Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Poor cons, they promise smaller government, lower taxes, no deficit spending. But Raygun triples the debt after promising to balance the budget. Shrub daddy raises taxes. And shrub Jr. doubles the debt again with a republican house and senate. Then they play the victims when nobody believes their bullshit any more.So Mussolini is your hero.Does anyone know what in the hell he is talking about?
Outside of the monumentally stupid idea that if you run someone who is politically on the far right end of the spectrum, he will win everyone to his left and carry the nomination...can anyone else detect a point in his incessant drivel? Oh, and by the way, we all have noticed that he won't come out and say whom he is backing to be that person....
In short, the OP is a moron and a coward.
Yeah... he's talking about the failure of anyone who claims that there exists a 'far-right' to actually explain what they mean to convey, through the use of the term.
In truth, thus reality... there is no such thing as a 'far-right'. There is only Right ... and Wrong.
How about following the conversation, Corky?
We're talking in context of American politics. In that context, there is no "far right" or anything remotely close to Mussolini or what is actually "far right." Your comment showing you understand what Fascist "far right" means, reinforces the stupidity of such an argument.
The "far right" is a very small fringe extremist bunch who represent maybe .02% of the potential voters in this country. Most of them don't vote because most of them are also Anarchists and voting is not their thing. But we've already established that "far right" simply means "conservative" to the left. There is no other delineation or meaning when they use the term.
On the right, our choices are: 1) Be conservative and put up with lying lefties calling us names like "far right" and comparing us to ISIS, Mussolini or Hitler. 2) Be "moderate" and apologize for conservatism while rendering ourselves politically irrelevant. We'll have to see which way the GOP decides to go but I don't think they can make themselves any more politically irrelevant. Strong Conservative philosophy is the ONLY way the GOP regains power politically, and that requires a strong conservative messenger.
Republicans have obviously been the unfortunate victims of a campaign to discredit them and undermine their "philosophy".
Here's how the definitions break down for me... Conservatism is basically common sense pragmatism. Philosophy is the love of wisdom with regard to many ideas. Conservative philosophy is the love and appreciation for wisdom surrounding pragmatic common sense ideas. Liberalism is an ideology. I don't know if they wait for instructions.
[
If Democrats want to win in 2016 they will have to do better than simply relying on Republican ineptitude. Democrats will need to offer people something tangibly better, philosophy and ideology are both mostly irrelevant for voters.
Have you ever noticed how stupid and dishonest you are? It's a real problem. You should look into it.[
If Democrats want to win in 2016 they will have to do better than simply relying on Republican ineptitude. Democrats will need to offer people something tangibly better, philosophy and ideology are both mostly irrelevant for voters.
Leftists are ideologues, but at noted earlier, you have no principles at all. Assuming the party is anointing Hillary, you are again promoting a 1%er who fakes compassion for "da po" despite not grasping that being down to her last $100 million was not "dead broke" as far as most Americans go. An open liar and crook, Hillary absolutely represent the ideals of the democratic party, corruption and government sold to the highest bidder is the foundation of the party.
Republican ineptitude, or openly criminal democrats...
Doesn't seem like that hard of a choice.
I did? Really? When did I do that?
Both are just random pejoratives to many on the right. They don't actually know what the terms mean. Nor particularly care. You're dealing with the right wing equivalent of calling someone a 'poopyhead'.
Which is amusing, given Uncensored occasional hang wringing over the 'meaning of words'.
[
Have you ever noticed how stupid and dishonest you are? It's a real problem. You should look into it.
Both are just random pejoratives to many on the right. They don't actually know what the terms mean. Nor particularly care. You're dealing with the right wing equivalent of calling someone a 'poopyhead'.
Which is amusing, given Uncensored occasional hang wringing over the 'meaning of words'.
Your failure to associate ideas with words does not render the words meaningless, it merely demonstrates your lack of intellect.
Socialism and it's subcategory Fascism are well understood by those educated beyond primary school.
[
Alas, its my ability to associate ideas with words that is such a problem for you and your amusing rhetorical blunders. You clearly don't know what fascism is. You use the term as a general pejorative, void of any applicable meaning or understanding.
Which is made all the more funny when you start babbling about only you are an 'actual liberal'. As if the term doesn't have another meaning in modern parlance. It would be as foolish as arguing that faggots can only mean a bundle of sticks. The meaning of terms change.
Though to the best of my knowledge, neither fascism nor socialism have yet acquired new meanings that align with your random pejorative 'poopyhead' usage.
Says who?
You don't actually know or realize anything that didn't come from FOX News or Rush Limbaugh. You repeat everything they say almost verbatim.I did? Really? When did I do that?
I know that you merely post memes from the hate sites like ThinkProgress and Alternet. I further realize that you lack the education and intellect requisite to recognize the source of the ideas in those memes. However, this does not alter what these memes are based upon.
Leftism rests upon a small core of very evil men, manipulating a large group of very stupid people.
I don't think you are evil.
