EveryG

12 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

So that takes care of you, anyone else want to try.

 

As aforesaid by me many times, National Socialism is just another form of Socialism, like Menshivism, Bolshevism, Maoism, Titoism.....

 

It amazes me that someone could hold out an orange and say its an apple.

 

You still have not refuted anyhting I have said, but Ill give you points for trying, all the other Socialists here are cowards.

It appears you lack reading comprehension skills as well. Hitler was LITERALLY saying we are not socialists, we are stealing the term and separating it from Marxism. He then went on to imprison and kill people who fall under the common definition of socialists. He literally told you this is an orange, not an apple. Your inability to comprehend this shows how much you are blinded by ideology and allergic to facts.  

Nazism was not socialism and it was not left-wing. You have not proven your claim at all. 

22 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

You havent disproved ANYTHING  in my OP.  All, you have done is screech and mark up what I wrote to the point that you are incoherent.

 

Socialism mandates murder. That drives you Socialist apologists nuts. 

 

I dare you to take my argument point by point. You cant.

 

Is Socialism an ideology mandating a collective over the individual?

I am of the OPINION that socialism and communism will always result in totalitarianism. I don't need to rewrite history as you have attempted to do to have that opinion. 

Your post is an attempt to make a simple point super complicated for what appears to be no reason at all. Let me prove you wrong in a more simple way:

Quote

When I take charge of Germany, I shall end tribute abroad and Bolshevism at home. Bolshevism is our greatest menace. Kill Bolshevism in Germany and you restore 70 million people to power. 

-Adolf Hitler himself contradicting your OP

AND

Quote

Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

-Adolf Hitler himself defining his party in a way that contradicts your OP

https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/hitler-nazi-form-of-socialism-1932/

So above you can see Hitler himself refutes your equivocation of nazis with bolshevism and/or socialism. He later made good on his promise:

Quote

Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews.  In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively. The Nazis arrested more than 11,000 Germans for "illegal socialist activity" in 1936.
https://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/NazismSocialism.html#:~:text=Hitler and the Nazis outlawed,illegal socialist activity" in 1936.

So...again I say that your op is total nonsense. 

9 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Was National Socialism a collective ideology? Tell us about the party program, did it espouse Socialism? Tell us why Otto Strasser broke with Hitler. Do you understand the concept of factionalism? Is there such a thing as Left Socialism and Right Socialism ?

 You claimed "National Socialism was a Left Wing Socialist Political Movement" and you failed to prove that in your OP. Period. You refuse to address your logical fallacies directly because they are so incoherent, therefore you pose a new series of questions to deflect.

Find me one serious historian who agrees with this premise. Anyone who makes this claim is a political sycophant engaging in revisionist history.

And let's all be logically cohesive. The fact, and it is a fact, that the Nazi party was a right-wing branded party does not mean all right-wing parties are like Nazis. Even even it was a left wing party, it doesn't mean left-wing parties are Nazi parties. This is a fallacy looking for an illogical argument. Thus, total nonsense. 

4 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Sorry, I dont read improperly formatted stuff since it may be removed and then my responses will be lost.

Your first post proves you are incapable of response anyway. And the fact that you could format a response however you want shows that you are making excuses. Rather pathetic, much like your original 6th grade book report  

6 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Still cant win can you lol. You have refuted nothing. So you are disputing the whole concept of Left and Right now btw?

 

Are you disputing the National Socialist party program?

Line by line, here you go:

Quote

All of the Precepts of Socialism are based on community. Hasty Generalization, "ALL" is hardly true and you have not listed a single precept. 

 

The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, indeed all the Socialist partys, believed in the dictatorship of the "workers and peasants" where all would live in peace and harmony, from each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need. Hasty Generalization, plus it's just a dumb statement that they ALL "believed in" dictatorship, as if it's a religion  This is a completely nonsensical line of thought that has no basis in reality.

 

In order to achieve this utopia, the "class enemy" must be fought and defeated and the instruments of oppression (bourgoiuse captialist government) overthrown in a revolutionary mass movement. In Bolshevik terms, that revolution is to be led by the "vanguard", the elightened activists. This only applies to the Bolsheviks even though you will try to make apply to a Boogeyman later. 

 

The National Socialists beleived in the racial community of all Germans, an Aryan volksgemeineshaft. They were opposed to and fought the existing bourgeouise government, which was viewed as a tool of the racial enemy,  and as such the National Socialists were revolutionary. Here is where you are redefining terms to suit your needs so you can later draw a false conclusion...the idea  that the Germans racism is "community" based and equivalent to the Socialist community sharing of the means of production is, quite frankly, beyond just a stretch...it's just dumb. 

