Willard Romney, National Socialist

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I'm beginning to think that perhaps Gingrich is really the true Rockefeller Republican (Gingrich is an international socialist, a communist) between the two. That's ironic considering the communist represented a GA district and the other represented an MA district, but it's the truth. I think Gingrich favors global government, whereas Romney favors America ruling the world.

Anyway, Mitt Romney scares the shit out of me. See here for an explanation of why he's a fascist.

On the bright side I'm not an Arab and I am American, but that doesn't make Mitt Romney's nationalism right.

Here are the fascist planks of Mitt Romney's platform:
Imperialism.
Supremacy of the military.
Mercantilism (particularly protectionism against China including paper money and tariffs on China made imports, and trade agreements with anti-communist countries like SK).
Demonizing of Arabs.
His anti-communist, anti-democratic, regulatory health care law.
His anti-democratic lust for power.
His rigging of elections, whether it's through Wall Street donors or through ballot box fraud like he apparently attempted in IA.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Why would it "scare you"? You have stated a number of times you wish the Germans won WW2.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Why would it "scare you"? You have stated a number of times you wish the Germans won WW2.
I don't recall saying that. If I did say that, then it was out of emotion because the Allies behaved just as poorly as the Axis powers did yet the Allied crimes are overlooked and the Axis ones aren't. The Allies chose to get involved which was responsible for the murder of millions when there was no threat posed to two of the three.

I do believe that Hitler posed no threat to America (Smedley Butler said so while Chamberlain and Hoover had the same viewpoint) and that FDR sacrificed Americans to protect Britain's aggression as well as to defend USSR. I also think that Churchill and FDR could've prevented the Holocaust, but they refused to let Jewish refugees in.

So, all Britain and the US had to do was not fight, let refugees in, and USSR and Nazi Germany would've crushed each other. Instead, they chose to fight and to let the Jews die. Long story short: I hate the allies just as much because FDR, Truman, and Churchill were largely responsible for the majority of military deaths during WWII, they were responsible for just as many civilian deaths as the Axis, and they also could've stopped 6 million civilian deaths.
 
Last edited:

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,415
3
81
Butthurt because Romney is going to be the nominee?

"On the bright side I'm not an Arab and I am American"
Seriously? Is this how you really feel?
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Butthurt because Romney is going to be the nominee?

"On the bright side I'm not an Arab and I am American"
Seriously? Is this how you really feel?
No, I'm just saying that he fits the definition of a fascist.

Maybe he's not going to kill all of the muslims. I don't know. However, he is very hawkish and I wouldn't be too surprised if he targeted some group of people. It's safe to say that group of people would be Arabs these days.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
You guys wander off the reservation or what? Maybe the nut-farm police need to pick a few people up. I would not exactly call Romney a facist. He may be more like an old-style compassionate democrat. I know a couple of democratic mormons who are very conservative but still democratic.

I watch a lot of Korean Historical movies and there are some themes going on between the struggles between their old class system. They had Butchers, Commoners, Lords, and royalty (King) classes in their class system as well as a merchant class, and a kind of Scholar Class. There was always a danger that if you let the commoners be taken advantage of that they would starve and then develop plagues that would kill everyone else in the process. So even the Lords would sometimes give out food to the poor because it was in their best interest to stay alive.

In all things there is balance. In a couple of the historical films it was taught by kings and other Lords that no matter what you do for the "People", they would never be satisfied and always want more. They cared about the people but they also had limited resources. In all societies it is the rich and powerful that take advantage of the poor. However, if the people become too poor they often would start gangs and live by stealing from people that had riches and resources.

So even if Conservatives do want to preach self sufficiency or self reliance and being responsible, it is in our best interest to be socialist to a certain extent. However, it is the balance that is important. I think the balance too far on the compassionate side is just as dangerous as being too conservative and greedy.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,847
26,626
136
I have this new hypothesis. The OP has a script that turns all of Wikipedia's history and politics pages into flash cards. He also has a spinner with the names of all current presidential candidates. He selects three flash cards at random and starts a thread combining the selected topics and relating them to a random candidate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.