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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I don't disagree with you, though I'm not sure about Pelosi. I just don't think people that hold those views are actually liberals.
I was being sarcastic.
You are free to hold your opinion BUT i don't know many people who would confuse which side of the spectrum each reside. solid lefties every one. Fascists who think they know better than you regarding your own life. Somehow, this validates acting just like a fascist and limiting options and liberty "for your own good". It's one of the reasons why I hate the far end of my side of the spectrum more than the far side of the right.
I promise you that the reason there is no more smoking on congressional grounds is because of the actions of the liberal congresspeople pushing their fascist fucking anti-tobacco agenda. Actually liberals? We can debate the nomenclature as dieuretic seems to want but the fact remains that it isn't conservatives looking to restrict options by banning smoking. It wasn't Nancy Reagan or Barb Bush that pounced on all that ebil debil music that invented suicide in the early 90s. Peta sure as hell isn't a right wing organization. speaking AS a liberal dude, they count.
A Smoking Tradition Snuffed Out By Pelosi
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011002075.html
yes, FUCK nancy pelosi. She is exactly the kind of democrat that validates generalizations about the party.
I was being dense.
How about using a more appropriate term than "fascist" which has a particular meaning? What about "authoritarian"? Yes, there is a huge streak of authoritarianism in the Left, it has a tendency towards authoritarianism the further left it goes. And so on the right, exactly the same.
The leftwing/rightwing ideological spectrum is less like a straight line and more like a slightly less than a complete circle. Where the extremes on both sides are a lot closer to each other than they are the "middle."
I've seen that link before, and read through it. It doesn't provide the information I said you didn't provide, namely the information that documents where Goldberg is wrong. Instead, the author simply asserts that Goldberg should have included many other groups (right-wing) groups in his work. I don't know that it was the purpose of his work to talk about right-wing fascism, but I certainly can't disagree that the groups mentioned in your link have fascist characteristics. Nothing in the link, however, demonstrates that Goldberg was wrong. At best, one could argue his book was incomplete (at least if it was to be a treatise on fascism generally, which it wasn't).
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
the word works for me.
Hey, that's my job!
Goldberg's premise is flawed. Fascism and "liberalism" - and here we get to the Newspeak re-definition of the word, I think Goldberg means the soft, velvety Left of US politics - are inconsistent. He means the tendency to authoritarianism even in the US wimpy Left, but he can't use it because he damn well knows the Right are past masters of authoritarianism. So he deliberately misuses the term "fascism" because, well, no-one but a fascist loves a fascist.
I think you have that impression because you haven't read the book, Diuretic. Goldberg does get there to some extent, but that's not the most interesting part of the work. The majority of it extends to a historical view of what are now considered 'liberal' policies or groups. He provides some interesting information, for example, about the Wilson administration. It's more of a perspective on history than a commentary on the present-day liberals, although there is some of the latter in it. At least, that's my reading.
Care to post some of the examples and his rationale?
I don't have it in front of me so I can't right now.
MIDCAN - I take it you haven't read the book.
I glanced at it, but as an English prof I had once said, if you are eating bad meat, is it necessary to eat the whole thing to know it is bad.
Pure unadulterated garbage in my mind and scary as if you can turn wrong into right and right into wrong you can do anything, it is why rightists tend to be fascist in the first place. Read Eco above.
I don't have it in front of me so I can't right now.
MIDCAN - I take it you haven't read the book.
Tomorrow will be fine.
What are we defining as NeoConservatism?
NeoConservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
There's a good difference between the two.