Neofascism

[Wry Catcher]

Hates American Democracy? Not only did Pinochet receive support from the US, he restored democracy after he retired from power was the communist party(which received support from Cuba and the USSR, I suppose those are bastions of democracy in your pozzed mind. So how anyone could construe supporting pinochet as anti-american or anti-democratic is laughable. Honestly piss off you leftist queer.

Pinochet, with the help of the US, was responsible for the coup which took down the elected Democracy of Allende. The US supported it because they feared Marxism more than Fascism. The same thing went on later in Central America with Iran/Contra.

What's truly pathetic is the to are basically the same. Control is maintained by a small elite and the peasantry, of whichever "governmental type you choose", are screwed over.

By the "to" I assume you mean the Democratic and Republican Parties. I agree a power elite has much to say when it comes to how our government picks and chooses winners and losers; yet many on this forum support "free speech" as defined by CU & McCutcheon v. FEC which has given more power to the elites.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We do have many laws, anyone who has every ventured into a law library for the first time is amazed at the volume of volumes. I can't say I support the Roaches, though life on earth and in our oceans is interdependent and the elimination of any species can have unexpected consequences.

Try to focus.

I believe the sin tax on alcohol and tobacco is warranted. Consider the societal costs to treat the chronic illnesses of chronic tobacco use, and the costs associated with crime, treatment and health issues associated with alcoholism.

On the other hand consider the costs of the failed war on drugs. Crime, enforcement, prosecution, imprisonment. There is no cost-benefit.

LOL. So there's no societal cost to drug use. Retard!

Of course there are. Are you being obstinate because you dislike my opinions, or are you an ignorant ass?

 

[bedowin62]

a union member; SOCIALIST and member of the Communist Party is credited with inventing modern fascism


idiots and hypocrites

 

[dblack]

Those on the far right who claim to be conservatives and call all of us who question their ideology "commies", "Marxists", "Socialists" and "Leftists" (among other pejoratives) need to be called exactly what they are: Neo fascists.

It's the concept of the 'far right' that is problematic. Who are you talking about? In particular, where do you put libertarians in the stilted left/right axis?

 

[Iceweasel]

]I believe the sin tax on alcohol and tobacco is warranted. Consider the societal costs to treat the chronic illnesses of chronic tobacco use, and the costs associated with crime, treatment and health issues associated with alcoholism.

On the other hand consider the costs of the failed war on drugs. Crime, enforcement, prosecution, imprisonment. There is no cost-benefit.

LOL. So there's no societal cost to drug use. Retard!

Of course there are. Are you being obstinate because you dislike my opinions, or are you an ignorant ass?

I dislike your opinions because they don't make sense and are inconsistent. Drugs may have a higher cost than alcohol on society, even legal ones. To claim there is no cost benefit is ridiculous. Crime has gone down with all those drug incarcerations. You may not agree with the sentence but you can't demonstrate there is no positive outcome.

And conservatives do not favor big government, how plain could it be? That's a necessary ingredient to any fascist, socialist, communist rule. All of those have big governments in order to function. Picking out pieces of ideology to make your case is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Those on the far right who claim to be conservatives and call all of us who question their ideology "commies", "Marxists", "Socialists" and "Leftists" (among other pejoratives) need to be called exactly what they are: Neo fascists.

It's the concept of the 'far right' that is problematic. Who are you talking about? In particular, where do you put libertarians in the stilted left/right axis?

The Libertarian Party (LP) is a mix of individuals with little commonality beyond "leave me alone". Of course my take on the Libertarian message has been formed by the posts of Libertarians on this forum. I'm ambivalent on the far right, far left paradigm. In the matter of the LP - on that dichotomy - their placement IMO is problematic, and the likely determinant factor would be if a charismatic leader arose and lead the party in a specific direction.

Thus, how or do you see yourself, as far left or far right or somewhere in the middle?

PS Likely your response will be determined on the issue at hand, at least that's my best guess.

 

[editec]

a union member; SOCIALIST and member of the Communist Party is credited with inventing modern fascism


idiots and hypocrites

\


THAT IS TRUE.

And if you understand that then you must also know what Mussolini said about what modern FASCISM really means, too, right?

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. "

 

[PredFan]

Obama and the progressives aren't neofascists, they are old school fascists.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Libertarian Party (LP) is a mix of individuals with little commonality beyond "leave me alone". Of course my take on the Libertarian message has been formed by the posts of Libertarians on this forum. I'm ambivalent on the far right, far left paradigm. In the matter of the LP - on that dichotomy - their placement IMO is problematic, and the likely determinant factor would be if a charismatic leader arose and lead the party in a specific direction.

Thus, how or do you see yourself, as far left or far right or somewhere in the middle?

Libertarians are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal.

 

[Wry Catcher]

a union member; SOCIALIST and member of the Communist Party is credited with inventing modern fascism


idiots and hypocrites

\


THAT IS TRUE.

And if you understand that then you must also know what Mussolini said about what modern FASCISM really means, too, right?

