How EVIL is liberalism anyway?

[Uncensored2008]

19,000 stupid posts like this since 2011. Jesus Christ man, get a life!

He's been spanking your skanky ass for 5 years?



Guess that makes you a world class loser, Comrade.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh fucking horseshit. Obviously you're as clueless about fascism as you are about Liberalism.

>> Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism. Fascism originated in Italy during World War I and spread to other European countries. Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4] << (Wiki)

Ignorant twit.

So, an authoritarian system based on a centrally planned and managed economy where the state controls the means of production is "right wing?"

Yeah, that sounds down right Laissez Faire - fucktard...

 

[Andylusion]

Did Patriot -- an authoritarian fascist if there ever was one -- ever figure out just how evil liberalism is in his mega thread of douchebaggery?

Fascism is left-wing, stupid. That's your side of the aisle moron. Extreme right-wing ideology is Soveriegn Citizen and Anarchist, dumb ass.

What evidence supports your claim that fascism is liberal?

It isn't the definition of the world. It is however, similar to those who call themselves liberal in our country.

Liberals want more control and limitations on citizens. Fascism does.
Liberals want control and limitations on religion. Fascism does.
Liberals want controls on citizens from defending themselves. Fascism does.
Liberals want force companies to work for the 'good of society' (which is defined arbitrarily by liberals). So does Fascism.
Liberals want to define the citizens of the country through a class-system, and then force them to co-operating (with an arbitrary definition of what co-operation is). So does Fascism.
Liberals want to control the media (such as silencing Fox News, and the infamous 'hush Rush' law). So does Fascism.

The differences between the modern American "liberal" and Fascism, are greatly out numbered and out weighed by their similarities.

This is so true, that if you take some of the early speeches by Hitler, and edit out references to Jews, the entire speech reads like a Bernie Sanders campaign stop. He could almost read them verbatim.

 

[Pogo]

Did Patriot -- an authoritarian fascist if there ever was one -- ever figure out just how evil liberalism is in his mega thread of douchebaggery?

Fascism is left-wing, stupid. That's your side of the aisle moron. Extreme right-wing ideology is Soveriegn Citizen and Anarchist, dumb ass.

What evidence supports your claim that fascism is liberal?

It isn't the definition of the world. It is however, similar to those who call themselves liberal in our country.

Liberals want more control and limitations on citizens. Fascism does.
Liberals want control and limitations on religion. Fascism does.
Liberals want controls on citizens from defending themselves. Fascism does.
Liberals want force companies to work for the 'good of society' (which is defined arbitrarily by liberals). So does Fascism.
Liberals want to define the citizens of the country through a class-system, and then force them to co-operating (with an arbitrary definition of what co-operation is). So does Fascism.
Liberals want to control the media (such as silencing Fox News, and the infamous 'hush Rush' law). So does Fascism.

The differences between the modern American "liberal" and Fascism, are greatly out numbered and out weighed by their similarities.

This is so true, that if you take some of the early speeches by Hitler, and edit out references to Jews, the entire speech reads like a Bernie Sanders campaign stop. He could almost read them verbatim.

EVERY SINGLE ONE of your premises here is a strawman, and every single one is false. All you'vé done is basically described fascism twice.

 

[Pogo]

But the Reich wing is just as bad. They hijacked the Republican party. It is no longer the party of Lincoln or Reagan--it is now the party of Trump.

No argument here. But you know what is frightening? The Republican Party is exclusively made up of JFK liberals. What does it say about you and your party that JFK-era liberalism is "Reich Wing" in your mind? That true liberalism isn't left enough? Donald Trump spent his entire life as a dedicated liberal. He donated money to Harry fucking Reid for God sakes. He donated money to Hitlery Clinton and said she would make a great president. Conservatives rightly reject him because he's a hard core liberal. What does it say about you and your bat-shit crazy Dumbocrat pals that you reject him?.

Oh Hunior please. Donald Rump is not a "Liberal". Donald Rump is not a "conservative". Donáld Rump is a Class A Narcissist. A whore with no ethics at all who will say anything, pay anything or play anything to get what he wants, which is an endless fix of Attention For Numero Uno. He has no "left", "right" or "center". All he has is "self".

Why don't you try eBay. Maybe you can sell bullshit there.

Maybe true. Of course I don't see Obama, or Clinton as being much different. A few weeks ago, I watch the correspondents dinners. One of Obama and one of Bush. Bush had no problem poking fun at himself, and enjoy his time. Obama on the other hand, only poked fun at others, and promoting himself.

