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.
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\
Laughing! So dictatorship, state sanctioned racism, severe economic and social restrictions and forcible suppression of opposition, huh? Where have I heard that before. Its on the tip of my tongue.......ah yes!
My description of Fascism:
Skylar said:Fascism is a system that uses a dictator with complete power, belligerent aggressive nationalism, state sanctioned racism, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, forcible suppression of the press, and strict regimenting all industry and commerce.
Post 308
Far Right can t win for GOP ...BS Page 31 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
You just abandoned your 'fascism is socialism' idiocy and are now scrambling to adopt my definition.
Good boy! You can be taught.
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?"
A few connected corporations, huh? How many companies are selling insurance on the ACA market place...specifically. I mean, if you're talking out of your ass, offering us an argument you can't possibly support then we'll get excuses for why you have no idea what the number is.
And can you back the claim that Blue Cross belongs to George Soros? OR is this another one of your 'fire and forget' accusations, where you make a claim you can't possibly back up and then run as fast as you can from it?
Gee, I wonder which its gonna be.
Cato is one of the most respected think tanks in the world.
The CATO institute is an openly, flagrantly, whorishly libertarian organization, promoting libertarianism for the hopes of spreading libertarianism.
And every single source you've offered us backing the absurd 'fascism is socialism' idiocy that you've abandoned is a professional libertarian. Which is exactly my point. You can't find support for your argument outside the CATO institute or professional libertarians. Even Mussolini described Fascism as right wing. But you'll ignore anyone...including your own sources, if it doesn't match your libertarian narrative.
But why would a rational person ignore what you must to cling to your Cato Institute narrative?
You didn't bother to read the definition you posted.
Of course I did. We don't have dictatorship. We don't have forcible suppression of opposition and criticism. We don't have regimentation of all industry and commerce. We don't have aggressive nationalism. And we don't have state sanctioned racism.
Once again, the actual definition of fascism doesn't match your 'lets call people names' pejorative usage. Words have meanings. And you trying to apply the definition of fascism to the US demonstrates that you really don't get the meaning of fascism.
Which you just demonstrated again.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show us any mention of Lenin in the entire Doctrine of Fascism. As you said that 'in context' that Mussolini was criticizing Lenin. When in reality, he never mentions Lenin in the entire Doctrine. Why make up bullshit like that? Its not like its going to slip past me. And its not like I'm going forget to mock you mercilessly for your flagrant lies and inept attempts to deceive.
And all the people saying facsism is right wing are lefties......or people educated by lefties in college......
If they were "moderates," why did they all run as CON$?and how did moderates like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney do when they ran for office....?
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\
Laughing! So dictatorship, state sanctioned racism, severe economic and social restrictions and forcible suppression of opposition, huh? Where have I heard that before. Its on the tip of my tongue.......ah yes!
My description of Fascism:
Skylar said:Fascism is a system that uses a dictator with complete power, belligerent aggressive nationalism, state sanctioned racism, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, forcible suppression of the press, and strict regimenting all industry and commerce.
Post 308
Far Right can t win for GOP ...BS Page 31 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
You just abandoned your 'fascism is socialism' idiocy and are now scrambling to adopt my definition.
Good boy! You can be taught.
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?"
A few connected corporations, huh? How many companies are selling insurance on the ACA market place...specifically. I mean, if you're talking out of your ass, offering us an argument you can't possibly support then we'll get excuses for why you have no idea what the number is.
And can you back the claim that Blue Cross belongs to George Soros? OR is this another one of your 'fire and forget' accusations, where you make a claim you can't possibly back up and then run as fast as you can from it?
Gee, I wonder which its gonna be.
Cato is one of the most respected think tanks in the world.
The CATO institute is an openly, flagrantly, whorishly libertarian organization, promoting libertarianism for the hopes of spreading libertarianism.
And every single source you've offered us backing the absurd 'fascism is socialism' idiocy that you've abandoned is a professional libertarian. Which is exactly my point. You can't find support for your argument outside the CATO institute or professional libertarians. Even Mussolini described Fascism as right wing. But you'll ignore anyone...including your own sources, if it doesn't match your libertarian narrative.
But why would a rational person ignore what you must to cling to your Cato Institute narrative?
You didn't bother to read the definition you posted.
Of course I did. We don't have dictatorship. We don't have forcible suppression of opposition and criticism. We don't have regimentation of all industry and commerce. We don't have aggressive nationalism. And we don't have state sanctioned racism.
