"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[Boss]

Newsflash to any Elite Republican reading this thread: Here is a devout Socialist who wants to change America into the Soviet Union run by Hillary Clinton... He is telling you that we need to run another fucking moderate for president in 2016! Do you really want to go with HIS advice here? Really???

There are no where near enough 'elite republicans' to win a presidential election. Or even a GOP primary. Your focus in inherently exclusionary. Its what's turned the 'Big Tent Party' into the a self contradictory mess that is trying to purge itself of 'RINOs' while its desperately trying to court their votes.

Republicans are by far the most sympathetic audience your ilk have. And even among them, you can't convince a plurality to vote your way. And yet you honestly think that you're going to see better support among moderates, liberals and independents than you will among the GOP?

Laughing......Nope! That's a straight up math fail there.

You started with a true statement. There are nowhere near enough 'elite republicans' to win a presidential election. Mitt Romney and John McCain are the proof. They are also proof that there are enough 'elite republicans' to win the nomination. This is because the Conservative vote is divided between several candidates while the "establishment" settle on one guy and that's their guy.

The so-called "Big Tent" is facilitated by the message of a Conservative philosophy because Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Establishment republicans are the same kind of ideologues as liberals, they just want to control the power and they try to conceal the fact they are ideologues.

Conservatism doesn't need sympathy. It resonates with people who are philosophically conservative no matter what party they've supported in the past. A solid conservative voice can win a plurality and will win a landslide in the general. I don't expect them to win over liberals or moderates because I don't live in Narnia and rainbow ponies don't exist. Most of the so-called independent voters (defines myself) are Conservatives.

Now the math is... The conservative vote divided by 5 or 7 or 9, is going to always be less than the GOP Elite vote. Conservatives have to find that person who has the voice and can articulate Conservative philosophy and get totally behind that person instead of splitting their votes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would characterize fascism as anything but a right wing populist movement. No actual scholars of history have ever described Fascism as a left wing movement, never would, never could have.

DailyKOS isn't "legitimate historians," sploogy.

After WWII - leftism was in a world of hurt, the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned nations of Germany and Japan had devastated much of the world, while the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned Soviet Empire swooped in and grabbed up Eastern Europe and the Japanese holdings in the East. Meanwhile the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned regime of Mao arose in China.

Suddenly, totalitarian, centrally managed and planned governments were out of favor.

What to do?

Then some Bolsheviks in the ivy covered halls of academia had an idea, "Let's lie - not just a little lie, but a BIG LIE, just like Hitler described!" They then started claiming that the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned government of Germany was vastly different than the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned government of the USSR. Clearly the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned government of Germany was right wing because, uh, don't ask questions if you want to pass the class. Where the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned government of the USSR is just misunderstood and hasn't been given a fair chance to prove how superior it is to the free markets of the West.

 

[Boss]

Conservatives did have a voice in every election I cited. The more conservative 'voices' weren't nominated.

You claim they could have done better, or even won.

Well?

Name who could have won...

No... they didn't have a voice. I didn't claim they could have done better or even won. You're asking me to give you examples of someone who didn't exist and I can't do that.

If Conservatives had someone like Ronald Reagan who could have articulated Conservative philosophy, they would have won in a landslide over Obama or any other liberal lefty. The fact is, they had no such person on the national stage. They had a few who tried but failed because they weren't articulate enough. I can't change reality, it is what it is. Your demands that I present some alternate reality that never happened is kind of stupid.

After the disastrous presidency of W, there is nobody the repugs could have trotted out that could have won in 2008, no matter how right wing nutty. Even Rush Limbaugh and the ghost of Reagan couldn't have pulled it off.

Again... It is easy to predict what would have happened in your own imaginary universe that doesn't exist. You see... We could have nominated Donald Trump and everyone would have fallen in love with his hair and he would have crushed Obama in the biggest landslide in political history because he's that great with his great hair! ...See how easy that was? ....Of course, we don't live in that realm of reality, do we?

As I point out in the OP, Conservatives have lacked the voice to articulate Conservative philosophy effectively. It doesn't really matter about speculation of what might have happened, what DID happen is all that counts. Will Conservatives find that "voice" in 2016? It remains to be seen.

W was an establishment Republican who was also a strong social conservative. The social conservatives were the key to his wins. Most true Conservatives couldn't stand his policies and were very vocal about that... in fact, that is where the Tea Party emerged. Since then, the establishment have decided to abandon social conservatives and distance themselves from them.