So... Now I don't think Trump would be like Bush. I think you are right. He would act more like Obama in that situation.

But honestly, most presidents are egos to some degree.

I will still vote for Trump though... not really 'for' Trump, as much as against Hillary. She is a lying, criminal, trashy scummy swindling, coward and felon. I'll vote for her to be in prison if you give me the chance. That's the only vote for Hillary I would ever give.

"Ego" is in no way the same thing as "Narcissistic Personality Disorder". Without going deeply into it (because it's baseball time), the latter involves stuff like staying up all night in the wee hours sending whiny tweets because Megyn Kelly asked you a pointed question --- stuff like inventing your own alter-ego (let alone, two of them) as spokesmen to trumpet to the press how women are after you, and then lying about having done it--- stuff like being unable to ever admit to a mistake, a miscalculation, a banruptcy, or ever apologize to anybody for anything -- stuff like spending all your time bellowing about how awesome you are with "the best words" and a "very good brain" to anyone unlucky enough to be trapped in the same room with you.

That's not the clinical def of course, but I'll be happy to trot that in later.

And your O'bama Correspondents' Dinner memory is quite selective. One of the first ones he did, just off the top of my head, was where he said "I want to speak straight from the heart" and immediately two large teleprompters raise up, an obvious nod to the butthurt of the Blogobubble that, as soon as the black guy got into office, wet its pants over the fact that a POTUS was using the same technology every POTUS has used since at least Eisenhower.

 

[Andylusion]

Did Patriot -- an authoritarian fascist if there ever was one -- ever figure out just how evil liberalism is in his mega thread of douchebaggery?

Fascism is left-wing, stupid. That's your side of the aisle moron. Extreme right-wing ideology is Soveriegn Citizen and Anarchist, dumb ass.

What evidence supports your claim that fascism is liberal?

It isn't the definition of the world. It is however, similar to those who call themselves liberal in our country.

Liberals want more control and limitations on citizens. Fascism does.
Liberals want control and limitations on religion. Fascism does.
Liberals want controls on citizens from defending themselves. Fascism does.
Liberals want force companies to work for the 'good of society' (which is defined arbitrarily by liberals). So does Fascism.
Liberals want to define the citizens of the country through a class-system, and then force them to co-operating (with an arbitrary definition of what co-operation is). So does Fascism.
Liberals want to control the media (such as silencing Fox News, and the infamous 'hush Rush' law). So does Fascism.

The differences between the modern American "liberal" and Fascism, are greatly out numbered and out weighed by their similarities.

This is so true, that if you take some of the early speeches by Hitler, and edit out references to Jews, the entire speech reads like a Bernie Sanders campaign stop. He could almost read them verbatim.

EVERY SINGLE ONE of your premises here is a strawman, and every single one is false. All you'vé done is basically described fascism twice.

Give me a list of names, of people you would call "liberal", who do not fit that description?

 

[regent]

What evidence supports your claim that fascism is liberal?

What evidence exists that conservatism is right-wing?

Aside from the obvious (reality, common sense, etc.) that fascism is authoritarian/totalitarian (the polar opposite of right-wing) what "evidence" do you require? Does this work for you chief?

“fascism and communism are merely variants of the same totalitarianism which central control of all economic activity tends to produce”

Excerpt From: F. A. Hayek. “The Road to Serfdom.” University of Chicago Press, 2010-04-06. iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek on iBooks

I asked you first.

 

[Andylusion]

What evidence supports your claim that fascism is liberal?

What evidence exists that conservatism is right-wing?

Aside from the obvious (reality, common sense, etc.) that fascism is authoritarian/totalitarian (the polar opposite of right-wing) what "evidence" do you require? Does this work for you chief?

“fascism and communism are merely variants of the same totalitarianism which central control of all economic activity tends to produce”

Excerpt From: F. A. Hayek. “The Road to Serfdom.” University of Chicago Press, 2010-04-06. iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek on iBooks

I asked you first.

I'll answer the question for myself.

This is the political spectrum that I subscribe to, and the only one that to me, rationally makes any sense.

The political spectrum, starts on the right side, as zero government, and on the left, is total government.

All forms of total government, where government either attempts to, or does control everything, is the left-wing, and includes everything from Socialism, Communism, to Nazism and Fascism.

On the right-wing, is Anarchy, the ultimate form of zero government, but is completely unstable, and usually results in some form of total government.