Not much of a historian are you. Fascism was a right wing populist movement. There is no dispute about that.[
Alas, its my ability to associate ideas with words that is such a problem for you and your amusing rhetorical blunders. You clearly don't know what fascism is. You use the term as a general pejorative, void of any applicable meaning or understanding.
How could something never demonstrated be a problem for me?
Your "logic" is flawed.
Which is made all the more funny when you start babbling about only you are an 'actual liberal'. As if the term doesn't have another meaning in modern parlance. It would be as foolish as arguing that faggots can only mean a bundle of sticks. The meaning of terms change.
Though to the best of my knowledge, neither fascism nor socialism have yet acquired new meanings that align with your random pejorative 'poopyhead' usage.
You know that the hate sites told you "fascism is right wing." That is the extent of your knowledge of fascism. You certainly have not read "Il Fascisti," noor did you even realize it existed. I have read it. (in English).
You don't have the slightest knowledge of Benito Mussolini or what his views were;
For instance, prior to forming the Fascisti; Mussolini was head of what;
a.) the reelect George W. Bush campaign
b.) the Italian Bolshevik Party
c.) the Tea Party
d.) the campaign staff of Ted Cruz
You don't know the answer - because you are entirely ignorant of the subject, as you are ignorant of most subjects. You serve the party by blindly chanting memes, there is no meaning to you, you are but a mindless drone.
Says who?
Anyone with an education beyond grammar school.
Ideology is accurate. But in the context of the term 'conservative philosophy', your chosen definition of philosophy is awkward and ungainly as it is uselessly vague. A much better choice would be:
Philosophy:
the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them:
Conservative philosophy is specific. This definition of philosophy is more specific. And thus more appropriate to the terms we're using.
And as I said, the primary difference would be ideals and principles. Which are very much related, if not exactly identical.
I'll get to work on that right away and get back to you. Be sure to hold your breath while I'm doing that.[
Have you ever noticed how stupid and dishonest you are? It's a real problem. You should look into it.
What's really sad is that really is the best you can do.
Are you sure you don't want to log on to DailyKOS and copy a better insult?
[
Alas, its my ability to associate ideas with words that is such a problem for you and your amusing rhetorical blunders. You clearly don't know what fascism is. You use the term as a general pejorative, void of any applicable meaning or understanding.
How could something never demonstrated be a problem for me?
Your "logic" is flawed.
You know that the hate sites told you "fascism is right wing." That is the extent of your knowledge of fascism. You certainly have not read "Il Fascisti," noor did you even realize it existed. I have read it. (in English).
You don't have the slightest knowledge of Benito Mussolini or what his views were;
You can try and divorce 'conservatism' from 'republican'.
Too late... Mitch McConnell and John McCain already did that!
Here's how the definitions break down for me... Conservatism is basically common sense pragmatism. Philosophy is the love of wisdom with regard to many ideas. Conservative philosophy is the love and appreciation for wisdom surrounding pragmatic common sense ideas. Liberalism is an ideology. I don't know if they wait for instructions.
Republican voting tends toward the ideological angle. I mean, 56 votes against Obamacare when they know they don't have the votes? There's nothing pragmatic about that. That's an emotional expression of pure ideology.
Pragmatically the best combo for lowing deficits is lowering spending while increasing revenue. But republicans reject this, insisting that it can only be done through lowering spending. All while proposing massive increases to military spending. That's a recipe for the status quo, not budge reduction.And most definitely ideologically driven.
You've seen republicans vote against the very legislation they sponsored if a democrat supports it. The Dreamer legislation is an excellent example. That's ideological. And the ideological tension of republicans in the House has reached an unprecedented high.
The government shut down in 2013 was pure ideological stupidity. There was no exit strategy. There was virtually no chance of success. Yet they pushed it, were 'giddy' over it, and walked away carrying their own dislocated ass in an ideological tantrum that even fellow republicans called 'the stupidest thing I've ever heard of'
On gay marriage, there's virtually no rational or pragmatic points to be made in opposing it. There's plenty of ideological points, however. And republicans cling to them tenaciously and beyond all reason.
On voter ID, there's virtually no pragmatic purpose, as in person voter fraud (the only kind of fraud that voter ID can prevent) is vitually non-existent. When Pennyslvania was asked to cite how many cases of voter fraud would have been prevented in the State in the last 10 years if they'd have voter ID laws....the State could name none.
Texas was asked the same question, and they named 4 cases, involving 2 instances of in person voter fraud. That's out of 54,000,000 voters cast. Or roughly a 0.00000036% fraud rate. Roughly 8 times less likely than being struck and killed by lightning. Yet Texas and other conservative states pressed forward anyway.
Pragmatism had nothing to do with it. Ideology ran the show.
The GOP defunding of the IRS had nothing to do with 'pragmatism'. There's a 6 to 1 return on funds spent funding the IRS. The US gets 6 dollars in revenue for every 1 dollar they spend. That's ridiculously pragmatic. Alas, the ideological right cut the IRS budget by 20%. That's pure petulant ideologically driven emotion. With their desire for retribution greater than their desire to actually collect revenue.