Once again, the actual definition of fascism doesn't match your 'lets call people names' pejorative usage. Words have meanings. And you trying to apply the definition of fascism to the US demonstrates that you really don't get the meaning of fascism.
Which you just demonstrated again.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show us any mention of Lenin in the entire Doctrine of Fascism. As you said that 'in context' that Mussolini was criticizing Lenin. When in reality, he never mentions Lenin in the entire Doctrine. Why make up bullshit like that? Its not like its going to slip past me. And its not like I'm going forget to mock you mercilessly for your flagrant lies and inept attempts to deceive.
And all the people saying facsism is right wing are lefties......or people educated by lefties in college......
Mussolini said that fascism was right wing.
And of course, you're dismissing anyone who was educated in a college.
The anti-intellectual vein among conservatives continues to flow like a depressingly powerful river.
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\
Laughing! So dictatorship, state sanctioned racism, severe economic and social restrictions and forcible suppression of opposition, huh? Where have I heard that before. Its on the tip of my tongue.......ah yes!
My description of Fascism:
Skylar said:Fascism is a system that uses a dictator with complete power, belligerent aggressive nationalism, state sanctioned racism, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, forcible suppression of the press, and strict regimenting all industry and commerce.
Post 308
Far Right can t win for GOP ...BS Page 31 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
You just abandoned your 'fascism is socialism' idiocy and are now scrambling to adopt my definition.
Good boy! You can be taught.
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?"
A few connected corporations, huh? How many companies are selling insurance on the ACA market place...specifically. I mean, if you're talking out of your ass, offering us an argument you can't possibly support then we'll get excuses for why you have no idea what the number is.
And can you back the claim that Blue Cross belongs to George Soros? OR is this another one of your 'fire and forget' accusations, where you make a claim you can't possibly back up and then run as fast as you can from it?
Gee, I wonder which its gonna be.
Cato is one of the most respected think tanks in the world.
The CATO institute is an openly, flagrantly, whorishly libertarian organization, promoting libertarianism for the hopes of spreading libertarianism.
And every single source you've offered us backing the absurd 'fascism is socialism' idiocy that you've abandoned is a professional libertarian. Which is exactly my point. You can't find support for your argument outside the CATO institute or professional libertarians. Even Mussolini described Fascism as right wing. But you'll ignore anyone...including your own sources, if it doesn't match your libertarian narrative.
But why would a rational person ignore what you must to cling to your Cato Institute narrative?
You didn't bother to read the definition you posted.
Of course I did. We don't have dictatorship. We don't have forcible suppression of opposition and criticism. We don't have regimentation of all industry and commerce. We don't have aggressive nationalism. And we don't have state sanctioned racism.
Once again, the actual definition of fascism doesn't match your 'lets call people names' pejorative usage. Words have meanings. And you trying to apply the definition of fascism to the US demonstrates that you really don't get the meaning of fascism.
Which you just demonstrated again.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show us any mention of Lenin in the entire Doctrine of Fascism. As you said that 'in context' that Mussolini was criticizing Lenin. When in reality, he never mentions Lenin in the entire Doctrine. Why make up bullshit like that? Its not like its going to slip past me. And its not like I'm going forget to mock you mercilessly for your flagrant lies and inept attempts to deceive.
And all the people saying facsism is right wing are lefties......or people educated by lefties in college......
Mussolini said that fascism was right wing.
NO... That was Stalin.
"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the right, a Fascist century."
Benito Mussolini
Doctrine of Fascism
Laughing...yeah, because ignoring my post is magically gonna change the fact that Liberal and Moderates make up 58% of the electorate....
Not counting about 100 million Conservatives who don't vote.
Says you. Oddly, Gallup makes no mention of your fantasy.
U.S. Liberals at Record 24 but Still Trail Conservatives
Moderates are 34%. Liberals are 24% (an all time record). Conservatives are 38% (one point off an all time low).
That's 58% of the electorate you've already written off. And only 38% left for you to draw from. And you've already dismissed the 'Establishment Republicans'. Which exist in large enough numbers to do what you obviously can't: nominate their candidate in the GOP primary.
So you're dealing with a fraction of 38%. Math is not your friend. Nor does it care much about your fantasies. You simply don't have the numbers. You need moderates. You need liberals. And you don't get them by running far right candidates.
Typical lie of Boss: "I don't know how the poll question is phrased because your link doesn't work".
