More Misleading Name: People's Republic of China or The National Socialist Party

[BigStereotype]

Well? Which one is it? Or are they both right on the money, because oppressive regimes are obviously always honest with the rest of the world.

[Bastian Loc]

The People's Poster.

That's what we should be focusing on.

[BigStereotype]

I actually think you're a smart guy, I just think you're so far off base on so many things and you lash out a lot.

[Bastian Loc]

I actually think you're a smart guy, I just think you're so far off base on so many things and you lash out a lot.

What's this about?

[dj Ramos]

What is the meaning of this?

[BigStereotype]

Oh that thing in the other thread where you said that Hitler was a socialist because of the National Socialist Party. Sort of ridiculous. You've got a lot of knowledge, but I just see you adding up two and two and getting five all the time. What's up with that?

[Bastian Loc]

Oh that thing in the other thread where you said that Hitler was a socialist because of the National Socialist Party. Sort of ridiculous. You've got a lot of knowledge, but I just see you adding up two and two and getting five all the time. What's up with that?

If you were part of his party, it was Socialism par excellence. Privatize the profits and socialize the losses.


In the end the people lose no matter what nomenclature you slap on it. Maybe people misunderstood it, but I think I'm a pretty clear communicator.

[BigStereotype]

If you were part of his party, it was Socialism par excellence. Privatize the profits and socialize the losses.


In the end the people lose no matter what nomenclature you slap on it. Maybe people misunderstood it, but I think I'm a pretty clear communicator.

That is literally exactly the opposite of what I read from your other posts. He wasn't a socialist, regardless of the name. That's right on. Maybe I did misunderstand, but "Hitler was a socialist" doesn't really leave much room for interpretation.

[Bastian Loc]

That is literally exactly the opposite of what I read from your other posts. He wasn't a socialist, regardless of the name. That's right on. Maybe I did misunderstand, but "Hitler was a socialist" doesn't really leave much room for interpretation.

If you're taking it as a literal interpretation of "socialism" then I guess it wouldn't make sense. To me that word is synonymous with tyranny and totalitarians.

So whether you call yourself a fascist, communist, socialist or even capitalist, in the end it doesn't even matter because they're all top down modes of control with cutesy little labels to get people to argue the "isms" amongst each other.

Which is pointless because no matter what they call themselves, the people are always left with less and less.

[BigStereotype]

If you're taking it as a literal interpretation of "socialism" then I guess it wouldn't make sense. To me that word is synonymous with tyranny and totalitarians.

So whether you call yourself a fascist, communist, socialist or even capitalist, in the end it doesn't even matter because they're all top down modes of control with cutesy little labels to get people to argue the "isms" amongst each other.

Which is pointless because no matter what they call themselves, the people are always left with less and less.

Except for socialism being synonymous with tyranny, that makes perfect sense. I don't really think that it matters what he was, just that people did lose. It's the definition of a semantic argument. But then when you try and use Loughner reading Mein Kampf as evidence of him being a liberal, that's where it gets dicey. Like I said, two and two, getting five.