In the dead center, is the supposed balance between the two, of "democracy". This is where the rule of government and the people is in a mythic perfect balance.

In the middle right, is limited constitutional government. A government limited to protecting the people's rights, and enforcing justice. Not social, or economic, or some other bonkers made up version of justice, but actual justice. Punishing criminals.

Now as for conservatism, it would depend on the context. A conservative in Russia, would promote socialism, and government control, and orthodoxy to a left-wing criteria.

In the case of the US, a conservative favors limited government, restricted to protecting property rights, and enforcing justice. That would be right-wing.

 

[oreo]

But the Reich wing is just as bad. They hijacked the Republican party. It is no longer the party of Lincoln or Reagan--it is now the party of Trump.

No argument here. But you know what is frightening? The Republican Party is exclusively made up of JFK liberals. What does it say about you and your party that JFK-era liberalism is "Reich Wing" in your mind? That true liberalism isn't left enough? Donald Trump spent his entire life as a dedicated liberal. He donated money to Harry fucking Reid for God sakes. He donated money to Hitlery Clinton and said she would make a great president. Conservatives rightly reject him because he's a hard core liberal. What does it say about you and your bat-shit crazy Dumbocrat pals that you reject him?.

Oh Hunior please. Donald Rump is not a "Liberal". Donald Rump is not a "conservative". Donáld Rump is a Class A Narcissist. A whore with no ethics at all who will say anything, pay anything or play anything to get what he wants, which is an endless fix of Attention For Numero Uno. He has no "left", "right" or "center". All he has is "self".

Why don't you try eBay. Maybe you can sell bullshit there.

Maybe true. Of course I don't see Obama, or Clinton as being much different. A few weeks ago, I watch the correspondents dinners. One of Obama and one of Bush. Bush had no problem poking fun at himself, and enjoy his time. Obama on the other hand, only poked fun at others, and promoting himself.

So... Now I don't think Trump would be like Bush. I think you are right. He would act more like Obama in that situation.

But honestly, most presidents are egos to some degree.

I will still vote for Trump though... not really 'for' Trump, as much as against Hillary. She is a lying, criminal, trashy scummy swindling, coward and felon. I'll vote for her to be in prison if you give me the chance. That's the only vote for Hillary I would ever give.

Well--some of your thoughts are original at least--but there is one thing you're forgetting about while calling Hillary a criminal, and that are these 3500 class action law suits that Trump is involved with. Trump University is due in court very soon and the headlines are going to get ugly.
Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam

I imagine this woman will be the first witness on the stand.



Trump is too dangerous for me. He is the most incompetent, unqualified, dangerous candidate in this nations history. A man with no honor, no respect, no dignity, and the only loyalty he has ever shown to anyone is to himself and Russia. He is not arrogant as you suggest, he's far worse, a Narcissit. And you cannot give a Narcissit unbridled power.
Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy
A neuroscientist explains: Trump has a mental disorder that makes him a dangerous world leader

So I am taking the advice of a friend and former staffer of Ronald Reagan and will be casting a vote for Hillary Clinton in November.




And of course other Republicans are endorsing Hillary Clinton also.
ANOTHER Major Republican Endorses Hillary...Trump Is LIVID, Fears Campaign Is OVER
Trump sends unprecedented numbers of GOP fleeing to Clinton

 

[SYTFE]

This is the political spectrum that I subscribe to, and the only one that to me, rationally makes any sense.

The political spectrum, starts on the right side, as zero government, and on the left, is total government.

Way, way too simplistic. Spend some time over at politicalcompass.org. That's the only model that rationally makes sense. See below:

Left ----------------- Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion

The Political Compass

 

[Andylusion]

But the Reich wing is just as bad. They hijacked the Republican party. It is no longer the party of Lincoln or Reagan--it is now the party of Trump.

No argument here. But you know what is frightening? The Republican Party is exclusively made up of JFK liberals. What does it say about you and your party that JFK-era liberalism is "Reich Wing" in your mind? That true liberalism isn't left enough? Donald Trump spent his entire life as a dedicated liberal. He donated money to Harry fucking Reid for God sakes. He donated money to Hitlery Clinton and said she would make a great president. Conservatives rightly reject him because he's a hard core liberal. What does it say about you and your bat-shit crazy Dumbocrat pals that you reject him?.

