Ssshhh be quiet vagabond! Everybody here knows about the burden of proof. That's the magic of this thread.

I'm one of the people who requested he devote a whole thread to this theory so we can all discuss it, and see his claim in the thread title, 'cuz he kept slipping it into other random threads for no reason. I'm just sad I got here late and missed the first page.

*points to north korea*  you better tell them they arent allowed to be both then ;)

It's somewhat possible.

While considered on the other ends of both spectrums they do tend to intersect at some points.

The early stages of Communism i'd call quite facist... and no communism to my knowledge has ever progressed past those early stages.

Afterall Facism puts the state above all, while Communism puts the people above all. Both subvert freedom and the freedom and well being of some people.

In the early stages of a communist government the communist government is only going to accept people if they go along with the program and what the state sees as best... just as a facist government only accepts people if they go along with the program and what the state sees as best.

The only difference is eventually the communist government is supposed to "fade away" at some point.

A person who was both a communist and facist would likely believe that it was the governments job to make sure that everybody is equal and that Marx's second stage where the government eventually fades away as people become used to everyone being equal is unattainable. Either because the people aren't ready for it or because their is an outside force in which a strong government is ready.

Which i'm sure supporters of people like Stalin or Mao ZeDong would of suggested were the case with said people.

This would be communist and facist basically because to keep things communist you need the states power to remain absolute to keep people in check and stop them from exploiting the system. As such you would need the state to survive above all else or you would lose the communism.

Really most communist governments have also been facists.  One could argue they aren't "true" communists and maybe they aren't, or maybe they were and actually believed the time for the first phase hadn't passed yet.

Either way I don't see Obama as either.  Hillary Clinton seemed the more facist of the two. 

i stated why hes likely to be the anti christ.  If you wish to challenge the correctness of what i said, then the burden of proof is on you.

i am not a teacher...if you wish to enter a discussion you would first need to know something of the discussion.  you dont know anything about the points ive made, so you fail.

its not like obama will be the first gay president of the US. 

 Wow, just wow.  He has absolutely no concept of the burden of proof.  At all.  It's pathetic.  You're challenging the accepted norm.  You prove what you're saying.  We don't have to do anything.

Yeah, you don't know what burden of proof means. According to burden of proof I don't have to disprove what you said, you have to prove what you said.

If you say there is a pink leprechaun that brings tea to china every night, it's not up to me to show that there isn't after you claimed it.

You claimed that he murdered his gay lovers, he's a communist, and some other crap. Show some evidence other than you heard there are dead gay people at his church.

And by the way, one of the key tenets of fascism is the opposition to communism, they are mutually exclusive political ideas

Actually I'm the antichrist until MrBubbles proves me wrong. The burden of proof is on MrBubbles, no matter who makes the claim or what the claim is.

Wow. This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen here. Just because you don't like someone, doesn't make them the Anti-Christ.