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. "

Thus, when G.W. Bush brought in Dick Cheney, former head of Halliburton, as his VP we might surmise such a merger took place.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Libertarian Party (LP) is a mix of individuals with little commonality beyond "leave me alone". Of course my take on the Libertarian message has been formed by the posts of Libertarians on this forum. I'm ambivalent on the far right, far left paradigm. In the matter of the LP - on that dichotomy - their placement IMO is problematic, and the likely determinant factor would be if a charismatic leader arose and lead the party in a specific direction.

Thus, how or do you see yourself, as far left or far right or somewhere in the middle?

Libertarians are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal.

Platform | Libertarian Party

But are they pragmatic?

 

[dblack]

Those on the far right who claim to be conservatives and call all of us who question their ideology "commies", "Marxists", "Socialists" and "Leftists" (among other pejoratives) need to be called exactly what they are: Neo fascists.

It's the concept of the 'far right' that is problematic. Who are you talking about? In particular, where do you put libertarians in the stilted left/right axis?

The Libertarian Party (LP) is a mix of individuals with little commonality beyond "leave me alone". Of course my take on the Libertarian message has been formed by the posts of Libertarians on this forum. I'm ambivalent on the far right, far left paradigm. In the matter of the LP - on that dichotomy - their placement IMO is problematic, and the likely determinant factor would be if a charismatic leader arose and lead the party in a specific direction.

Thus, how or do you see yourself, as far left or far right or somewhere in the middle?

PS Likely your response will be determined on the issue at hand, at least that's my best guess.

I don't think libertarians fit on the left/right spectrum in a meaningful way. If we try to force the ideology into that mapping, usually by looking at views on representative issues, libertarians end up in the middle. But that's deceiving because corporatist authoritarians also end up there, and we're diametrically opposed to them. These centrist authoritarians are often, in fact, the people trying to frame libertarians as 'far right', probably because they recognize we share little of their values and consider themselves to be 'centrist'.

 

[dblack]

The Libertarian Party (LP) is a mix of individuals with little commonality beyond "leave me alone". Of course my take on the Libertarian message has been formed by the posts of Libertarians on this forum. I'm ambivalent on the far right, far left paradigm. In the matter of the LP - on that dichotomy - their placement IMO is problematic, and the likely determinant factor would be if a charismatic leader arose and lead the party in a specific direction.

Thus, how or do you see yourself, as far left or far right or somewhere in the middle?

Libertarians are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal.

Platform | Libertarian Party

But are they pragmatic?

Some are, some aren't. The ideology itself is idealistic, which is more or less point of an ideology. Advocating for a particular ideology, however, can be as be as pragmatic or idealistic as the advocate desires. In that, libertarians are probably more often seen as idealistic than pragmatic, but we can and do pursue pragmatic goals in the name of libertarian values (more often at the state and local level).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Libertarian Party (LP) is a mix of individuals with little commonality beyond "leave me alone". Of course my take on the Libertarian message has been formed by the posts of Libertarians on this forum. I'm ambivalent on the far right, far left paradigm. In the matter of the LP - on that dichotomy - their placement IMO is problematic, and the likely determinant factor would be if a charismatic leader arose and lead the party in a specific direction.

Thus, how or do you see yourself, as far left or far right or somewhere in the middle?

Libertarians are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal.

This is an idea that has outlived its usefulness, if it ever was useful. "Fiscal conservative" and "social liberal" are adjectives without meanings, as far as I can tell. Paul Ryan is largely considered a fiscal conservative, but his fiscally conservative budget still spent more money than the federal government has and didn't balance for at least a decade. No libertarian is on board with that. And what is Ryan's position on the Federal Reserve? Certainly not in line with anything favored by libertarians. President Obama is largely considered a social liberal, and yet no libertarian I know thinks very highly of his supposed socially liberal views drug laws at the federal level. Nor his views on gay marriage or a host of other issues.

If we need a quick and pithy way to describe libertarianism, then I personally favor the title of Matt Kibbe's new book, which I haven't read as of yet: Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff. I think that sums up libertarianism in an easy to understand way, and is far more accurate than "fiscally conservative and socially liberal."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Plenty of dictators supported the USA.

Killing the opposition is not restoring democracy.

Making thousands disappear is not restoring democracy.

Torturing thousands of more is not democracy.

No, Pinochet certainly did not value democracy and the rule of law.

And your latent homo is peeking out, steinie.

You still didn't explain how supporting pinochet is anti-american when he supported America. Want to hear about that, lol.

Installing elections is democracy, even the US, a democratic country, allows for martial law under civil unreast, doesn't make it less of a democracy. Chile was under threat from a communist takeover. Once that threat was eliminated, elections were installed.
Chilean transition to democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your projection, self hatred, self absorption and insecurity with your homosexual identity is hilarious, "you better embrace my homosexuality, faggot, by the way pinochet is gay". Stop bringing it into every conversation.

Yeah, I did answer it.

Your latency is obvious, Steinie.

Folks like you are amusing to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If that's the case, then Lincoln did not value democracy or the rule of law either. Right Fakey?