 

Both philosophies were revolutionary. Revolution is a tool of the left. Historians of the American Revolution might disagree with you. 

Both philosphies had enemies. The Bolsheviks, for example, had the bourgeoise and capitalists. The National Socialists, had the Jews.

Both philosophies were similar economicaly. Socialism entails the State the owning the means of production. National Socialism was hybrid, private ownership under the direction of the state for the benefit of the state was permitted, and the government owned other economic concerns (viz, the SS economic empire).  A series of False Equivalences

Both philosophies were "mass movements". Everything was to be a benefit to either the "people" or the "volk" The US Constitution starts with "We the People...".... do you yet begin to see how logically incoherent your post is?

 

The very fact of their revolutionary nature demonstrates that National Socialism is left wing. That left wing American Revolution, seeking to benefit the people... 

 

The fact that National Socialists are also Socialists is amply demonstrated by the foregoing. Yes, because words always mean the same thing  in every context all the time without exception, also known as the Definist Fallacy

 

Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature. According to your "foregoing" logic, this would include the left wing American founders who engaged in revolution in order to benefit the people, who are definitely socialists because they also had an enemy (chose one: the British, the native populations, etc)

All of your many misspellings in red, my responses in green. 

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Translation: I cant argue against any of your points either.

I have literally argued against every one of  your points. You are the only one incapable of response. 

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

PS: the American Revolution was a Left wing revolution. You didnt know that? The left stood for Liberal Thought and the thRights of Man until the term "left" was coopted by the Socialists.

More nonsense. You think that in your world if everything can be neatly put into left and right boxes the world makes sense. My point is that this is a childish view of the world, not worthy of serious debate, and completely illogical. Again, I feel like this is coming from a 12 year old. 

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Try reformatting and I will answer you LOL.

You seem to be under the impression that I am interested in your response- let me assure you I am not. My previous post was for people who may have mistakenly thought you wrote something serious- I demonstrated clearly that what you wrote was incoherent nonsense, superficial, and the pointless ramblings of a political sycophant. You can't handle my point, which is that by the logic of your OP, the entire foundation of the US was also equivalent to socialism. I'm not making that argument, but it shows how flawed what you originally wrote is. None of your points add up to the conclusion- not even close. 

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Tell us where you got the terms Historians fallacy and Presentism, and define them for us too.

The irony of you asking for clear definition of common terms when you seek to distort commonly known terms in your op is hysterical. I do not have time to explain logic to those who have demonstrated already they do not comprehend it....try using Google. 

I find it comical that anyone would think your original post has anything close to a substantial argument. Take any statement you made, but just as an example saying "Revolution is a tool of the left" when the country you claim to be so proud of was born of revolution. The OP is completely ridiculous on its face, worthy of nothing but mockery. 

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The left and the legacy media, (the propaganda wing of the Democrat party) will do all they can to stop Trump from doing what the American people want and elected him to do, and then they'll blame Trump for not getting it done.

 

Trump has a mandate for many of the policies he wants to put in place, and the most people know the legacy media are liars and will not buy into their nonsense this time around.

And no matter how bigly he fails, you will find your scapegoats in the boogeymen that you have created in your imagination. Right now we have 2 parties playing the same game, which is counting on their sycophants to tow the party line. Democrats will scream at Trump's every move and MAGAs will defend him despite the fact that he has no vision other than staying out of prison. I dare say between the two of you, the US future looks bleak. 

On 1/5/2025 at 8:51 AM, Yagoda said:

Translation: That which I am incapable of understanding is "nonsense"

Your posts are one logical fallacy after another, this one being the appeal to ignorance, which is the entire MAGA approach to the world. 

You are simply attempting a revisionist history based on your political views, not on history at all. Your entire first post is based on the Historian's fallacy and Presentism. Let me show you:

On 12/31/2024 at 11:55 AM, Yagoda said:

All of the Precepts of Socialism are based on community. Hasty Generalization, "ALL" is hardly true and you have not listed a single precept. 

 

The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, indeed all the Socialist partys, believed in the dictatorship of the "workers and peasants" where all would live in peace and harmony, from each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need. Hasty Generalization, plus it's just a dumb statement that they ALL "believed in" dictatorship, as if it's a religion  This is a completely nonsensical line of thought that has no basis in reality.