Oh Hunior please. Donald Rump is not a "Liberal". Donald Rump is not a "conservative". Donáld Rump is a Class A Narcissist. A whore with no ethics at all who will say anything, pay anything or play anything to get what he wants, which is an endless fix of Attention For Numero Uno. He has no "left", "right" or "center". All he has is "self".

Why don't you try eBay. Maybe you can sell bullshit there.

Maybe true. Of course I don't see Obama, or Clinton as being much different. A few weeks ago, I watch the correspondents dinners. One of Obama and one of Bush. Bush had no problem poking fun at himself, and enjoy his time. Obama on the other hand, only poked fun at others, and promoting himself.

So... Now I don't think Trump would be like Bush. I think you are right. He would act more like Obama in that situation.

But honestly, most presidents are egos to some degree.

I will still vote for Trump though... not really 'for' Trump, as much as against Hillary. She is a lying, criminal, trashy scummy swindling, coward and felon. I'll vote for her to be in prison if you give me the chance. That's the only vote for Hillary I would ever give.

Well--some of your thoughts are original at least--but there is one thing you're forgetting about while calling Hillary a criminal, and that are these 3500 class action law suits that Trump is involved with. Trump University is due in court very soon and the headlines are going to get ugly.
Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam

I imagine this woman will be the first witness on the stand.



Trump is too dangerous for me. He is the most incompetent, unqualified, dangerous candidate in this nations history. A man with no honor, no respect, no dignity, and the only loyalty he has ever shown to anyone is to himself and Russia. He is not arrogant as you suggest, he's far worse, a Narcissit. And you cannot give a Narcissit unbridled power.
Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy
A neuroscientist explains: Trump has a mental disorder that makes him a dangerous world leader

So I am taking the advice of a friend and former staffer of Ronald Reagan and will be casting a vote for Hillary Clinton in November.




And of course other Republicans are endorsing Hillary Clinton also.
ANOTHER Major Republican Endorses Hillary...Trump Is LIVID, Fears Campaign Is OVER
Trump sends unprecedented numbers of GOP fleeing to Clinton

You are comparing the selling of missile technology to china..... classified national security information on an unsecured server... the murdering of our ambassador, and covering with non-stop lies about an almost completely unknown B rated movie.... the lying to federal investigators that lost millions of retirement money in a failed bank, to cover a fraudulent real estate business.... the pay off of millions of dollars, as bribe money for presidential pardons, and votes in exchange for pardoning a convicted terrorist...........

With Trump University?

On a scale.... you want to compare murder, lying to investigators, national security, fraud, cover ups, bribery, and pardons for dollars..... to Trump University?

I'll take TWENTY Trump Universities for ANY ONE SINGLE OF THOSE THINGS that Hillary was involved in.

 

[Andylusion]

This is the political spectrum that I subscribe to, and the only one that to me, rationally makes any sense.

The political spectrum, starts on the right side, as zero government, and on the left, is total government.

Way, way too simplistic. Spend some time over at politicalcompass.org. That's the only model that rationally makes sense. See below:

Left ----------------- Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion

The Political Compass

That's not true. Military spending, does not equal authoritarian. Pushing values, is also not authoritarian. You can have values, and argue for them, and even require that you follow your values, in order to gain your favor.... that still doesn't make you authoritarian.

That's like telling your kids they can do anything they want, but they can't spit in your face, and if they do, they don't get dinner. "Well you're an authoritarian!" Ridiculous.

There was nothing "libertarian" about Hitler. How you could place him even remotely right of Stalin, is bonkers.

Like I said, the political scales used by others, are illogical. Which is why I don't bother with them.

 

[SYTFE]

This is the political spectrum that I subscribe to, and the only one that to me, rationally makes any sense.

The political spectrum, starts on the right side, as zero government, and on the left, is total government.

Way, way too simplistic. Spend some time over at politicalcompass.org. That's the only model that rationally makes sense. See below:

Left ----------------- Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion

The Political Compass

That's not true. Military spending, does not equal authoritarian. Pushing values, is also not authoritarian. You can have values, and argue for them, and even require that you follow your values, in order to gain your favor.... that still doesn't make you authoritarian.

That's like telling your kids they can do anything they want, but they can't spit in your face, and if they do, they don't get dinner. "Well you're an authoritarian!" Ridiculous.

There was nothing "libertarian" about Hitler. How you could place him even remotely right of Stalin, is bonkers.

Like I said, the political scales used by others, are illogical. Which is why I don't bother with them.