Conservative philosophy is important because it includes social conservatives in the "Big Tent." It also appeals to social moderates and libertarians, not to mention the vast majority of "independent" voters. This is a coalition that can't be defeated. It begins with a candidate who knows and understands how to articulate Conservative philosophy... which wasn't John McCain or Mitt Romney and is not Jeb Bush or Chris Christie.

 

[Skylar]

You've attempted to erect a straw man, and failed miserably.

The actual meaning of fascism isn't a 'strawman'. Its an indictment of your claims. As the word's meaning and your usage don't match. You can't get around that.

As the actual characteristics of fascism don't exist here, nor are being proposed by anyone of significance of either party. There's no dictatorship. There's no state sanctioned racism. There's no belligerent nationalism. There's no violent suppression of opposition and the press. There's no stringent controls on the economy or society.

Yet you laughably keep trying to apply the term fascism in naked, blundering defiance of the term's actual meaning.

Laughing....nope!

The ACA is a fascist system, but only covers 1/6th of our economy.

Obviously it isn't. Its an overwhelmingly private system. There's no state sanctioned racism involved. There's no violent suppression of the opposition. There's no dictatorship. ACA didn't nationalize anything. You simply don't know what fascism is.

You're demonstrating the folly of allowing professional libertarians do your thinking for you. As you just slap the pejorative 'fascism' on anything you don't like. That may be emotionally satisfying. But it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.}


The Economic Leadership Secrets of Benito Mussolini

And your source? Why its yet another libertarian, Cato institute regular.

Jim Powell is Senior Fellow at a libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., with which he has been associated since 1988. He has also done work for the Manhattan Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Right to Work Committee and Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.

Jim Powell historian - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which only demonstrates my point. The only folks you're going to find that back your definitions are those professionally pushing libertarianism. Thus, your Sheldon Richmans and your Jim Powells.

Mussolini himself acknowledged that fascism was right wing. Yet that's inconvenient to Richman's and Powell's libertarian narrative, so they omit it. As do you, who is shilling the same libertarian narrative. But why would anyone NOT aggressively pushing a libertarian agenda do the same?

There is no reason. Fascism is most definitely right wing. And its most definitely not what we have here. Rendering your claims to the contrary yet more hapless ignorance.

The problem you have is they aren't my claims, they are the words of Benito Mussolini.

Nope. You quoted Sheldon and Jim. Benito explicitly rejects your claims, with Mussolini characterizing Fascism as RIGHT wing. And unambiguously stating that Socialism is opposed to Fascism. With Mussolini refuting and rejecting Socialism.

Which is why you quote Cato Institute regulars like Sheldon and Jim. They say what you believe. Benito contradicts you.

If it's not ThinkProgress you simply won't accept it!

Dude, how about a source that doesn't make his living shilling libertarianism. They don't have to be Think Progressive. But you wont' listen to anyone outside the CATO institute, anyone not 'advancing an uncompromising case for libertarianism'.

And you know it matters. Which is why you hid your sources a half dozen posts. The only folks that support your are CATO Institute adherents who professionally push a libertarian agenda.

Do you have a thought that isn't whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites?

Um, the dictionary is 'whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites'?

Fascism:
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Laughing.....you're so far down the fringe right wing rabbit hole that now the DICTIONARY is a 'left wing hate site'. When the English language itself is now your political enemy, you may want to reevaluate your process, buddy.

 

[Boss]

The OP is yours, you can't defend it, so you accuse me of changing "the rules of debate where you can accuse me of anything you like without any evidence and I am supposed to just shut up and take it?" You are supposed to tell us with evidence why you are not far right, yet all you have done is confirm it.

You don't get "just once more" as a deflection, bub.

"IF he were alive and running, I would vote for him again just like I did in 1980 and 1988" is a lie. You would not vote for deficits and tax hikes and so on and so forth. Stop lying. Mitt, McCain, etc., are much more conservative than RR and you have admitted you would not vote for them.

I am a devoted and devout Republican who will not let far right reactionary wanks like Boss give us another far right losing candidate. Not ever going to happen.

I think you must be an insane person. I don't buy that you are a Republican. I think you are a Liberal who want to deceive people and you think this is a clever way to do that. You're too stupid to pull off "clever" dude.

I'll ask you one more time, what is "far right" or "reactionary" about anything I believe or stand for? You are welcome to go to my profile, search through my threads, view all my posts. Find the evidence to support your allegation or we will assume your allegations are false and you can't support them.

You see... DUMB people believe empty rhetoric! Really stupid morons who can't think for themselves have to rely on others to tell them what to believe. Then, like sociopaths, they convince themselves of their own baseless rhetoric. Now, I don't care if that's how you want to be, Jake, that's your business... BUT, I am not going to let you spread lies about me personally and every time you call me :"far right" or "reactionary" I will be here to let everyone know you're a liar who can't back up your lies with facts.