 

In order to achieve this utopia, the "class enemy" must be fought and defeated and the instruments of oppression (bourgoiuse captialist government) overthrown in a revolutionary mass movement. In Bolshevik terms, that revolution is to be led by the "vanguard", the elightened activists. This only applies to the Bolsheviks even though you will try to make apply to a Boogeyman later. 

 

The National Socialists beleived in the racial community of all Germans, an Aryan volksgemeineshaft. They were opposed to and fought the existing bourgeouise government, which was viewed as a tool of the racial enemy,  and as such the National Socialists were revolutionary. Here is where you are redefining terms to suit your needs so you can later draw a false conclusion...the idea  that the Germans racism is "community" based and equivalent to the Socialist community sharing of the means of production is, quite frankly, beyond just a stretch...it's just dumb. 

 

Both philosophies were revolutionary. Revolution is a tool of the left. Historians of the American Revolution might disagree with you. 

Both philosphies had enemies. The Bolsheviks, for example, had the bourgeoise and capitalists. The National Socialists, had the Jews.

Both philosophies were similar economicaly. Socialism entails the State the owning the means of production. National Socialism was hybrid, private ownership under the direction of the state for the benefit of the state was permitted, and the government owned other economic concerns (viz, the SS economic empire).  A series of False Equivalences

Both philosophies were "mass movements". Everything was to be a benefit to either the "people" or the "volk" The US Constitution starts with "We the People...".... do you yet begin to see how logically incoherent your post is?

 

The very fact of their revolutionary nature demonstrates that National Socialism is left wing. That left wing American Revolution, seeking to benefit the people... 

 

The fact that National Socialists are also Socialists is amply demonstrated by the foregoing. Yes, because words always mean the same thing  in every context all the time without exception, also known as the Definist Fallacy

 

Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature. According to your "foregoing" logic, this would include the left wing American founders who engaged in revolution in order to benefit the people, who are definitely socialists because they also had an enemy (chose one: the British, the native populations, etc)

So, there...I have demonstrated how your post is complete and total nonsense. You will no doubt come back and move all of your goalposts to argue how the US is different. Again, just continuing your series of one logical fallacy after another. 

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

And you cant dispute any of it

Nonsense does not need disputed 

On 12/31/2024 at 11:55 AM, Yagoda said:

All of the Precepts of Socialism are based on community.

 

The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, indeed all the Socialist partys, believed in the dictatorship of the "workers and peasants" where all would live in peace and harmony, from each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need.

 

In order to achieve this utopia, the "class enemy" must be fought and defeated and the instruments of oppression (bourgoiuse captialist government) overthrown in a revolutionary mass movement. In Bolshevik terms, that revolution is to be led by the "vanguard", the elightened activists.

 

The National Socialists beleived in the racial community of all Germans, an Aryan volksgemeineshaft. They were opposed to and fought the existing bourgeouise government, which was viewed as a tool of the racial enemy,  and as such the National Socialists were revolutionary. 

 

Both philosophies were revolutionary. Revolution is a tool of the left.

Both philosphies had enemies. The Bolsheviks, for example, had the bourgeoise and capitalists. The National Socialists, had the Jews.

Both philosophies were similar economicaly. Socialism entails the State the owning the means of production. National Socialism was hybrid, private ownership under the direction of the state for the benefit of the state was permitted, and the government owned other economic concerns (viz, the SS economic empire).

Both philosophies were "mass movements". Everything was to be a benefit to either the "people" or the "volk"

 

The very fact of their revolutionary nature demonstrates that National Socialism is left wing.

 

The fact that National Socialists are also Socialists is amply demonstrated by the foregoing.

 

Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature.

I put this at about the level of a 12 year old giving a social studies report and I would give it a C-

5 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

...and right on cue, the "b-b-but Trump!" refrain rises from the cheap seats.

 

Do better.  

Right, cuz this forum is not littered with MAGAs doing the same thing 

4 hours ago, candide said:

Well, unlike Trump, there is no evidence Biden was paid by the CPC. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2023/04/10/china-paid-trump-millions-in-rent-then-he-left-the-white-house/

Easy with all of  that evidence! Why deal with reality when you can hate people for things you make  up about people you hate because of lies you heard on Fox?

On 12/19/2024 at 11:00 AM, connda said:

Bluesky or X (formally known as Twitter) - Where do YOU feel "safe" to post. 

Have you made the shift to Bluesky post Trump's election win or are you remaining on X - or will you use both?  Feel free to explain your reasons why.

TV used to be the idiot box, now the idiots have gone to social media. 

