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.
See.....your fascism shines right through for all to see....simple, isn't it..I'm just slightly to the left of the Articles of Confederation.....I would be embarrassed if I were you too.....View attachment 87528 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.
Still waiting on you to post your test results. What's the matter, the shame?
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.
And I answered. Your turn now.I asked you first.What evidence exists that conservatism is right-wing?What evidence supports your claim that fascism is liberal?
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
Look at the hateful, angry, and very homophobic left-wing authoritarian illustrating his closet homosexuality for everyone.No, you are an authoritarian fascist, likely some alt-right faggot who can't get a job.
What evidence supports your claim that fascism is liberal?Fascism is left-wing, stupid. That's your side of the aisle moron. Extreme right-wing ideology is Soveriegn Citizen and Anarchist, dumb ass.Did Patriot -- an authoritarian fascist if there ever was one -- ever figure out just how evil liberalism is in his mega thread of douchebaggery?
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?
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.
What evidence supports your claim that fascism is liberal?Fascism is left-wing, stupid. That's your side of the aisle moron. Extreme right-wing ideology is Soveriegn Citizen and Anarchist, dumb ass.
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?
No.
I don't hang labels on people. Actions may be described as "Liberal" --- not people.
People are individuals, with free will. We will not find a human being that fits a consistent label on literally everything, nor should we look for one, because -- again -- that's just hanging labels. Which is a useless wank. Actions speak louder than labels.
What evidence supports your claim that fascism is liberal?Fascism is left-wing, stupid. That's your side of the aisle moron. Extreme right-wing ideology is Soveriegn Citizen and Anarchist, dumb ass.
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?
No.
I don't hang labels on people. Actions may be described as "Liberal" --- not people.
People are individuals, with free will. We will not find a human being that fits a consistent label on literally everything, nor should we look for one, because -- again -- that's just hanging labels. Which is a useless wank. Actions speak louder than labels.
Being a conservative does not equate to being a racist -- but being a racist does require being a conservative. The racist segment of the South bolted from the DP because it wasn't conservative enough, and they finally got over their emotional basis to admit that. Simple as that.
Liberals doing what liberals do best - cheating poor people out of money...
How the Clinton Foundation Got Rich off Poor Haitians
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?
No.
I don't hang labels on people. Actions may be described as "Liberal" --- not people.
People are individuals, with free will. We will not find a human being that fits a consistent label on literally everything, nor should we look for one, because -- again -- that's just hanging labels. Which is a useless wank. Actions speak louder than labels.
So you have never, at any point on this entire forum, hanged a label on anyone?
Being a conservative does not equate to being a racist -- but being a racist does require being a conservative. The racist segment of the South bolted from the DP because it wasn't conservative enough, and they finally got over their emotional basis to admit that. Simple as that.
I see a couple of labels there.
But oddly, even your post seems contradictory. Actions speak louder than labels, and yet when you hang the label on the action.... it's still a label.
That said, you have effectively removed yourself from the discussion.
We, as in the rest of us on this thread, are talking about the application of the label "Liberal" as it is being practically used in modern US politics.
You, are referring only to your own literal definition of the word Liberal. I get that. You have a perfectly valid view.
But the fact is, the vast majority of this country accepts the current modern political definition of a Liberal. So effectively, you have removed yourself from the mainstream of our entire society, and the accepted political definitions.
If you say that you are Liberal, and support reduced restrictions and regulations on banks, which would be in fact the dictionary definition of what a Liberal should stand for.... you would be banned, and laughed at, by any self-proclaimed liberal organization in the entire country.
The entire country, does not follow your dictionary definition of Liberal. No one here has argued that liberal doesn't mean to liberalize. No one has argued to change the meaning of the word.
Only that in politics, liberals are the opposite of 'liberal'. You say, then they are not liberal. Great. Convince the millions of people throughout this country, that they are all ignorant and wrong. I applaud whatever effort you put into that.
My experience is, that's a losing battle. So instead I just tell them how dumb their ideas and policies are, and skip arguing about what "liberal" means.
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?
No.
I don't hang labels on people. Actions may be described as "Liberal" --- not people.
People are individuals, with free will. We will not find a human being that fits a consistent label on literally everything, nor should we look for one, because -- again -- that's just hanging labels. Which is a useless wank. Actions speak louder than labels.
You can't call someone a liberal just because they're a Democrat, or refer to someone who is a Republican as a Reich winger.
You're leaving out the middle of both parties which are also the majority of both parties that are moderates. And there are moderate Democrats commonly referred to as Blue Dog Democrats aka Beau weavels--as moderate Republicans have recently been labeled establishment or rino's (by the Reich wing.) And it's these majorities in both parties that any Presidential candidate has to appeal too--in order to win the White House.
And it's these moderate Republicans that are running from Trump into Hillary Clinton's column.
Let Trump be a lesson to the Democrat Party. If you nominate someone that is too far left and only appeals to a certain segment of the party, it will be blue dog Democrats running to the Republican nominee. This happened in 1984. And it is the reason that there are now 714 Democrat Super delegates.
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?
No.
I don't hang labels on people. Actions may be described as "Liberal" --- not people.
