So you advocate more for a socialist state model than an alternative model that hasn’t been tried before? How is that different?
Ugh - another one who can’t tell the difference between fascism and socialism.
Don’t fall into the trap of narrow thinking regarding the formal name of the NSDAP. Socialism was on the rise in popularity in post-WWI Germany because conditions had become so shitty. Instead of trying to explain the difference between fascism and communism, Hitler just went with public sentiment. Hitler despised the Russians and especially hated Communism.
His model was about putting the people of Germany first. If a policy didn’t put the German people first then it wasn’t the right policy. Also, no one is driving Soviet vehicles anymore. They are driving a lot of Volkswagens. There is a massive difference in implementation.
I advocate for taking the boot off the neck of the American people. So should you.
There is a reason why this subject is taboo to talk about…because it works.
Nor will it likely mean an end to our gratuitous ME wars in which our politicians insist on extra-constitutional authority to spend American blood and treasure ensuring the free flow of oil to the rest of the world.
1 Like
I believe it’s more an unwillingness than an inability.
Lol, the ASCE has given all 14 catagories of our infrastructure a D grade the last two decades. Government’s not doing that any better than border security…
You certainly like to assume in what my understanding is between the two terms, and I assure you I know what they mean. I think and its my opinion that your conflating the term “Nationalism” without consideration what methods that would be implemented that in your view is to the benefit of a nation and its people.
While Hitler may have refuted the concept of Socialism bearing in line with Marxist ideologies, the fact still remains that he used socialist policies to further his agenda on a myriad of public works projects.
"In Hitler’s version of National Socialism, socialism was “Aryan” and focused on the “commonwealth” of everyday Germans — a group of people he unites as one based entirely on their race. In that same interview with Viereck, Hitler added:
“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. 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, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic… We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”
The point that I was making which you seem to ignore altogether only for you to go on and ramble about definitions which of course has been the subject of debate, is that Hitler still used socialist policies. You can dressed it up any way you want, it was still socialism and for the most part Germany today is a socialist country. The question I posed to you originally was what alternative model would you implement to put forth what you advocate for, and you basically use the same model that was tried before, in other words a socialist approach.
No one has a boot on the American people, they still have free choice for self determination, and as the case with a capitalist free market model. Is it perfect? No, and there are arguments to be made in what ways it is flawed, but in such countries that are based on a Constitutional Republic, such flaws and grievances can be redressed in order to fix the problems, but normally when a free market is allowed to operate unimpeded that usually there will be room for self correction.
Really? Next time you fill up say thanks.
Next time you purchase anything that is produced or transported with petroleum, say thanks.
This winter when it’s freezing outside and you turn on the heat, say thanks.
Without the US increasing production by better than 30% of the last decade everything you purchase from the gas in your tank to the food in your fridge, or the meal you buy at a cafe or fast food place is much more expensive than it is today.
Next time you take a look at the tax revenues generated by all of the jobs and the taxes on sales, to fuel taxes say thanks.
Remember too we’re millions of jobs ahead, good paying jobs with good benefits from this expansion as well.
More money for the oil cartel and less money for average Americans.
Well that’s either pure ignorance, an outright lie or some of both.
More money in the pockets of the military industrial complex.
Less money in the pockets of average Americans.
Happy now?
Still an outright lie.
Noting helps the wallets of average Americans like affordable petroleum.
Millions of high paying jobs have been created directly and indirectly by the expansion of our petroleum sector over the last decade or so.
1 Like
Speaking for myself, I’d prefer higher petroleum prices than killing people and destroying property to keep them low. We’re producing more here now, so we don’t need to be engaging in any further ME wars, and this is one thing that Trump seems to understand and I can find common ground with him on.
1 Like
The funny part about your statement as well as the nonsensical other hyperbole you resort to on this site on a regular basis is that you create your own hegemonies and when you do that you are actually contributing to cancelling out your own cause! You just haven’t figure out that part of the equation yet!
Here’s an interesting moving bar chart showing oil production by country over the a period from Sept 1985 to Dec 2018. The US has never been lower than No. 3 in oil production…and took over the No. 1 spot three times in that period.
2 Likes
From the way your post reads you would be willing to go back to dollar being backed by gold?
The oil prices are kept low to (hopefully) hurt Russia.
Ha, it ain’t working.
Of course it’s working since about half of their economy is tied directly to petroleum prices.
Is Russia bankrupt now?
No. It’s the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ US that’s bankrupt.
Nobody said low oil prices would “bankrupt” Russia and the US is anything but bankrupt.
Russia’s economy has contracted by more than 8% since oil prices started dropping.
The founding fathers had the prerogative to nationalize farming , logging , shipping , trapping or any enterprise that profited from Americas natural bounty .
Instead they provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity .
Wise so wise !
1 Like