 

[Skylar]

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would characterize fascism as anything but a right wing populist movement. No actual scholars of history have ever described Fascism as a left wing movement, never would, never could have.

DailyKOS isn't "legitimate historians," sploogy.

Laughing....dude, just because you only cite flagrantly partisan, professional libertarians doesn't mean that every historian on earth is being paid to push a particular ideology. You're spewing your own laughable lack of intellectual integrity onto us. And you can back it with nothing.

While BOTH of your sources are professional libertarians and CATO institute fellows. So I can definitely demonstrate the agenda and stark political narrative they're trying to advance.

And exactly as Liminal has pointed out, you can't find a historian to back your narrative who ISN'T a CATO institute fellow or professional libertarian.

It would make as much sense as expecting reliable information about Global Warming from Greenpeace.

 

[Liminal]

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would characterize fascism as anything but a right wing populist movement. No actual scholars of history have ever described Fascism as a left wing movement, never would, never could have.

DailyKOS isn't "legitimate historians," sploogy.

After WWII - leftism was in a world of hurt, the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned nations of Germany and Japan had devastated much of the world, while the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned Soviet Empire swooped in and grabbed up Eastern Europe and the Japanese holdings in the East. Meanwhile the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned regime of Mao arose in China.

Suddenly, totalitarian, centrally managed and planned governments were out of favor.

What to do?

Then some Bolsheviks in the ivy covered halls of academia had an idea, "Let's lie - not just a little lie, but a BIG LIE, just like Hitler described!" They then started claiming that the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned government of Germany was vastly different than the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned government of the USSR. Clearly the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned government of Germany was right wing because, uh, don't ask questions if you want to pass the class. Where the totalitarian, centrally managed and planned government of the USSR is just misunderstood and hasn't been given a fair chance to prove how superior it is to the free markets of the West.

I think you've just proven two things: First, you don't know anything about any history that doesn't come from a website. Second, you are completely dishonest about everything all the time.

 

[Liminal]

You've attempted to erect a straw man, and failed miserably.

The actual meaning of fascism isn't a 'strawman'. Its an indictment of your claims. As the word's meaning and your usage don't match. You can't get around that.

As the actual characteristics of fascism don't exist here, nor are being proposed by anyone of significance of either party. There's no dictatorship. There's no state sanctioned racism. There's no belligerent nationalism. There's no violent suppression of opposition and the press. There's no stringent controls on the economy or society.

Yet you laughably keep trying to apply the term fascism in naked, blundering defiance of the term's actual meaning.

Laughing....nope!

The ACA is a fascist system, but only covers 1/6th of our economy.

Obviously it isn't. Its an overwhelmingly private system. There's no state sanctioned racism involved. There's no violent suppression of the opposition. There's no dictatorship. ACA didn't nationalize anything. You simply don't know what fascism is.

You're demonstrating the folly of allowing professional libertarians do your thinking for you. As you just slap the pejorative 'fascism' on anything you don't like. That may be emotionally satisfying. But it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.}


The Economic Leadership Secrets of Benito Mussolini

And your source? Why its yet another libertarian, Cato institute regular.

Jim Powell is Senior Fellow at a libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., with which he has been associated since 1988. He has also done work for the Manhattan Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Right to Work Committee and Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.

Jim Powell historian - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which only demonstrates my point. The only folks you're going to find that back your definitions are those professionally pushing libertarianism. Thus, your Sheldon Richmans and your Jim Powells.

Mussolini himself acknowledged that fascism was right wing. Yet that's inconvenient to Richman's and Powell's libertarian narrative, so they omit it. As do you, who is shilling the same libertarian narrative. But why would anyone NOT aggressively pushing a libertarian agenda do the same?

There is no reason. Fascism is most definitely right wing. And its most definitely not what we have here. Rendering your claims to the contrary yet more hapless ignorance.

The problem you have is they aren't my claims, they are the words of Benito Mussolini.

Nope. You quoted Sheldon and Jim. Benito explicitly rejects your claims, with Mussolini characterizing Fascism as RIGHT wing. And unambiguously stating that Socialism is opposed to Fascism. With Mussolini refuting and rejecting Socialism.

Which is why you quote Cato Institute regulars like Sheldon and Jim. They say what you believe. Benito contradicts you.

If it's not ThinkProgress you simply won't accept it!

Dude, how about a source that doesn't make his living shilling libertarianism. They don't have to be Think Progressive. But you wont' listen to anyone outside the CATO institute, anyone not 'advancing an uncompromising case for libertarianism'.