I don't think you are understanding that compass yet. Hitler isn't placed in the libertarian plane at all. He's up in authoritarian zone. The bottom 2 planes are libertarian land.

High military spending is definitely an authoritarian action. Imposing national values on other countries (as was the case with Team Bush imposing democracy on Iraq) is strongly authoritarian and the antithesis of libertarian belief.

You should take that test.

 

[owebo]

This is the political spectrum that I subscribe to, and the only one that to me, rationally makes any sense.

The political spectrum, starts on the right side, as zero government, and on the left, is total government.

Way, way too simplistic. Spend some time over at politicalcompass.org. That's the only model that rationally makes sense. See below:

Left ----------------- Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion

The Political Compass

Why? Because it exposes you for the fascist you are...

Here is an even simpler version....

 

[SYTFE]

View attachment 87528

This is the political spectrum that I subscribe to, and the only one that to me, rationally makes any sense.

The political spectrum, starts on the right side, as zero government, and on the left, is total government.

Way, way too simplistic. Spend some time over at politicalcompass.org. That's the only model that rationally makes sense. See below:

Left ----------------- Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion

The Political Compass

Why? Because it exposes you for the fascist you are...

Here is an even simpler version....

We've already discussed your idiotic graph for right wing simpletons that you cribbed from some loons blog. (Probably your own.) No one pays any attention to it.

And my test results put me in left/libertarian land. Still waiting on your test results...punk.

 

[owebo]

View attachment 87528

This is the political spectrum that I subscribe to, and the only one that to me, rationally makes any sense.

The political spectrum, starts on the right side, as zero government, and on the left, is total government.

Way, way too simplistic. Spend some time over at politicalcompass.org. That's the only model that rationally makes sense. See below:

Left ----------------- Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion

The Political Compass

Why? Because it exposes you for the fascist you are...

Here is an even simpler version....

Yes, we've already discussed your idiotic graph for right wing simpletons that you cribbed from some loons blog. (Probably your own.) No one pays any attention to it.

I would be embarrassed if I were you too.....

 

[SYTFE]

View attachment 87528

This is the political spectrum that I subscribe to, and the only one that to me, rationally makes any sense.

The political spectrum, starts on the right side, as zero government, and on the left, is total government.

Way, way too simplistic. Spend some time over at politicalcompass.org. That's the only model that rationally makes sense. See below:

Left ----------------- Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion

The Political Compass

Why? Because it exposes you for the fascist you are...

Here is an even simpler version....

Yes, we've already discussed your idiotic graph for right wing simpletons that you cribbed from some loons blog. (Probably your own.) No one pays any attention to it.

I would be embarrassed if I were you too.....

Still waiting on you to post your test results. What's the matter, the shame?

 

[owebo]

View attachment 87528

This is the political spectrum that I subscribe to, and the only one that to me, rationally makes any sense.

The political spectrum, starts on the right side, as zero government, and on the left, is total government.

Way, way too simplistic. Spend some time over at politicalcompass.org. That's the only model that rationally makes sense. See below:

Left ----------------- Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion

The Political Compass

Why? Because it exposes you for the fascist you are...

Here is an even simpler version....

Yes, we've already discussed your idiotic graph for right wing simpletons that you cribbed from some loons blog. (Probably your own.) No one pays any attention to it.

I would be embarrassed if I were you too.....

Still waiting on you to post your test results. What's the matter, the shame?

I'm just slightly to the left of the Articles of Confederation.....

You're just to the left of fascism.....

Suks to be you.....

 

[oreo]

But the Reich wing is just as bad. They hijacked the Republican party. It is no longer the party of Lincoln or Reagan--it is now the party of Trump.

No argument here. But you know what is frightening? The Republican Party is exclusively made up of JFK liberals. What does it say about you and your party that JFK-era liberalism is "Reich Wing" in your mind? That true liberalism isn't left enough? Donald Trump spent his entire life as a dedicated liberal. He donated money to Harry fucking Reid for God sakes. He donated money to Hitlery Clinton and said she would make a great president. Conservatives rightly reject him because he's a hard core liberal. What does it say about you and your bat-shit crazy Dumbocrat pals that you reject him?.

Oh Hunior please. Donald Rump is not a "Liberal". Donald Rump is not a "conservative". Donáld Rump is a Class A Narcissist. A whore with no ethics at all who will say anything, pay anything or play anything to get what he wants, which is an endless fix of Attention For Numero Uno. He has no "left", "right" or "center". All he has is "self".

Why don't you try eBay. Maybe you can sell bullshit there.

