View Poll Results: Are Nazis or Communists worse?

Voters
80. You may not vote on this poll
  • Communists

    20 25.00%
  • Nazis

    52 65.00%
  • I am a Nazi/Communist

    2 2.50%
  • Rootabega

    6 7.50%
Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1220212223 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 224

Thread: Which are worse for you? Nazis or Communists?

  1. #211
    User Thetexastrigger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-22-13 @ 10:45 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8

    Re: Which are worse for you? Nazis or Communists?

    Kind of a poorly worded poll for two reasons. First, what do you mean by worst? Are you asking which is more evil or are you asking which works less effectively? If the latter, how do you define effective?

    Second, the choices are categorized differently. It would have been better to ask, "Which is worst: Communists or Fascists?" or "Soviets or Nazis?". The reason being that Communism is a political ideology, whereas the Nazis were more of a political party who happened to be Fascist. Its kind of like asking, "Which is worst: Convertibles or Toyota Hybrids?" I said Nazis were worst only because they were a party that specifically carried out a policy of institutionalized violence under a coercive state - meaning they acted immorally. Conversely, the act of being a communist hurts no one. I think the Soviets were worst than the Nazis, and the Soviets may have been communists, but there is nothing inherently evil about communism. If a free people choose to erect and live under a system of communism, I wish them well. I wouldn't want to...though, it isn't like fascism (as we have in America) is much better.

    I hope that was clear.
    If men are not angels, then who shall run the government?

  2. #212
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Which are worse for you? Nazis or Communists?

    Quote Originally Posted by iacardsfan View Post
    Nazi, anybody that voted Communism is obviously not correctly informed with the goals and views of communism.
    It's not the goals and views of communism that is the problem. It's how human nature responds to it, and that a good idea quickly becomes an authoritarian dictatorship, out of necessity.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  3. #213
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    01-04-17 @ 10:49 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,432

    Re: Which are worse for you? Nazis or Communists?

    I would have to say Nazi's because they thought of themselves as superior based on blonde hair, blue eyes...master race BS. I have blonde hair and blue eyes but that is not my idea of utopia...a bunch of pasty whites frolicking around feeling superior etc. Communists at least had an ideal that a lot of us want, which is equality, even though its impossible to obtain.
    Caitlyn Strong...

  4. #214
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,143

    Re: Which are worse for you? Nazis or Communists?

    Communism killed and subjugated waaaay more people than Nazism. On sheer real-world impact, communism has been worse, even though Nazism gets more press.

    Of course, this is keeping in mind that no true communist system has ever been implemented (and probably never will be).

  5. #215
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Which are worse for you? Nazis or Communists?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Straight white male, so... Commies. Commies always kill the intellectuals. I'm not saying the learned had it easy under the Nazis, but at least we had a chance.

    If "worse for me" includes my suffering resulting from the persecution of others, then Nazis.
    The Nazis killed their intellectuals as well.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  6. #216
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: Which are worse for you? Nazis or Communists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Juiposa View Post
    Poor choice of words on my part, but any two ideologies have similarities. Nazism and Communism though is as different as it gets.
    Not really. There are a lot of important differences, but the power and the aim of both governments are pretty similar.
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  7. #217
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,991

    Re: Which are worse for you? Nazis or Communists?

    Quote Originally Posted by iacardsfan View Post
    Nazi, anybody that voted Communism is obviously not correctly informed with the goals and views of communism.
    Does it matter? The theory applied to the world is exactly what produced Stalin and Mao. We can fall in love with Marx' theory of fantasized perfect utopia all we want, but eventually its either right or its wrong for an imperfect world. What do millions of corpses in China and Cambodia say?

    Utopia has never and will never exist. Therefore, communism is a Leftist dream always destined for killing fields...just like a quick burst of Nazi program.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #218
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Which are worse for you? Nazis or Communists?

    Quote Originally Posted by iacardsfan View Post
    Nazi, anybody that voted Communism is obviously not correctly informed with the goals and views of communism.
    "goals and views" are the only criteria we are allowed to use?

    hmmph, I guess the OP should have limited us to that instead of allowing us to determine our choice based on our own criteria.

    meh, I'll stick with Commies....
    had a Nazi ever tried to kill me, I might feel differently

  9. #219
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:22 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,412
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Which are worse for you? Nazis or Communists?

    Quote Originally Posted by thatwhichisnt View Post
    Capitalism works because of philanthropy, families, and a sense of community?
    Yep... and Socialism destroys this fabric.

    You know we have the second highest rate of child poverty compared to other industrialized powers? Horrid healthcare system? One in seven children living in a food insecure homes?
    BS.
    You know that the best EU countries... the Top 5... had they been US States... you know where they would land as far as prosperity and quality of living?
    The bottom 5 US States.
    www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf

    Our healthcare system is among the best in the world... the problem with ours just as with this government intrusion.
    Y


    Millions of people homeless while there are roughly 5 million empty and vacant homes?
    Millions are homeess? Stats please.
    Those vacant homes are due to government intrusion in the housing loan system. Once again... government intrusion is the problem, not Capitalism.
    Millions of people out of work with roughly 1/5th of our productive capacities idle because it is deemed unprofitable? Two major economic downturns within the last 25 years with 11 recessions between them? Huge inequality between the rich and the poor (CEO to worker pay is up to around 403 percent last I checked)? Corporate profits the highest percent of GDP in its history while worker wages is the lowest in its history (3q last year). I could go on and on.
    Recessions happen... and are made deeper by idiotic government intrusion.


