citi? Government. Check.
Who owns stake in B of A? Government. Check.

So that covers means of production (GM - cars), and capital (banks).

Pleaze do explain, what iz socializm?

As has been explained many times by many people, merely being more socialist than someone else doesn't make you a socialist. If there's a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being pure socialism, then GWB was a 10 and Obama's a 15. [Don't focus on the numbers, they're just an illustration of something unquantifiable.] This doesn't make him a socialist since his entire focus is aimed at saving our capitalist society. Maybe you think allowing major banks and auto companies which are already going under to do so, putting millions out of work in a time the country is already spiraling towards depression, is a good idea. Pure capitalism might agree with you. However we have never practiced pure capitalism.

You see only black and white. You believe either Obama is a socialist or he's not, or he's a capitalist or he's not. This is a infantile perspective.

If a certain conservative believes in the death penalty in all murder cases, and I, also a conservative, only believed it should apply in certain grievous murder cases, then I'm slightly to the left of that other conservative. According to you, this would make me a flaming liberal since I don't support the death penalty in all cases. As a matter of fact, I am more liberal on the issue than the other guy. That doesn't make me a liberal if you look at to totality of what I believe on the issue.

Calling Obama a socialist is, plainly, retarded. Chavez nationalized oil because it was raking in massive profits and he wanted it for his government. What's the last company Obama took over because he wanted to reap the profits for the governement and not as a last ditch effort to preserve the business, and ultimately, capitalism?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Matthiasa

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80
What if Obama wasn't a socialist?

what if you knew what socialism was?

What if you did?

Obama IS a socialist. He has been, and still is in favor of forced redistribution of wealth.

Only thing is that is not what socialism is... so try again?

Who owns GM? Government. Check.
Who controls GM? Government. CEO fired, Barney Frank decides not to close his district's plant. Check.
Who owns majority of Citi? Government. Check.
Who owns stake in B of A? Government. Check.

So that covers means of production (GM - cars), and capital (banks).

Pleaze do explain, what iz socializm?

As has been explained many times by many people, merely being more socialist than someone else doesn't make you a socialist. If there's a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being pure socialism, then GWB was a 10 and Obama's a 15. This doesn't make him a socialist since his entire focus is aimed at saving our capitalist society. Maybe you think allowing major banks and auto companies which are already going under to do so, putting millions out of work in a time the country is already spiraling towards depression, is a good idea. Pure capitalism might agree with you. However we have never practiced pure capitalism.

You see only black and white. You believe either Obama is a socialist or he's not, or he's a capitalist or he's not. This is a infantile perspective.

If a certain conservative believes in the death penalty in all murder cases, and I, also a conservative, only believed it should apply in certain grievous murder cases, then I'm slightly to the left of that other conservative. According to you, this would make me a flaming liberal since I don't support the death penalty in all cases. As a matter of fact, I am more liberal on the issue than the other guy. That doesn't make me a liberal if you look at to totality of what I believe on the issue.

Calling Obama a socialist is, plainly, retarded. Chavez nationalized oil because it was raking in massive profits and he wanted it for his government. What's the last company Obama took over because he wanted to reap the profits for the governement and not as a last ditch effort to preserve the business, and ultimately, capitalism?

lol. OK. :roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: jonks
As has been explained many times by many people, merely being more socialist than someone else doesn't make you a socialist. If there's a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being pure socialism, then GWB was a 10 and Obama's a 15. This doesn't make him a socialist since his entire focus is aimed at saving our capitalist society. Maybe you think allowing major banks and auto companies which are already going under to do so, putting millions out of work in a time the country is already spiraling towards depression, is a good idea. Pure capitalism might agree with you. However we have never practiced pure capitalism.

You see only black and white. You believe either Obama is a socialist or he's not, or he's a capitalist or he's not. This is a infantile perspective.

If a certain conservative believes in the death penalty in all murder cases, and I, also a conservative, only believed it should apply in certain grievous murder cases, then I'm slightly to the left of that other conservative. According to you, this would make me a flaming liberal since I don't support the death penalty in all cases. As a matter of fact, I am more liberal on the issue than the other guy. That doesn't make me a liberal if you look at to totality of what I believe on the issue.