Maybe true. Of course I don't see Obama, or Clinton as being much different. A few weeks ago, I watch the correspondents dinners. One of Obama and one of Bush. Bush had no problem poking fun at himself, and enjoy his time. Obama on the other hand, only poked fun at others, and promoting himself.

So... Now I don't think Trump would be like Bush. I think you are right. He would act more like Obama in that situation.

But honestly, most presidents are egos to some degree.

I will still vote for Trump though... not really 'for' Trump, as much as against Hillary. She is a lying, criminal, trashy scummy swindling, coward and felon. I'll vote for her to be in prison if you give me the chance. That's the only vote for Hillary I would ever give.

Well--some of your thoughts are original at least--but there is one thing you're forgetting about while calling Hillary a criminal, and that are these 3500 class action law suits that Trump is involved with. Trump University is due in court very soon and the headlines are going to get ugly.
Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam

I imagine this woman will be the first witness on the stand.



Trump is too dangerous for me. He is the most incompetent, unqualified, dangerous candidate in this nations history. A man with no honor, no respect, no dignity, and the only loyalty he has ever shown to anyone is to himself and Russia. He is not arrogant as you suggest, he's far worse, a Narcissit. And you cannot give a Narcissit unbridled power.
Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy
A neuroscientist explains: Trump has a mental disorder that makes him a dangerous world leader

So I am taking the advice of a friend and former staffer of Ronald Reagan and will be casting a vote for Hillary Clinton in November.




And of course other Republicans are endorsing Hillary Clinton also.
ANOTHER Major Republican Endorses Hillary...Trump Is LIVID, Fears Campaign Is OVER
Trump sends unprecedented numbers of GOP fleeing to Clinton

You are comparing the selling of missile technology to china..... classified national security information on an unsecured server... the murdering of our ambassador, and covering with non-stop lies about an almost completely unknown B rated movie.... the lying to federal investigators that lost millions of retirement money in a failed bank, to cover a fraudulent real estate business.... the pay off of millions of dollars, as bribe money for presidential pardons, and votes in exchange for pardoning a convicted terrorist...........

With Trump University?

On a scale.... you want to compare murder, lying to investigators, national security, fraud, cover ups, bribery, and pardons for dollars..... to Trump University?

I'll take TWENTY Trump Universities for ANY ONE SINGLE OF THOSE THINGS that Hillary was involved in.

I can tell in your first sentence that you have been stuffed full of Reich wing conspiracy theories. And this is what I was referring to as the far left and the far right have a lot in common when things don't go the way they want them too, they manufacture conspiracy's.

Even though 8 investigations over Benghazi--the 8th one costing the taxpayers 7 million dollars--you apparently think you know more than the GOP leadership who investigated Benghazi (8 times.)

Even though no charges were brought against Hillary Clinton over emails, you apparently think you know more than the FBI does. Comey also brought up one 4 star General & CIA director David Petreaus and gave a comparison of why he was charged and Hillary Clinton wasn't. And of course, we also have the new information regarding Secretary Powell.
James Comey: David Petraeus case worse than Hillary Clinton's emails - CNNPolitics.com
The shocking truth: Colin Powell’s emails don’t matter
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

This is because you're spoon fed these conspiracy theories by Reich wing talk show hosts, who will take a story--water it down--shrink it and hang out to dry and then glue it all back together and spoon feed it back to you.. That's how it works. And this is how the Republican party has been destroyed. These same have shattered the Republican party into pieces.
Donald Trump broke the conservative media

And it couldn't be better explained than this:
Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It’s a fool’s errand. They went to the tea party – and now they’re taking Donald Trump to the prom. Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material. Now an eighth has produced more of the same – and the agitators are as agitated as ever.
With Clinton exonerated, conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy

 

[SYTFE]

View attachment 87528

Way, way too simplistic. Spend some time over at politicalcompass.org. That's the only model that rationally makes sense. See below:

The Political Compass

Why? Because it exposes you for the fascist you are...

Here is an even simpler version....

Yes, we've already discussed your idiotic graph for right wing simpletons that you cribbed from some loons blog. (Probably your own.) No one pays any attention to it.

I would be embarrassed if I were you too.....

Still waiting on you to post your test results. What's the matter, the shame?

I'm just slightly to the left of the Articles of Confederation.....

You're just to the left of fascism.....

Suks to be you.....

No, you are an authoritarian fascist, likely some alt-right faggot who can't get a job.