And you know it matters. Which is why you hid your sources a half dozen posts. The only folks that support your are CATO Institute adherents who professionally push a libertarian agenda.

Do you have a thought that isn't whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites?

Um, the dictionary is 'whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites'?

Fascism:
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Laughing.....you're so far down the fringe right wing rabbit hole that now the DICTIONARY is a 'left wing hate site'. When the English language itself is now your political enemy, you may want to reevaluate your process, buddy.

I don't know why you bother, it's not as if he argues from an equal position.

 

[JimH52]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh...

Would be?

Well it IS Rubio, Cruz, Tea Party wingers, and others who make the GOP look like a lunatic asylum

Well, again, you fuckwits keep on mouthing this but you aren't giving any examples. Is that the best you all can do? Mouth some smart ass shit that you can't back up? It doesn't take very many brain cells to sit here and accuse someone of being a lunatic. I've not seen such a strategy work since about 3rd grade, but good luck!

Enough of the name calling Boss. Answer the question. We need a name.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss, you are dangerously uninformed bonehead who cannot defend his OP.

The far right reactionaries, to which you belong, though you deny it, cannot win an election for the GOP. We will keep nominating candidates to your left. That will never stop. You are just bitching like a fishwife with no power.

You can't use uninformed opinions. Fascism has always been a progressive right wing political philosophy that melds the Leader's will through fusion of party and state. That is exactly what Cruz would do if he could get the power to do it. He won't.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You've attempted to erect a straw man, and failed miserably.

The actual meaning of fascism isn't a 'strawman'. Its an indictment of your claims. As the word's meaning and your usage don't match. You can't get around that.

As the actual characteristics of fascism don't exist here, nor are being proposed by anyone of significance of either party. There's no dictatorship. There's no state sanctioned racism. There's no belligerent nationalism. There's no violent suppression of opposition and the press. There's no stringent controls on the economy or society.

Yet you laughably keep trying to apply the term fascism in naked, blundering defiance of the term's actual meaning.

Laughing....nope!

The ACA is a fascist system, but only covers 1/6th of our economy.

Obviously it isn't. Its an overwhelmingly private system. There's no state sanctioned racism involved. There's no violent suppression of the opposition. There's no dictatorship. ACA didn't nationalize anything. You simply don't know what fascism is.

You're demonstrating the folly of allowing professional libertarians do your thinking for you. As you just slap the pejorative 'fascism' on anything you don't like. That may be emotionally satisfying. But it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.}


The Economic Leadership Secrets of Benito Mussolini

And your source? Why its yet another libertarian, Cato institute regular.

Jim Powell is Senior Fellow at a libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., with which he has been associated since 1988. He has also done work for the Manhattan Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Right to Work Committee and Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.

Jim Powell historian - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which only demonstrates my point. The only folks you're going to find that back your definitions are those professionally pushing libertarianism. Thus, your Sheldon Richmans and your Jim Powells.

Mussolini himself acknowledged that fascism was right wing. Yet that's inconvenient to Richman's and Powell's libertarian narrative, so they omit it. As do you, who is shilling the same libertarian narrative. But why would anyone NOT aggressively pushing a libertarian agenda do the same?

There is no reason. Fascism is most definitely right wing. And its most definitely not what we have here. Rendering your claims to the contrary yet more hapless ignorance.

The problem you have is they aren't my claims, they are the words of Benito Mussolini.

Nope. You quoted Sheldon and Jim. Benito explicitly rejects your claims, with Mussolini characterizing Fascism as RIGHT wing. And unambiguously stating that Socialism is opposed to Fascism. With Mussolini refuting and rejecting Socialism.

Which is why you quote Cato Institute regulars like Sheldon and Jim. They say what you believe. Benito contradicts you.

If it's not ThinkProgress you simply won't accept it!

Dude, how about a source that doesn't make his living shilling libertarianism. They don't have to be Think Progressive. But you wont' listen to anyone outside the CATO institute, anyone not 'advancing an uncompromising case for libertarianism'.

And you know it matters. Which is why you hid your sources a half dozen posts. The only folks that support your are CATO Institute adherents who professionally push a libertarian agenda.

Do you have a thought that isn't whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites?

Um, the dictionary is 'whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites'?

Fascism:
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Laughing.....you're so far down the fringe right wing rabbit hole that now the DICTIONARY is a 'left wing hate site'. When the English language itself is now your political enemy, you may want to reevaluate your process, buddy.

I don't know why you bother, it's not as if he argues from an equal position.

yet you yourself keep at it.

hmm...


birds of a feather...