Calling Obama a socialist is, plainly, retarded. Chavez nationalized oil because it was raking in massive profits and he wanted it for his government. What's the last company Obama took over because he wanted to reap the profits for the governement and not as a last ditch effort to preserve the business, and ultimately, capitalism?

Finally, an intelligent post.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: jonks
As has been explained many times by many people, merely being more socialist than someone else doesn't make you a socialist. If there's a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being pure socialism, then GWB was a 10 and Obama's a 15. This doesn't make him a socialist since his entire focus is aimed at saving our capitalist society. Maybe you think allowing major banks and auto companies which are already going under to do so, putting millions out of work in a time the country is already spiraling towards depression, is a good idea. Pure capitalism might agree with you. However we have never practiced pure capitalism.

You see only black and white. You believe either Obama is a socialist or he's not, or he's a capitalist or he's not. This is a infantile perspective.

If a certain conservative believes in the death penalty in all murder cases, and I, also a conservative, only believed it should apply in certain grievous murder cases, then I'm slightly to the left of that other conservative. According to you, this would make me a flaming liberal since I don't support the death penalty in all cases. As a matter of fact, I am more liberal on the issue than the other guy. That doesn't make me a liberal if you look at to totality of what I believe on the issue.

Calling Obama a socialist is, plainly, retarded. Chavez nationalized oil because it was raking in massive profits and he wanted it for his government. What's the last company Obama took over because he wanted to reap the profits for the governement and not as a last ditch effort to preserve the business, and ultimately, capitalism?

Finally, an intelligent post.

:laugh: more like an excuse to continue to polish O'Great One's knob.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: JS80
blah blah blah I don't know wtf I'm talking about so I'll just resort to nothing but insults because I'm a dunce.

I don't see you adding anything constructive to the conversation. Typical, JS80.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: jonks
This is a infantile perspective.

lol. OK. :roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

I find your refutation persuasive. I was wrong, you were right.

 

[roguerower]

/Pulls up lawn chair to the well stoked blaze and basks in the glow as RoloMather burns like the idiot he is.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: roguerower
/Pulls up lawn chair to the well stoked blaze and basks in the glow as RoloMather burns like the idiot he is.

/passes you a beer and a 'dog

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: JS80
blah blah blah I don't know wtf I'm talking about so I'll just resort to nothing but insults because I'm a dunce.

I don't see you adding anything constructive to the conversation. Typical, JS80.

I didn't take you for a socialist nutsack. Typical belligerent asshole just like phokus, techs, etc.

Nik.txt

 

[JS80]

So someone that comes in to power into a semi capitalistic economy and makes it more socialist isn't a socialist? Right? Saving GM is PRESERVING capitalism? How can I debate someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5?

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: JS80
blah blah blah I don't know wtf I'm talking about so I'll just resort to nothing but insults because I'm a dunce.

I don't see you adding anything constructive to the conversation. Typical, JS80.

I didn't take you for a socialist nutsack. Typical belligerent asshole just like phokus, techs, etc.

Nik.txt

So now, because I called you on your stupid childish post, I'm somehow a socialist? Keep burying yourself with your ignorant posts, JS80. You're only doing yourself an injustice.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: JS80
So someone that comes in to power into a semi capitalistic economy and makes it more socialist isn't a socialist? Right? Saving GM is PRESERVING capitalism? How can I debate someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5?

When GM repays the government (you DO know what a loan is, right?), the government will no longer own GM. It's not like the government is actually making any business decisions. Think of them as simply an investor.

Oh, and take some econ and politics classes. Please. Before you post again.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: JS80
blah blah blah I don't know wtf I'm talking about so I'll just resort to nothing but insults because I'm a dunce.

I don't see you adding anything constructive to the conversation. Typical, JS80.

I didn't take you for a socialist nutsack. Typical belligerent asshole just like phokus, techs, etc.

Nik.txt

So now, because I called you on your stupid childish post, I'm somehow a socialist? Keep burying yourself with your ignorant posts, JS80. You're only doing yourself an injustice.

So you replace my post with "blah blah blah I don't know wtf I'm talking about so I'll just resort to nothing but insults because I'm a dunce." and I'm the childish poster. The problem is I do know what I'm talking about and that was my education and field. You and jonks are the morons who think they know what they're talking about. The worst type of idiots. The ones that think they are smart.