5 hours ago, illisdean said:

Except for, lets start what you missed, ie, "Donald" as you mention, is that President Donald Trump perhaps...? The same Donald that just LANDSLIDED the feckless pathetic democrat un-elected loser candidate on 11/5? That Donald?? 

 

Have you perhaps heard the "Trump Effect"? Since I am such a fair minded lad, I'll share some with you. But, please share some of the "Biden Effect" and try to stay away from his trademark gaffes, afghan failures, border failures and the national security and humanitarian crisis's created by the "Biden Feckless Effect"., don't forget the effect Biden had on empowering Iran after send them cash & ending Trump sanctions. If not for Biden, illegal aliens would not be burning people on the NY subway. Thats a great biden effect, wouldn't you agree? Now do Biden or if you prefer the Kamala effect.

This has nothing to do with what I posted. Plus, I'm not a democrat, and never said a nice thing about Biden on this forum or anywhere else.  You are incapable of following a simple line of thought and show your colors by going off on some irrelevant tangent. Donald is a malignant narcissist and nothing you posted contradicts that. 

Quote

In a draft of a 42-page report reviewed by Axios, the committee says it found "substantial evidence" that Gaetz "regularly" paid for sex between 2017 and 2020; had sex with a 17-year-old in 2017; and used cocaine and ecstasy on "multiple occasions" between 2017 and 2019.

• The report also alleges that Gaetz accepted improper gifts, misused official resources and lied to the State Department to help a sexual partner obtain a passport, and obstructed the committee's investigation.
• The findings, it says, are based on a review of nearly 14,000 documents and communications with more than two dozen witnesses.

At least the creepo cokehead is out of congress and where he belongs...one of Trump's BS media/ propaganda machines 

Maybe he and Don Jr can regularly cut lines together now 

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So still no evidence then? 

It's easy to see that you are not actually interested in evidence, but the evidence was already presented at a trial, seen by a jury, and Trump lost. There is no point in relitigating a jury trial here because you are not interested in arriving at the facts, as the jury was instructed to do. That's why he's been ordered to pay $5 million for sexually assaulting E Jean Carroll. Trump's defense was proven completely false - laughably so.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How does Trump being in a picture with someone prove he knows them? Oops. 

You sound like a child denying obvious facts such as Trump cannot claim to have never met E Jean Carroll (which is what Trump actually claimed) when a picture shows them together. 

Some people here do not comprehend rules of evidence and how that relates to findings of fact, much like they don't understand how statistics and probabilities relate to polls. 

1 minute ago, frank83628 said:

He was not found guilty of rape,  you can scream it until you are blue in the face...  actually I expect you already are.

And you can scream this until you are blue in the face, I never said he was. 

This is a literal strawman...oh wait, logical fallacies are like the MAGA SOP. 

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You're still lying. there was no "photographic evidence". Oops. 

 

Trump claimed he did not know her, and there is no evidence that he did. Oops

 

You have presented no evidence.

 

Wrong. There was that picture of them together shown at the trial. You. Are. A. Clown.

Ironically, as Trump was lying saying that he never met her during his deposition, Carroll's lawyer showed him this picture. When asked who that woman was, he said it was Marla Maples. So Trump blew his entire defense up because they proved he did know her and that he would have been attracted to her at least in the same manner he was his own wife. The jury saw the taped deposition of Trump getting caught lying. 

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I never denied he was found liable for sexual assault. You are a liar. 

I never denied a jury found him guilty of 34 felonies. You are a liar. 

 

I never denied a jury for the Trump companies guilty of fraud. You are a liar. 

I never denied his CFO went to prison for fraud. You are a liar. 

Only the left thinks the law asking for votes. 

You are lying again. Trump bragged about women allowing celebrities to have their way with them. 

That you never have any evidence and have to constantly resort to lying make me laugh.

 

Poor, poor lefty.

Again, your reading comprehension shocks me over and over. I was not accusing YOU of denying the fact of his convictions, but saying MAGAs will deny all of the evidence contained in those convictions. Same for all of the other examples. It's hard to tell if you are incapable or if you mind is just so twisted by ideology that you cannot read. Either way, no evidence will convince you that Trump committed sexual assault, that he committed criminal fraud, and that he committed fraud. 

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So you have no idea what the evidence was. I thought not. 

I know what all of the evidence was, and it was much more than just her word.  Most notably was Trump's deposition where he was caught lying twice...with photographic evidence. Oops. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump

So given how easy it is to find the evidence against Trump, what you wrote below only proves that you are really bad at lying.

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

There was no evidence except for the word of E. Jean Carrol