Hitler felt the "Bern"

[Christians4LessGvt]

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah right. Bernie lost dozens of relatives to the Nazis, so that proves he was a Nazi.
Hitler claimed to be a Socialist for the same reason lunchmeat claims to be "gluten-free". It was a popular word in 1930. He was a Fascist, not a Socialist. Socialism nationalizes and regulated corporations: Fascists climb into bed with them.

[sirs]

Yeah right. Bernie lost dozens of relatives to the Nazis, so that proves he was a Nazi.

Nor did Cu4 claim Bernie was a Nazi, either   

Hitler claimed to be a Socialist for the same reason lunchmeat claims to be "gluten-free". It was a popular word in 1930. He was a Fascist, not a Socialist. Socialism nationalizes and regulated corporations: Fascists climb into bed with them.

Because of course, you know precisely why Hitler did/said what he did.  You're just that clairvoyant, aren't you.  Point being, there's very little difference difference to begin with, since a central authority is still dictating everything.  1 form tells corporations what to do, while the other simply owns them to begin with.  Both are stellar examples of what losing freedom costs

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't need top be clairvoyant to know what Hitler thought. I read Mein Kampf. My father has a copy a German pal of his gave him when he lived in St Louis.
The structure of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), was hardly a secret. Subtle they were not.

[sirs]

The point being the difference between a diehard fascist and a diehard socialist is........ next to nil.  Both support a totalitarian Governmental authority, dictating how you are to function.  And when it comes to corporations, one orders corporations what to do, the other, simply owns them outright, in order to make them comply

[Plane]

. Socialism nationalizes and regulated corporations: Fascists climb into bed with them.

With scissors.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The governments of Scandinavia are very far from being anything anyone could call totalitarian. In each of them, there are a plurality of parties so that people can support more precisely those who agree with their positions, rather than two parties as we have in the US. They are constitutional parliamentary democracies and are run by coalitions of parties in such a way as when one or more coalition party rejects what the majority wants, as a rule another election is held almost immediately.

sirs  knows about as much o modern socialism as  the Inaccessible Flightless Rail knows about aviation, or a hyena knows about a "chronosynclastic infundibulum.

If this country were run the way Bernie ran Burlington, we would all be better off.

[sirs]

If this country were run the way Bernie ran Burlington, we would all be better off.

Nope, not going to happen.  Even the Democrats now how much a disaster a socialist running at the top of their ticket would be to their party

[Plane]

  Is "electability" the main problem Sanders has?

[sirs]

To the hard core left, no.  To the country in general, big time

[sirs]

The point being the difference between a diehard fascist and a diehard socialist is........ next to nil.  Both support a totalitarian Governmental authority, dictating how you are to function.  And when it comes to corporations, one orders corporations what to do, the other, simply owns them outright, in order to make them comply

[Christians4LessGvt]

SIRS....hope ya don't mind if I shrunk the image a bit...

[sirs]

Hehe.......not at all     

[Xavier_Onassis]

Hitler was not any sort of Socialist. 

Bernie was a very competent and respected mayor of Burlington. he staged no Putsches,  he had no uniformed good squads.

[Plane]

Hitler was not any sort of Socialist. 

Why not?

How would Hitler and Mussolini fail the definition?