Just click it above and scroll down. Fascists are generally less intelligent that the rest of Americans, as Boss demonstrates daily on the Board.
Boss has been told quite emphatically he does not get "just once more." he is a bonehead far right reactionary.
You cannot define liberalism other it is anything you "don't like."
Fascism is a far right wing progressive ideology to which you belong and in which believe. True conservatism does not embrace fascism, so Boss is not a conservative at all but a subversive with bad intent for America.
Boss is not a Conservative in any way shape or form.
Laughing...yeah, because ignoring my post is magically gonna change the fact that Liberal and Moderates make up 58% of the electorate....
Not counting about 100 million Conservatives who don't vote.
Says you. Oddly, Gallup makes no mention of your fantasy.
U.S. Liberals at Record 24 but Still Trail Conservatives
Moderates are 34%. Liberals are 24% (an all time record). Conservatives are 38% (one point off an all time low).
That's 58% of the electorate you've already written off. And only 38% left for you to draw from. And you've already dismissed the 'Establishment Republicans'. Which exist in large enough numbers to do what you obviously can't: nominate their candidate in the GOP primary.
So you're dealing with a fraction of 38%. Math is not your friend. Nor does it care much about your fantasies. You simply don't have the numbers. You need moderates. You need liberals. And you don't get them by running far right candidates.
Lying only confirms their CON$ervative Ideology.They lied......If they were "moderates," why did they all run as CON$?and how did moderates like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney do when they ran for office....?
You can if and only if you are a Fascist like Bossy. To the Fascist there are only 2 sides, their side and the enemy.You cannot define liberalism other it is anything you "don't like."
You can if and only if you are a Fascist like Bossy. To the Fascist there are only 2 sides, their side and the enemy.You cannot define liberalism other it is anything you "don't like."
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.
May 12, 2008
RUSH: I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats. Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal
The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
Adolf Hitler
You can if and only if you are a Fascist like Bossy.
You can if and only if you are a Fascist like Bossy. To the Fascist there are only 2 sides, their side and the enemy.You cannot define liberalism other it is anything you "don't like."
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.
May 12, 2008
RUSH: I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats. Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal
The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
Adolf Hitler
"Conservatives'' in America have no actual platform. I don't think they have since the death of Robert Taft, frankly, and by the time he shuffled off this mortal coil, the Old Right coalition of Hamiltonian isolationists, agrarian Romantics, and Jeffersonian nativists had been essentially defanged by the relentless assault of FDR, Frankfurter and cronies. Really, as Murray Rothbard pointed out, the GOP is simply a party of military capitalism and is devoid of a political bent - the exception being Nixon's effort to give real political legs to the post-1964 new coalition of White voters but we all know how the Jews and their shabbos goy fellow travelers responded to that effort.
So in essence America has a party that is a defense industry cipher, recently animated by Zionist ideologues, that claims it is interested in public morals because it trots out shrill church ladies like Bachmann who finger wag over things like bad language and sexual hygiene and faux Catholics like Santorum who speak incessantly of ''family values'' - which in reality translates to a cloying lifestyle preference for a lesser stage of alienation (nuclear family in isolation) in lieu of a greater stage of alienation (unfettered expressive individualism and state promoted sodomy).
What is needed is party that is committed to guarding public morals looks like the NSDAP or Hezbollah - pious men under arms enforcing the natural order. There really isn't a middle ground in the modern state on these kinds of questions.
BOSS SAID:
'I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative."'
Too bad.
It's an accurate and appropriate reference to the unwarranted, errant extremism that manifests in conservative dogma, the consequence of the right's Faustian bargain with social conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, the TPM, and libertarian reactionaryism, having nothing to do with 'the left-wing'; indeed, the reference is most often used by traditional (“Goldwater”) conservatives and moderate Old Guard republicans to identify the extremism that's misappropriated traditional conservatism and the GOP.
Consequently, the far right is a problem of your own creation, conservatives alone are to blame, and conservatives are solely responsible for solving the problem of the far right.
In the meantime Americans will continue to protect themselves from the extremism of the far right, at the ballot box, and in the courts.
Well, ok.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. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.
Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.
The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.
In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!
The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.
Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.
What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.
To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!
Because Reagan did not stand for gunnutz shooting teh gubbermint.Boss and Keys are exactly the far right they deny.
They are not conservative but much further to the right with the reactionaries. Neither one "Recognizes, Respects, Defends and Adheres to the Principles that define America."
They would not vote for a Reagan today if a Cruz were available.