You can try and divorce 'conservatism' from 'republican'. But its an argument that only works if we accept your favored definition of every term. Which virtually no one does. Meaning that your definitions have very little relevance to the actual political landscape. Or actual people.
My logic is obviously flawless.
As you've once again run headlong into the meaning of words. Fascism isn't the generic pejorative you like to pretend it is. Its a rather specific system involving a dictator with complete power, beligerant nationalism, state sanctioned racism, aggressive nationalism, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, and strict regimenting all industry and commerce.
We don't have that system nor anything even remotely close to it. Making your random accusations of 'fascism' merely more ignorant blunders and misunderstanding of the basic meaning of words.
Socialism is quite different, though less specific in meaning Making your equating of the two more hapless ignorance.
And for the third time you crow about your knowledge of fascism. But you don't actually demonstrate any particular mastery of the topic, nor discuss the system in any specifics.Again, you have no grasp of the parameters. You "know" only what the hate sites tell you. Since reality doesn't match the meme you are trained to spout, you think that reality is false.
Apparently you're a master of the topic as long as you don't actually have to discuss any aspect of it.
Which "aspect" would you like to discuss? How about "central planning?" You may have heard that Mussolini "got the trains to run on time."
How do you suppose he did that?
If you have an argument to make, make it. But your excuses for why you can't are getting rather....conspicuous.
My argument is you have zero knowledge of the subject at hand and mindlessly chant "fascism is right wing" with no ability to critically question whether a centrally planned economy where the means of production are controlled by the state is actually "right wing" or if such a notion is laughably absurd.
You don't have the slightest knowledge of Benito Mussolini or what his views were;
Says you, citing you. And your source sucks.
It would be foolish to cite you, since "Oh Bahhh Bahhhh Bahhh Ma" is the extent of your thought process and knowledge of any given subject.
The one who believes "fascism" to be pejorative is you, a word you fling at enemies of the party, not an actual economic system.
You have no way of knowing one way or the other. You have zero knowledge of what fascism is, nor even of what socialism is. You know only what they hate sites train you to bleat.
Again, you have no grasp of the parameters. You "know" only what the hate sites tell you. Since reality doesn't match the meme you are trained to spout, you think that reality is false.
Here's how the definitions break down for me... Conservatism is basically common sense pragmatism. Philosophy is the love of wisdom with regard to many ideas. Conservative philosophy is the love and appreciation for wisdom surrounding pragmatic common sense ideas. Liberalism is an ideology. I don't know if they wait for instructions.
Republican voting tends toward the ideological angle. I mean, 56 votes against Obamacare when they know they don't have the votes? There's nothing pragmatic about that. That's an emotional expression of pure ideology.
Pragmatically the best combo for lowing deficits is lowering spending while increasing revenue. But republicans reject this, insisting that it can only be done through lowering spending. All while proposing massive increases to military spending. That's a recipe for the status quo, not budge reduction.And most definitely ideologically driven.
You've seen republicans vote against the very legislation they sponsored if a democrat supports it. The Dreamer legislation is an excellent example. That's ideological. And the ideological tension of republicans in the House has reached an unprecedented high.
The government shut down in 2013 was pure ideological stupidity. There was no exit strategy. There was virtually no chance of success. Yet they pushed it, were 'giddy' over it, and walked away carrying their own dislocated ass in an ideological tantrum that even fellow republicans called 'the stupidest thing I've ever heard of'
On gay marriage, there's virtually no rational or pragmatic points to be made in opposing it. There's plenty of ideological points, however. And republicans cling to them tenaciously and beyond all reason.
On voter ID, there's virtually no pragmatic purpose, as in person voter fraud (the only kind of fraud that voter ID can prevent) is vitually non-existent. When Pennyslvania was asked to cite how many cases of voter fraud would have been prevented in the State in the last 10 years if they'd have voter ID laws....the State could name none.
Texas was asked the same question, and they named 4 cases, involving 2 instances of in person voter fraud. That's out of 54,000,000 voters cast. Or roughly a 0.00000036% fraud rate. Roughly 8 times less likely than being struck and killed by lightning. Yet Texas and other conservative states pressed forward anyway.
Pragmatism had nothing to do with it. Ideology ran the show.
The GOP defunding of the IRS had nothing to do with 'pragmatism'. There's a 6 to 1 return on funds spent funding the IRS. The US gets 6 dollars in revenue for every 1 dollar they spend. That's ridiculously pragmatic. Alas, the ideological right cut the IRS budget by 20%. That's pure petulant ideologically driven emotion. With their desire for retribution greater than their desire to actually collect revenue.
You can try and divorce 'conservatism' from 'republican'. But its an argument that only works if we accept your favored definition of every term. Which virtually no one does. Meaning that your definitions have very little relevance to the actual political landscape. Or actual people.
Okay.... so now you somehow think that because I explained how Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology, that this has to mean no Conservative is ever ideological in their views. That is incorrect and not what I said at all. Conservatives can be just as ideological, it doesn't change Conservative philosophy.