 

[Flopper]

Newsflash to any Elite Republican reading this thread: Here is a devout Socialist who wants to change America into the Soviet Union run by Hillary Clinton... He is telling you that we need to run another fucking moderate for president in 2016! Do you really want to go with HIS advice here? Really???

There are no where near enough 'elite republicans' to win a presidential election. Or even a GOP primary. Your focus in inherently exclusionary. Its what's turned the 'Big Tent Party' into the a self contradictory mess that is trying to purge itself of 'RINOs' while its desperately trying to court their votes.

Republicans are by far the most sympathetic audience your ilk have. And even among them, you can't convince a plurality to vote your way. And yet you honestly think that you're going to see better support among moderates, liberals and independents than you will among the GOP?

Laughing......Nope! That's a straight up math fail there.

You started with a true statement. There are nowhere near enough 'elite republicans' to win a presidential election. Mitt Romney and John McCain are the proof. They are also proof that there are enough 'elite republicans' to win the nomination. This is because the Conservative vote is divided between several candidates while the "establishment" settle on one guy and that's their guy.

The so-called "Big Tent" is facilitated by the message of a Conservative philosophy because Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Establishment republicans are the same kind of ideologues as liberals, they just want to control the power and they try to conceal the fact they are ideologues.

Conservatism doesn't need sympathy. It resonates with people who are philosophically conservative no matter what party they've supported in the past. A solid conservative voice can win a plurality and will win a landslide in the general. I don't expect them to win over liberals or moderates because I don't live in Narnia and rainbow ponies don't exist. Most of the so-called independent voters (defines myself) are Conservatives.

Now the math is... The conservative vote divided by 5 or 7 or 9, is going to always be less than the GOP Elite vote. Conservatives have to find that person who has the voice and can articulate Conservative philosophy and get totally behind that person instead of splitting their votes.

As I see it, the only issue all conservatives strongly support is reducing the size of government. Smaller government is the one issue that they have strong support of most Americans. However, that support is very hypocritical because voters support only the idea of smaller government, not the actions to achieve it. In other words, the cry for smaller government is the modern day, "God, mother, and apple pie".

The situation is much the same with the social issues. Most Americans hate abortion but support freedom of choice. They don't really like gay marriage but they believe people should have the right to marry who they choose regardless of sex. They love the idea of taking personal responsibility. However, the translation, don’t blame the system: just work harder, falls on deaf ears to a middle class that's working their but off just to make ends meat.

Golds are not what divides conservatives but rather the means of achieving those goals.

 

[Liminal]

You've attempted to erect a straw man, and failed miserably.

The actual meaning of fascism isn't a 'strawman'. Its an indictment of your claims. As the word's meaning and your usage don't match. You can't get around that.

As the actual characteristics of fascism don't exist here, nor are being proposed by anyone of significance of either party. There's no dictatorship. There's no state sanctioned racism. There's no belligerent nationalism. There's no violent suppression of opposition and the press. There's no stringent controls on the economy or society.

Yet you laughably keep trying to apply the term fascism in naked, blundering defiance of the term's actual meaning.

Laughing....nope!

The ACA is a fascist system, but only covers 1/6th of our economy.

Obviously it isn't. Its an overwhelmingly private system. There's no state sanctioned racism involved. There's no violent suppression of the opposition. There's no dictatorship. ACA didn't nationalize anything. You simply don't know what fascism is.

You're demonstrating the folly of allowing professional libertarians do your thinking for you. As you just slap the pejorative 'fascism' on anything you don't like. That may be emotionally satisfying. But it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.}


The Economic Leadership Secrets of Benito Mussolini

And your source? Why its yet another libertarian, Cato institute regular.

Jim Powell is Senior Fellow at a libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., with which he has been associated since 1988. He has also done work for the Manhattan Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Right to Work Committee and Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.

Jim Powell historian - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which only demonstrates my point. The only folks you're going to find that back your definitions are those professionally pushing libertarianism. Thus, your Sheldon Richmans and your Jim Powells.

Mussolini himself acknowledged that fascism was right wing. Yet that's inconvenient to Richman's and Powell's libertarian narrative, so they omit it. As do you, who is shilling the same libertarian narrative. But why would anyone NOT aggressively pushing a libertarian agenda do the same?

There is no reason. Fascism is most definitely right wing. And its most definitely not what we have here. Rendering your claims to the contrary yet more hapless ignorance.

The problem you have is they aren't my claims, they are the words of Benito Mussolini.

Nope. You quoted Sheldon and Jim. Benito explicitly rejects your claims, with Mussolini characterizing Fascism as RIGHT wing. And unambiguously stating that Socialism is opposed to Fascism. With Mussolini refuting and rejecting Socialism.

Which is why you quote Cato Institute regulars like Sheldon and Jim. They say what you believe. Benito contradicts you.

If it's not ThinkProgress you simply won't accept it!

Dude, how about a source that doesn't make his living shilling libertarianism. They don't have to be Think Progressive. But you wont' listen to anyone outside the CATO institute, anyone not 'advancing an uncompromising case for libertarianism'.

And you know it matters. Which is why you hid your sources a half dozen posts. The only folks that support your are CATO Institute adherents who professionally push a libertarian agenda.

Do you have a thought that isn't whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites?

Um, the dictionary is 'whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites'?

Fascism:
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Laughing.....you're so far down the fringe right wing rabbit hole that now the DICTIONARY is a 'left wing hate site'. When the English language itself is now your political enemy, you may want to reevaluate your process, buddy.

I don't know why you bother, it's not as if he argues from an equal position.

yet you yourself keep at it.

hmm...


birds of a feather...

That doesn't even begin to make any kind of sense.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You've attempted to erect a straw man, and failed miserably.

The actual meaning of fascism isn't a 'strawman'. Its an indictment of your claims. As the word's meaning and your usage don't match. You can't get around that.

As the actual characteristics of fascism don't exist here, nor are being proposed by anyone of significance of either party. There's no dictatorship. There's no state sanctioned racism. There's no belligerent nationalism. There's no violent suppression of opposition and the press. There's no stringent controls on the economy or society.

Yet you laughably keep trying to apply the term fascism in naked, blundering defiance of the term's actual meaning.

Laughing....nope!

The ACA is a fascist system, but only covers 1/6th of our economy.

Obviously it isn't. Its an overwhelmingly private system. There's no state sanctioned racism involved. There's no violent suppression of the opposition. There's no dictatorship. ACA didn't nationalize anything. You simply don't know what fascism is.

You're demonstrating the folly of allowing professional libertarians do your thinking for you. As you just slap the pejorative 'fascism' on anything you don't like. That may be emotionally satisfying. But it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.}


The Economic Leadership Secrets of Benito Mussolini

And your source? Why its yet another libertarian, Cato institute regular.

Jim Powell is Senior Fellow at a libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., with which he has been associated since 1988. He has also done work for the Manhattan Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Right to Work Committee and Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.

Jim Powell historian - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which only demonstrates my point. The only folks you're going to find that back your definitions are those professionally pushing libertarianism. Thus, your Sheldon Richmans and your Jim Powells.

Mussolini himself acknowledged that fascism was right wing. Yet that's inconvenient to Richman's and Powell's libertarian narrative, so they omit it. As do you, who is shilling the same libertarian narrative. But why would anyone NOT aggressively pushing a libertarian agenda do the same?

There is no reason. Fascism is most definitely right wing. And its most definitely not what we have here. Rendering your claims to the contrary yet more hapless ignorance.

The problem you have is they aren't my claims, they are the words of Benito Mussolini.

Nope. You quoted Sheldon and Jim. Benito explicitly rejects your claims, with Mussolini characterizing Fascism as RIGHT wing. And unambiguously stating that Socialism is opposed to Fascism. With Mussolini refuting and rejecting Socialism.

Which is why you quote Cato Institute regulars like Sheldon and Jim. They say what you believe. Benito contradicts you.

If it's not ThinkProgress you simply won't accept it!

Dude, how about a source that doesn't make his living shilling libertarianism. They don't have to be Think Progressive. But you wont' listen to anyone outside the CATO institute, anyone not 'advancing an uncompromising case for libertarianism'.

And you know it matters. Which is why you hid your sources a half dozen posts. The only folks that support your are CATO Institute adherents who professionally push a libertarian agenda.

Do you have a thought that isn't whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites?

Um, the dictionary is 'whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites'?

Fascism:
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Laughing.....you're so far down the fringe right wing rabbit hole that now the DICTIONARY is a 'left wing hate site'. When the English language itself is now your political enemy, you may want to reevaluate your process, buddy.

I don't know why you bother, it's not as if he argues from an equal position.

yet you yourself keep at it.

hmm...


birds of a feather...

That doesn't even begin to make any kind of sense.

of course not. not to the mind of a limnallly vacuous imbecile (see? Dante can post in your style too)

you say to another that you don't know why they bother with a certain member and add "it's not as if he argues from an equal position."

Dante interjects :
yet you yourself keep at it.

hmm...


birds of a feather..

 

[Liminal]

You've attempted to erect a straw man, and failed miserably.

