Well socialism I would say is when the state runs the economy as opposed to the free-market. Some define socialism as being when the state owns the means of production, but the thing is, if the state does not own outright the means of production, but directs the companies in terms of how and what to produce, then you get the same result. This is what the Nazi economy did. They outright nationalized certain industries, but other "private-sector" businesses had to abide by the central planning laid out (or else face outright nationalization). Prices, wages, dividends, production quotas, etc...all were tightly controlled.
...I would disagree that the U.S. is nationalist. Americans tend to be proud and patriotic, but not nationalist.
You are incorrect.
Nationalized industries is not
nationalism as the Germans understood it; Nationalism referred to
National Socialism, German Nationalsozialismus, also called Nazism or Naziism, totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect it was an anti-intellectual and atheoretical movement, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.
from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/405414/National-Socialism
Although this source points out its emphasis to the dictator, the people would not have viewed him personally as the essential reason for voting in him (no one anywhere actually reasons, "Let's follow one person's arbitrary desires because we like to be submitted to tyranny.") The people's [German aboriginal's that is] admiration for him was that he empowered them by their sense of heritage and superiority, a strong patriotism that united them by embracing their common ancestral "rights", as they saw it.
All our democratic societies today have way more
nationalized industries than Hitler ever did. You obviously didn't watch the documentary that I referenced that showed how the Bush administration indirectly nationalized it's preferential powers by handing contracts to particular private industries that are the core of the Republican Party's foundation. By taking the decisions out of the democracy's capability to oversee, those industries have no accountability to the people of the United States who vote. This is an indirect way of tyranny because only Republican Party supporters actually decide what those businesses do because the supporters and the companies are one and the same. This is even sneakier than what Hitler even proposed because, at least, he was open and honest about who actually had the authority to govern these businesses. Also, if Hitler was overthrown within his own government, the people would still be able at least to retake the reigns over those nationalized corporations. In America and similar Capitalist societies, this isn't possible any longer. You, as a citizen, are not able to have a say in those companies that are not part of the actual federal government.
I urge you to watch the documentary. You asked for that evidence and I gave it to you. It's now your burden to actually look at it.
Okay, presuming fairness, is not your argument to allow the general public to be armed no different? The American nuclear arms arsenal represents the right of America to own a very big gun. Can you not extend the right to bear arms to your own citizens for a real fear of a possible takeover in such a delicate system like Liberal Democracy to other nations? If not, you presume that the totality of American citizens are far morally superior than other people in other nations.
A few things:
1) Nuclear weapons are not arms. Arms are the basic tools of war that you use one-on-one (swords, knives, axes, firearms, etc...). Not things like bombs.
2) I have no problem with other free countries have nuclear weapons to protect themselves. I do have a problem with violent regimes possessing nuclear weapon however.
Like the spears and shield example I gave, you are just
playing the duck here. [Playing the duck = acting like a decoy duck does to hunting: faking an innocent dummy to coax the prey in to shoot.] Nuclear
Arms are to countries as fire arm are to individuals. Your distinction is insincere to reason.
I already argued the relativity of what one group of people consider evil or violent to another. You'd have to provide evidence that demonstrates that the other sides sincerely believe that they are inherently evil -- that they believe that they are 'wrong'. I also clearly pointed out that
villains do not attempt to appear like comic villains because they don't see themselves as such, contrary to what you want to think. For example, Hitler's mustache that was uniquely definitive of him and scares people today was inspired by Charlie Chaplin (He didn't know he was Jewish.) He wanted to look admirable as his hero. Another example: the Hitler salute was inspired by America's Pledge of Allegiance salute. Only after WWII did the American's decide to change the salute to placing one's hand to their chest over their heart's instead. Even another example: the Swastika that is a symbol of fear to most people today was actually a cool looking symbol, unique, and quite an attractive piece of art. It wasn't designed as an evil insignia. In contrast, most countries do not think of their flags as magical insignias of essential pride to entrench an absurd law to make it illegal to burn like the American's do. To them, it's freedom of speech. Only American flags get burned elsewhere because it represents such an insignia to them as the Swastika did to Germany then.
No?... just the creation of Homeland security and Guantanamo Bay and the ability to detain anyone without due process in the name of National Security!
They don't have the ability to detain anyone without due process. And how is Homeland Security the sign of a tyrant? Guantanomo Bay was created because there just isn't any other place to put the terrorists that were being held. Remember how President Obama, upon becoming President, said that Guantanomo Bay would be closed within a year? And then they found out the hard way why it had been opened in the first place.
Watch the damn documentary I presented for such example's of abuses. Homeland Security is the same as Hitler's policing organizations (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheitspolizei). The term, "Homeland Security" is friendly sounding term. But it's superfluous in meaning considering American's already have the FBI for internal security policing, the CIA for external security policing, a Secret Service for top secret Government protections, regular police forces for State and City governments, police for special cases like Highway Patrols, Sheriffs (originally, land right protection police [other country's sheriffs usually only serve as rentalsmen or real estate right protectors.]
The terms governments that conservatives create are always rhetorically created for emotional affect. For example, the Estate Tax, a tax for real estate inheritance was renamed, the Inheritance Tax by the Bush administration to garner fear that people are losing something by inheriting anything.
How can you impeach a President when he disabled the court's, let alone the public at large, to be able to discover fair evidence? By creating that law to ban all Presidential communications from publicity extended to police investigations. What he did was to make it actually illegal to impeach a President until fifty years later, a time he is likely to be dead! And how do you measure this 'least scandal-wracked' qualification?
Not sure which law you are referring to (could you provide a link?). Also, the president does not create laws, they only enforce them. To create laws requires Congress. As for the least scandal-wracked, well Bush didn't have any equivalent to Iran-Contra like Reagan, nor was he getting blow jobs like Bill Clinton, nor were there any IRS, Justice Department, NSA, Benghazi, etc...scandals like with Obama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233 This is another example of how your Republican government likes to name things. In this case, they wanted to hide the relevance of this act by labeling it with as much an innocuous description as possible. Executive Order means that it was a law commanded and enacted by the President alone! That is, an exemption to skip your elected Representative. The Iraq war was a scandal, as the rest of the world and half of your own population clearly sees it. The appointments to oversee Wall Street which pretended to investigate the frauds that the big bankers, brokers and other wealthy and powerful schemers but did not even try to put any of them in jail is another example. Likely, the schemes would have linked the cons directly to the politicians and friends as the investors who gained from them. It was not rationally possible not to discover anything since there were plenty of people willing to come forward to prove this but were absolutely ignored! The billions of dollars stolen by these people ruined the economy and harmed people in more real ways than what President Clinton did. His act to "get a blow job" is a personal indiscretion that has zero effect to other people's lives and fortunes. Other than his own personal relationship, the only people it had any consequence to is to religious assholes who seem to think somehow their god is going to curse America or something. Also, the costs to the taxpayers by the Republican Congress to attempt to indict him was another absolute rhetorical device meant to create a monster out of a Democrat when they had nothing real to actually vilify him with.