It’s not a valid definition. It’s the definition of Nazism not Fascism. Nazis happened to be economic fascists, but there were many Fascist states that did not fit the definition you posted.
The only common thread through the advocates of Fascism is the private ownership of property with government control. If you say you do not advocate this, I don’t believe you.
What’s a valid definition of fascism?
This is an interesting article…
“You can look up definitions of fascism and often, if they’re not about Hitler, race won’t be in there,” Ben-Ghiat says. “That’s something that often gets left out, especially [when talking about] fascist Italy. There was this idea that Hitler was anti-Semitic and Mussolini wasn’t, but it’s about a larger concept of race. Mussolini was an imperialist, so he used colonialism to [abuse] people of color. The fear of white decline was a huge part of it. Women were supposed to go have a lot of babies to increase the white race. A lot of old-fashioned explanations"
I’ve given it twice.
And race/ nationalism doesn’t enter your definition at all…Without that its not valid imo. That was a big part of he movement,/ideology.
- I believe you should pay for yourself. I don’t believe you have the right to shift the burden to others. I believe charity should help those that cannot help themselves because government is a proven failure at it.
- Yup. I remember when the right was trying to limit speech and for that reason, I would entertain voting for Democrats at one point. No longer, the ones limiting speech are on the left now.
- Nope. I believe a HS diploma should reflect what’s important in the area that it’s taught. For instance, we had agriculture classes, auto repair classes and other ones that were more geared to teaching skills than teaching theory. Would an agriculture class benefit a guy in New York City? Probably not, so why teach it there? I don’t like one size fits all policies. They’re harmful.
- No. Absolutely NOT. I think putting government in charge of these things ALWAYS leads to fascism.
- No viewpoint should be silenced. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
- Nope. I don’t like one size fits all policies. What may be important in Texas might not be important in NYC.
- Of course not, I believe in the 2nd Amendment. It’s the final check and balance against tyranny.
- Nope. I think you’re missing a lot of what makes a communist but interesting questions.
-
Minimum wage and Healthcare for all yes.
-
Thats ridiculous
-
To a certain extent yes, can add regional topics on top of a basic curriculum.
-
Not at all…Regulated? Absolutely
-
No…I find it humorous, but decided to play along anyway…
Just curious…
- What should the wage be set at? Who pays for the healthcare?
- What regulations?
I think $15 is a good minimum. Healthcare everyone should pay for, like another SS tax.
As for fire arm regulations…I have no problem with hunting rifles/ shotguns (ex hunter) or pistols kept in the home. The military style with the high capacity mags I see no reason for them. And I see no reason that someone who does have them, would need to carry them through town with them, its ridiculous. I don’t believe in it being so easy to obtain a conceal carry either…If someone wanted a permit, they would have to provide a credible reason why they needed it. I dont think its good idea to just hand them out… way too many wackjobs out there.
If someone has a drivers license from New York, and someone else has theirs from CA, they both have a good core of the same knowledge. They’ll both know that, at a 4 way stop, the driver on the right has the right of way. They might not know whether a right turn on red is legal in each other’s state, but they will be aware its an option.
If having a drivers license means the same from different states, why not HS diploma?
What do you base the $15 on? I think arbitrary minimum wages are harmful to the economy and overall employment. From what I’ve seen, $15 was a random number chosen with no basis in logic. It hasn’t been examined to see what the impact will be to production or overall jobs and ultimately, it will drive inflation rather than quality of life. I don’t think people get that production is what increases wealth, not random numbers pushed by government. As to another SS tax, that’s only for the working. So only the working adults get healthcare?
As to the next point, this is where compromise goes out the window. You see no reason for “military style” weapons and you think I need a reason to carry a firearm. Let’s examine some facts.
#1. AR15’s (I’m assuming that’s what you are referring to as a military style weapon (it isn’t as deadly as a standard 30.06 hunting rifle) are used in LESS than 1% of the total firearm murders in this country. As a matter of fact, more people are beat to death with hands and fists than are killed with ALL rifles. Why the paranoia for this specific firearm?
#2. Just because you see no reason for them doesn’t mean they should be banned. As a matter of fact, the entire PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, it’s about a final check and balances against tyranny and in case you haven’t been paying attention, this latest Covid scare shows us exactly how quickly government results to force against law abiding citizens… so to think they can’t get tyrannical is just ignorant. I NEED the same weapons the government will use against me should tyranny take root.
#3. I have a LTC and Texas closely tracks statistics on LTC holders. It’s extremely clear that LTC holders are FAR less likely to commit a crime than the general public, so your fear of a wack job getting one is misplaced. Those wack jobs are going to get a gun whether you like it or not and they’ll not bother with your rules.
#4. The 2nd Amendment covers the right to keep and bear arms. Doesn’t limit us to home possession alone. Part of the intent was to have a population that was used to carrying firearms and using them. This would enable us to fight back tyranny if needed and don’t forget, if not for private ownership and proficiency, we would still belong to England.
1 Like
There’s a big difference between driving and overall education. Some things, such as minimum standards for Math and English are fine but when you default to the Feds for a national standard, it never stays into the core topics. I don’t mind recommended standards that the states can choose to adopt or not but Federal regulations are a bad idea in my view. I want the education of our kids kept as close to the parents as possible.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on firearms, Im not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change mine…But one thing before I leave that part of the discussion. One reason always given “I need weapons to stand up to a Tyrannical government” What do you think a tyrannical government is going to come after you with, just rifles? They’ll have armor. aircraft etc…And what were the yahoos going to do with the rifles at the rally that was in Michigan or Wisconsin? Storm the governors office if they didn’t get what they want, or threaten violence if if they didn’t get their way?..The whole scene was ridiculous…
As far healthcare goes, no, not only the working will get healthcare. Those that work will pay. Should those that don’t work not be able to use or have access to any public services paid for by others taxes? Parks, libraries, public transportation, police/fire department etc etc…there is no difference.
This is what a lot of communists say, as well.
If they say that, they’re right.
They aren’t.
1 Like
This isn’t about a few people taking down the government. This is about millions of armed citizens going against a tyranny. The fact that millions of us are armed means that the battle will probably never have to be waged. Deterrent is worth a lot. That said, if you read Federalist 46, you can get an idea of what I’m talking about. Yes, a few thousand people against the feds would stand zero change but that’s not what the 2nd was intended to cover. Think about something. How much hell have insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan given our military? You think it would be different in the US with a massive popular uprising? I’m always amused by people that think we intend to storm the governors office if we don’t get our way. This is about 100,000,000 armed Americans fighting against tyranny. Ideally, like 46 states, it would be organized by state governments. The fact that we have millions of armed Americans to pull from is what would make it possible.
So on the second, again, we’re going to stick the burden on working Americans and by increasing the costs of employment, we’re going to have less working Americans. As to there being no difference, I’d suggest that’s incorrect. There is a huge difference between infrastructure and a commodity. We spend about $3 Trillion a year in health care, that’s nearly a doubling of the US budget. Right now, government at all levels consumes 35-40% of the US economy. Exactly how much of the economy should we allow government to control and consume?
1 Like
It is a deterrent in a paper tiger sort of way, because the American public would get stomped out.
1 Like
And Ike modeled our Interstate system after Hitler’s Autobahn…
I don’t agree. We can’t beat the insurgency in Afghanistan and we’ve dedicated the entire force of the US military to stomp it out. Another issue would be the military. How many would fight for the country rather than a federal tyranny? I’d suggest it would be a significant number and then you have to deal with the veterans that are armed and trained the same way our active duty is trained.