The actual meaning of fascism isn't a 'strawman'. Its an indictment of your claims. As the word's meaning and your usage don't match. You can't get around that.

As the actual characteristics of fascism don't exist here, nor are being proposed by anyone of significance of either party. There's no dictatorship. There's no state sanctioned racism. There's no belligerent nationalism. There's no violent suppression of opposition and the press. There's no stringent controls on the economy or society.

Yet you laughably keep trying to apply the term fascism in naked, blundering defiance of the term's actual meaning.

Laughing....nope!

The ACA is a fascist system, but only covers 1/6th of our economy.

Obviously it isn't. Its an overwhelmingly private system. There's no state sanctioned racism involved. There's no violent suppression of the opposition. There's no dictatorship. ACA didn't nationalize anything. You simply don't know what fascism is.

You're demonstrating the folly of allowing professional libertarians do your thinking for you. As you just slap the pejorative 'fascism' on anything you don't like. That may be emotionally satisfying. But it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.}


The Economic Leadership Secrets of Benito Mussolini

And your source? Why its yet another libertarian, Cato institute regular.

Jim Powell is Senior Fellow at a libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., with which he has been associated since 1988. He has also done work for the Manhattan Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Right to Work Committee and Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.

Jim Powell historian - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which only demonstrates my point. The only folks you're going to find that back your definitions are those professionally pushing libertarianism. Thus, your Sheldon Richmans and your Jim Powells.

Mussolini himself acknowledged that fascism was right wing. Yet that's inconvenient to Richman's and Powell's libertarian narrative, so they omit it. As do you, who is shilling the same libertarian narrative. But why would anyone NOT aggressively pushing a libertarian agenda do the same?

There is no reason. Fascism is most definitely right wing. And its most definitely not what we have here. Rendering your claims to the contrary yet more hapless ignorance.

The problem you have is they aren't my claims, they are the words of Benito Mussolini.

Nope. You quoted Sheldon and Jim. Benito explicitly rejects your claims, with Mussolini characterizing Fascism as RIGHT wing. And unambiguously stating that Socialism is opposed to Fascism. With Mussolini refuting and rejecting Socialism.

Which is why you quote Cato Institute regulars like Sheldon and Jim. They say what you believe. Benito contradicts you.

If it's not ThinkProgress you simply won't accept it!

Dude, how about a source that doesn't make his living shilling libertarianism. They don't have to be Think Progressive. But you wont' listen to anyone outside the CATO institute, anyone not 'advancing an uncompromising case for libertarianism'.

And you know it matters. Which is why you hid your sources a half dozen posts. The only folks that support your are CATO Institute adherents who professionally push a libertarian agenda.

Do you have a thought that isn't whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites?

Um, the dictionary is 'whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites'?

Fascism:
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Laughing.....you're so far down the fringe right wing rabbit hole that now the DICTIONARY is a 'left wing hate site'. When the English language itself is now your political enemy, you may want to reevaluate your process, buddy.

I don't know why you bother, it's not as if he argues from an equal position.

yet you yourself keep at it.

hmm...


birds of a feather...

That doesn't even begin to make any kind of sense.

of course not. not to the mind of a limnallly vacuous imbecile (see? Dante can post in your style too)

you say to another that you don't know why they bother with a certain member and add "it's not as if he argues from an equal position."

Dante interjects :
yet you yourself keep at it.

hmm...


birds of a feather..

I have no idea what this incoherent word jumble means.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The actual meaning of fascism isn't a 'strawman'. Its an indictment of your claims. As the word's meaning and your usage don't match. You can't get around that.

As the actual characteristics of fascism don't exist here, nor are being proposed by anyone of significance of either party. There's no dictatorship. There's no state sanctioned racism. There's no belligerent nationalism. There's no violent suppression of opposition and the press. There's no stringent controls on the economy or society.

Yet you laughably keep trying to apply the term fascism in naked, blundering defiance of the term's actual meaning.

Laughing....nope!

Obviously it isn't. Its an overwhelmingly private system. There's no state sanctioned racism involved. There's no violent suppression of the opposition. There's no dictatorship. ACA didn't nationalize anything. You simply don't know what fascism is.

You're demonstrating the folly of allowing professional libertarians do your thinking for you. As you just slap the pejorative 'fascism' on anything you don't like. That may be emotionally satisfying. But it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

And your source? Why its yet another libertarian, Cato institute regular.

Which only demonstrates my point. The only folks you're going to find that back your definitions are those professionally pushing libertarianism. Thus, your Sheldon Richmans and your Jim Powells.