    We are an increasingly atomized and selfish people. How one can say otherwise is beyond me. Also, your view of socialism is quite wrong. It is the opposite of how you characterize it. Socialism isn't the USSR, China, or the like. That is heavily controlled state capitalist.
    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics... Socialist systems. And we have the needle of that poison in our system... and it's caused huge problems.

    Socialist systems are most selfish and barbaric. They kill upward mobility; just go to Germany or some other EU hole and see what it's like to open a company.

    And what is wrong with looking out for yourself first? When a system allows you to prosper... you also have the flexibility and ability to give without fear the rug will be taken out from under you... as Obama is doing. He is trying to kill philanthropy with his idiotic schemes... and this is by design.

    You are a "Libertarian"??? My ass. You're Left... Liberal, Socialist Left.
    Last edited by zimmer; 02-16-13 at 06:31 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  10. #220
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:22 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,412
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Which are worse for you? Nazis or Communists?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptinSarcastic View Post
    I don't think government intrusion is the problem, I just think it is methodology. There was a serious problem with poverty among the elderly, the nation wanted to do something about it. They needed to pay out current seniors who had not paid in. They should have done this in a phased approach, paying out the contemporaneous poor seniors on a needs basis, and set up a system for people to fund their accounts over time.
    Coulda, woulda, shoulda... why didn't they?
    Because they thought their socialist Ponzi Scheme would work.

    We don't need government to hold our hands. America did fine without them before.
    I would also argue that there is nothing perverted or even new in our people, but that the problem is the shift in our economy from a balance between labor and capital that has heavily favored capital. Capitalism is the engine of our economy, but an engine can be debilitated by too much fuel. We complain about current tax rates and ignore the past when they were much more progressive and much higher.
    1916 was the first Federal income tax. Aimed at less than 1% of the population. Look at what it has wrought. The disease right out of the Commi manifesto.
    Our economy is based on consumer spending (about 70%), when the policies change in such a way that new money goes into fewer and fewer hands, the results expected are exactly what we are seeing now. We missed a lot of what was going on during the first part of this decade because consumption was fueled by debt backed up by home values. When that house of cards fell it exposed the reality of our economy, consumers had far less disposable income than previously.
    Government caused that problem... passing legislation forcing banks to make bad loans. Just like the income tax, Social Security... this created problems on a scale 100 times more massive than they were supposed to "solve".

    We have since seen capital try to make up for this by selling products for less by producing them for less. But to do this, they hve outsourced production, killing more American jobs and putting greater downward pressure on incomes.
    That is what happens when you price labor too high. Unions... your chickens have come home to roost.

    A sustainable economy should function by one simple edict, take a little, leave a little, but don't break up the game.
    Who decides what is "sustainable"? Some pinheads in DC? No... let the free market reign.
    Our policies over the last 30 years put us on a path to break up the game. Through most of the last century wealth was concentrated at a level of about 22% of all private assets in the hands of 1% of capitalists. And it remained in that vicinity for most of the century. With the policies beginning in the 80's, this changed, pushing a greater and greater share of the wealth into fewer and fewer hands to the point where over 40% of all wealth is in the hands of 1%.
    The mass of wealth will always be in the hands of the top 20%. It will change hands... some will fall out, others will rise up. It shouldn't be discouraged... and a society of class envy will only hurt the greater good for the greatest number.

    Where do you think this train goes?
    We all know where the socialist train goes. Into disrepair... and despair.

    We're not Czarist Russia, but if we are heading in that direction, what do you suppose will happen? Do you believe that continuing this path of wealth concentration is sustainable?
    The Top 20% will always have the greatest wealth. This will become more concentrated the more socialist legislation we have and the harder it is to move upwards. Socialism kills upward mobility... and Obama's schemes are designed to kill that. Those that have don't have to worry... but their assault on those creating wealth is a break and hammer.

    I don't come at this from a perspective of a desire to see wealth equality or to stick it to the rich. I come at this as a patriot who would like to see America work for Americans they way it had in the past in a sustainable way. Capitalism is not a form of goverment, it is an economic system, and it cannot function in the absence of a political system.
    Capitalism works and works best for the most people.

    But that political system will create the construct, the playing field, if you will, for the capitalist system. The system cannot be fair, it is built by the haves for the benefit of the haves,
    Pure BS.
    Capitalism works for all. Those who want to go out and do it can reap the rewards of their labor. If they don't want to take the risk... they can find employment from a risk taker.
    BUT, and this is key, the haves need to have a long term view of how they put policies in place.
    The long term view of Socialism is terrible. It fails everywhere... and it is not just.

    if they are consumed by the short term view, they will take as much as they can as soon as they can, and they will break the system. Rich people don't make policies thaat are good for workers because they love workers, they make policies that are good for workers because ultimately, the workers have the power to take everything they have. When FDR began instituting labor favoring policies, it wasn't out of a desire to be socialist, it was out of a necessity to avoid revolution.
    Let those who want to look out for the short term do so... let those who want to take the long view do so... there is room for both. Some will succeed, some will fail. THAT's LIFE... and government intrusion only fecks things up.

    FDR may not have desired socialist policies, but that's what he delivered... to the detriment of the country. He is the root of much evil.

    We need balance.
    WE NEED FREEDOM... from an overbearing, omnipotent and omnipresent government

    Obama is FAR from being socialist, in fact, the policies he favors could save capitalism from itself.
    ROTFLOL... Obama is killing Capitalism with his idiotic Socialist policies. And he is a Socialist... and you've sounded like one throughout your post... with talk about class warfare... some people having more than others, and a need for Capitalism to be managed by a bunch of pinheads. You last line was the winner... "the policies he favors could save capitalism from itself." ROTFLOL...
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1220212223 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •