Do cons realize that whenever they say "socialist" they're proving they don't know what they're talking about?

Fascists are social Darwinists. This is a fundamental trait indivisible from fascism. If it is not social Darwinism, it cannot be fascism.

Are liberals social Darwinists? Do liberals complain that social welfare encourages dependency and has a degenerative effect on a society? Do liberals complain that democratic elections are mob rule that entitle the weak to vote themselves the wealth and success of the strong?

Have you heard anybody say anything like that recently? If so, were they liberals? If we assume every word you speak correct then you yourself affirm liberals are categorically not fascist.

On the other hand, Obama is arguably a corporatist which is also a fundamental trait of fascism so although not a particularly constructive exercise, Obama is arguably fascist in some respects but it is crucial to appreciate he is arguably fascist to some extent due to his corporate relationships and policies, not due to any ostensible social welfare policies. It is also crucial to appreciate that Obama is neither a liberal nor a socialist, either of which would preclude fascism. In conclusion... eh... you're not going to get much resistance from me if you want to define Obama as some degree fascist but you'll get unyielding resistance from me if you want to call him liberal.

The only current US political attitudes that are truly reminiscent of 20th century fascism are advocacy for greater authority and entitlement for corporations, opposition to labor rights (fascists are also fiercely anti-union), opposition to social welfare and to democratic elections. Also, socialism is not categorically anti-democratic or anti-capitalist. Every democratic country with a capitalist economy is also socialist.

It is called a "mixed economy" (you are evidently familiar with the term but neither its history or its meaning). Every modern western democracy does and always has operated on a mixed economy. No legitimate political party of any modern western democracy has ever opposed mixed economy policies.

You misinterpret the relationship with fascism in this respect. A "mixed economy" is not a basis for fascism, a merging of state and private enterprise is the basis for fascism (the state endorses, supports and subsidizes selected corporations that then operate as de facto branches of the state, in this arrangement, selected corporations are not answerable to the people, the people are answerable to the corporations, and this is arguably the direction in which the US economy currently moves with such policies as capital gains tax rate breaks, corporate tax breaks, credits and subsidies, payroll tax caps, etc. - The government elevates corporations to a status of greater authority and privilege than individual citizenship). Again returning to Obama arguably = fascist theory, yes, Obama is arguably fascist to some degree based on these criteria but if you do not in the process appreciate that Obama continues arguably fascist policies initiated during the Reagan administration and perpetuated by every administration since, you miss the entire point of the exercise.

EDIT: If you think you are intellectually bold and courageous enough to talk all this direct tough talk about principles and consequences, you always should start with yourself. What do you think it means to tell railroad dave, "you have asshole grandchildren if they're not taking care of and providing for you when you're too old to do that yourself"? What do you think you suggest happens to railroad dave when his asshole grandchildren do not take care of and provide for him when he is too old to do that himself?

If they don't do it, who does, and why can't railroad dave take care of himself in his old age by preparing for it in advance with participation in such programs as Social Security and Medicare? You don't want him to have Social Security or medicare, you don't want ho to have any degenerate social welfare programs that encourage his dependency and promote weakness then when his asshole grandchildren don't care for him, what? He dies of starvation homeless in the street.

You realize your policy propositions force you into the position of making railroad dave die of starvation homeless in the street, right? -and that is of course all so unsightly and inconvenient so maybe it would be more practical to cart railroad dave off to some more remote location where he can die without all that inconvenient mess in the street? You sit here pontificating on the fascism of liberals while talking just like Adolf Hitler.

You should read Mein Kampf. I know you never have. I can tell by your childlike innocence.

You really want to understand what is and isn't fascism? Read Mein kampf or look in a mirror, six of one / half dozen of the other. Barry: Do you think you are the only person any of these questions ever occurred to?

I have always wondered do they think in a communist or socialist society that entertainers, athletes, engineers, college professors, political leaders, manufacturing executives all receive the same pay and have the same standard of living as the common working person. If they believe those professionals do have a different income, higher standard of living what is the difference than what they have now. If they do not believe that, could they show us any successful large society where everyone was fiscally equal, Do they believe the Hollywood elitists the liberal trial lawyers the liberal college professors wil be willing to lower their earnings and standard of living so the poor will have more.

Because they could do that right now if they wanted.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.