Mussolini himself acknowledged that fascism was right wing. Yet that's inconvenient to Richman's and Powell's libertarian narrative, so they omit it. As do you, who is shilling the same libertarian narrative. But why would anyone NOT aggressively pushing a libertarian agenda do the same?

There is no reason. Fascism is most definitely right wing. And its most definitely not what we have here. Rendering your claims to the contrary yet more hapless ignorance.

Nope. You quoted Sheldon and Jim. Benito explicitly rejects your claims, with Mussolini characterizing Fascism as RIGHT wing. And unambiguously stating that Socialism is opposed to Fascism. With Mussolini refuting and rejecting Socialism.

Which is why you quote Cato Institute regulars like Sheldon and Jim. They say what you believe. Benito contradicts you.

Dude, how about a source that doesn't make his living shilling libertarianism. They don't have to be Think Progressive. But you wont' listen to anyone outside the CATO institute, anyone not 'advancing an uncompromising case for libertarianism'.

And you know it matters. Which is why you hid your sources a half dozen posts. The only folks that support your are CATO Institute adherents who professionally push a libertarian agenda.

Um, the dictionary is 'whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites'?

Laughing.....you're so far down the fringe right wing rabbit hole that now the DICTIONARY is a 'left wing hate site'. When the English language itself is now your political enemy, you may want to reevaluate your process, buddy.

I don't know why you bother, it's not as if he argues from an equal position.

yet you yourself keep at it.

hmm...


birds of a feather...

That doesn't even begin to make any kind of sense.

of course not. not to the mind of a limnallly vacuous imbecile (see? Dante can post in your style too)

you say to another that you don't know why they bother with a certain member and add "it's not as if he argues from an equal position."

Dante interjects :
yet you yourself keep at it.

hmm...


birds of a feather..

I have no idea what this incoherent word jumble means.

peep​

 

[Liminal]

I don't know why you bother, it's not as if he argues from an equal position.

yet you yourself keep at it.

hmm...


birds of a feather...

That doesn't even begin to make any kind of sense.

of course not. not to the mind of a limnallly vacuous imbecile (see? Dante can post in your style too)

you say to another that you don't know why they bother with a certain member and add "it's not as if he argues from an equal position."

Dante interjects :
yet you yourself keep at it.

hmm...


birds of a feather..

I have no idea what this incoherent word jumble means.

peep​

By far your most eloquent remark.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

watch Dante pull the strings of the puppet known as liminal

watch liminal dance

 

[Liminal]

watch Dante pull the strings of the puppet known as liminal

watch liminal dance

 

[Uncensored2008]

The actual meaning of fascism isn't a 'strawman'. Its an indictment of your claims. As the word's meaning and your usage don't match. You can't get around that.

As the actual characteristics of fascism don't exist here, nor are being proposed by anyone of significance of either party. There's no dictatorship. There's no state sanctioned racism. There's no belligerent nationalism. There's no violent suppression of opposition and the press. There's no stringent controls on the economy or society.

The actual MEANING of fascism is;

{
Full Definition of FASCISM
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition}

Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Which fails to support your fiction

Yet you laughably keep trying to apply the term fascism in naked, blundering defiance of the term's actual meaning.

Laughing....nope!

I admit that I have taken to openly laughing at you.

You are so desperate to hold on the fiction that the totalitarian government with a centrally planned economy and society known as fascism is somehow the opposite than the totalitarian government with a centrally planned economy and society known as Communism.

Obviously it isn't. Its an overwhelmingly private system. There's no state sanctioned racism involved. There's no violent suppression of the opposition. There's no dictatorship. ACA didn't nationalize anything. You simply don't know what fascism is.

It's "obvious" that water isn't wet?



Fascist care is a few well connected corporations (including George Soros' Blue Cross) with state sponsorship to exclusively sell products which the public must buy, by law, with the government acting as sales force and collection agent, but it 'isn't fascism?"

You want some time to think this through?

You're demonstrating the folly of allowing professional libertarians do your thinking for you. As you just slap the pejorative 'fascism' on anything you don't like. That may be emotionally satisfying. But it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

Ah, the folly of reality when the agenda of the party is at odd with reality...

And your source? Why its yet another libertarian, Cato institute regular.

LOL

Now you're just a clown.

Cato is one of the most respected think tanks in the world.
Jim Powell is Senior Fellow at a libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., with which he has been associated since 1988. He has also done work for the Manhattan Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Right to Work Committee and Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.

Um, the dictionary is 'whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites'?

Fascism:
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

LOL

You didn't bother to read the definition you posted.

regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.

AKA, controlling the means of production.

You're dismissed.