People are individuals, with free will. We will not find a human being that fits a consistent label on literally everything, nor should we look for one, because -- again -- that's just hanging labels. Which is a useless wank. Actions speak louder than labels.
So you have never, at any point on this entire forum, hanged a label on anyone?
Not that I know of, no. Feel free to search sixty thousand posts.
Being a conservative does not equate to being a racist -- but being a racist does require being a conservative. The racist segment of the South bolted from the DP because it wasn't conservative enough, and they finally got over their emotional basis to admit that. Simple as that.
I see a couple of labels there.
But oddly, even your post seems contradictory. Actions speak louder than labels, and yet when you hang the label on the action.... it's still a label.
That said, you have effectively removed yourself from the discussion.
Actually what I did was dismissed the "discussion" itself, since it's invalid.
To reiterate, humans are not labels. Person X may be a Liberal on this issue and a Conservative on that one. And poof --- there goes your label. Labels require binary thinking. On-off switches. As if Person Y has their "Liberal" switch turned off and their "conservative" switch turned on. That's not how humans work, at all, and I reject it out of hand as inherently invalid, which is why I don't use them.
In fact while you're searching those sixty thousand posts you'll find sixty thousand more of other people's that I didn't click an "agree" on, on a point I otherwise do agree, simply because they commit that very fallacy.
We, as in the rest of us on this thread, are talking about the application of the label "Liberal" as it is being practically used in modern US politics.
You, are referring only to your own literal definition of the word Liberal. I get that. You have a perfectly valid view.
But the fact is, the vast majority of this country accepts the current modern political definition of a Liberal. So effectively, you have removed yourself from the mainstream of our entire society, and the accepted political definitions.
Nope. That definition is invalid, as it cannot be rendered without self-contradiction. A term cannot mean the opposite of itself, period. And we're back where we started again.
If X number of people, certainly including the OP, are misusing a term they clearly do not understand, then their arguments using that term are invalid. I've challenged Buttsoiler literally dozens of times in this thread alone, including my last post, to demonstrate how his particular example has anything in the world to do with "Liberalism". He won't answer, because he can't do it. And he can't do it because it doesn't work.
The fucked-up element comes in where he just goes on with the same fallacy again over and over, expecting different results. Or as the maxim puts it, "when the known facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?"
If you say that you are Liberal, and support reduced restrictions and regulations on banks, which would be in fact the dictionary definition of what a Liberal should stand for.... you would be banned, and laughed at, by any self-proclaimed liberal organization in the entire country.
The operative adjective here is "self-proclaimed". If one claims a label, and one's actions do not reflect that label, then one's claim is simply --- WRONG. Is that hard to comprehend? Does everyone who proclaims him/herself to be something automatically enjoy infallibility? That's absurd.
The entire country, does not follow your dictionary definition of Liberal. No one here has argued that liberal doesn't mean to liberalize. No one has argued to change the meaning of the word.
Link to this poll of "the entire country" please?
Only that in politics, liberals are the opposite of 'liberal'. You say, then they are not liberal. Great. Convince the millions of people throughout this country, that they are all ignorant and wrong. I applaud whatever effort you put into that.
Thank you. NOW you get it.
And you also demonstrate yet again the point I've made over and over, quote:
"liberals are the opposite of liberal"-- which is a paradox. A term cannot mean the opposite of itself. Can't be done.
EITHER your example people are not Liberals but are the opposite, OR they are Liberals and are not the opposite. They cannot be both. This is head-bangingly elementary.
My experience is, that's a losing battle. So instead I just tell them how dumb their ideas and policies are, and skip arguing about what "liberal" means.
See the post above. See if you can provide his answer for him. If you can't, then you have your answer about what I'm doing.
Look, I'm not going to argue this. Because the next person I talk to is going to say "I'm a liberal and I stand for (insert anti-liberal policies X, Y and Z).
You are wasting your time. You would have to convince the other 90% of the country. That's not going to happen, so why waste my time with you? Have a good one.
This is how evil progressivism is... No real concern for the plight of U.S. citizens and no backbone to stand up against them if they disagree. Instead, just a "strategy" for patronizing them and leveraging them as "useful idiots" for votes.
Hacked Email Shows What Dems Really Think About Black Lives Matter
This is how evil progressivism is... No real concern for the plight of U.S. citizens and no backbone to stand up against them if they disagree. Instead, just a "strategy" for patronizing them and leveraging them as "useful idiots" for votes.
Hacked Email Shows What Dems Really Think About Black Lives Matter
Ah, so we've given up on the "Liberalism" myth after being schooled into submission --- and now we're on to "Progressivism". The aim of which was to root corruption and corporatism out of government, get We the People more politically active, and perished in World War One. A hundred years ago.
And that's "EEEEbil".
It's just the thread that keeps on giving, that's what it is.
This is how evil progressivism is....the people they nominate for president run around committing significant crimes like trespassing and vandalism. This isn't a petty crime like jaywalking or driving without a seatbelt. Trespassing on private property is a serious crime and destruction of someone else's property is even worse.
Presidential Candidate Jill Stein to Face Criminal Charges