False equivalency, bripat. Lincoln would have protected you, while Steinie and pinochet would have destroyed you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Libertarian Party (LP) is a mix of individuals with little commonality beyond "leave me alone". Of course my take on the Libertarian message has been formed by the posts of Libertarians on this forum. I'm ambivalent on the far right, far left paradigm. In the matter of the LP - on that dichotomy - their placement IMO is problematic, and the likely determinant factor would be if a charismatic leader arose and lead the party in a specific direction.

Thus, how or do you see yourself, as far left or far right or somewhere in the middle?

Libertarians are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal.

This is an idea that has outlived its usefulness, if it ever was useful. "Fiscal conservative" and "social liberal" are adjectives without meanings, as far as I can tell. Paul Ryan is largely considered a fiscal conservative, but his fiscally conservative budget still spent more money than the federal government has and didn't balance for at least a decade. No libertarian is on board with that. And what is Ryan's position on the Federal Reserve? Certainly not in line with anything favored by libertarians. President Obama is largely considered a social liberal, and yet no libertarian I know thinks very highly of his supposed socially liberal views drug laws at the federal level. Nor his views on gay marriage or a host of other issues.

If we need a quick and pithy way to describe libertarianism, then I personally favor the title of Matt Kibbe's new book, which I haven't read as of yet: Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff. I think that sums up libertarianism in an easy to understand way, and is far more accurate than "fiscally conservative and socially liberal."

Ryan's budget and your assessment of "fiscal conservative" are, IMO, not an example of being fiscally responsible. I go back to my point on pragmatism. Does it make sense to make cuts in the Federal Budget which will have a direct impact on future cost?

For example, is it smart to save $10 by not buying a gallon of paint and allowing the wood siding be exposed to the elements, rot and become a feeding site for termites, or not going to the Doctor when a lump is found in the breast to save the cost of an examination?

 

[bedowin62]

Libertarians are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal.

This is an idea that has outlived its usefulness, if it ever was useful. "Fiscal conservative" and "social liberal" are adjectives without meanings, as far as I can tell. Paul Ryan is largely considered a fiscal conservative, but his fiscally conservative budget still spent more money than the federal government has and didn't balance for at least a decade. No libertarian is on board with that. And what is Ryan's position on the Federal Reserve? Certainly not in line with anything favored by libertarians. President Obama is largely considered a social liberal, and yet no libertarian I know thinks very highly of his supposed socially liberal views drug laws at the federal level. Nor his views on gay marriage or a host of other issues.

If we need a quick and pithy way to describe libertarianism, then I personally favor the title of Matt Kibbe's new book, which I haven't read as of yet: Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff. I think that sums up libertarianism in an easy to understand way, and is far more accurate than "fiscally conservative and socially liberal."

Ryan's budget and your assessment of "fiscal conservative" are, IMO, not an example of being fiscally responsible. I go back to my point on pragmatism. Does it make sense to make cuts in the Federal Budget which will have a direct impact on future cost?

For example, is it smart to save $10 by not buying a gallon of paint and allowing the wood siding be exposed to the elements, rot and become a feeding site for termites, or not going to the Doctor when a lump is found in the breast to save the cost of an examination?

YAWN
your post is the usual intellectual dishonesty you see from the idiotic Left.
that gallon of paint the government doesnt buy is money left in the private sector; which is a MUCH better use of resources. it is the same money.

how efficient is it to take money from people in the form of taxes for that gallon of paint; just to "give" it back to them; when you could just let them hold onto the money in the first place?

 

[JakeStarkey]

our post is the usual intellectual dishonesty you see from the idiotic Left

and from the reactionary far right

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarians are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal.

This is an idea that has outlived its usefulness, if it ever was useful. "Fiscal conservative" and "social liberal" are adjectives without meanings, as far as I can tell. Paul Ryan is largely considered a fiscal conservative, but his fiscally conservative budget still spent more money than the federal government has and didn't balance for at least a decade. No libertarian is on board with that. And what is Ryan's position on the Federal Reserve? Certainly not in line with anything favored by libertarians. President Obama is largely considered a social liberal, and yet no libertarian I know thinks very highly of his supposed socially liberal views drug laws at the federal level. Nor his views on gay marriage or a host of other issues.

If we need a quick and pithy way to describe libertarianism, then I personally favor the title of Matt Kibbe's new book, which I haven't read as of yet: Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff. I think that sums up libertarianism in an easy to understand way, and is far more accurate than "fiscally conservative and socially liberal."

Ryan's budget and your assessment of "fiscal conservative" are, IMO, not an example of being fiscally responsible. I go back to my point on pragmatism. Does it make sense to make cuts in the Federal Budget which will have a direct impact on future cost?

For example, is it smart to save $10 by not buying a gallon of paint and allowing the wood siding be exposed to the elements, rot and become a feeding site for termites, or not going to the Doctor when a lump is found in the breast to save the cost of an examination?

No, but it is smart not to buy a Corvette when you're only making $20,000/year, which is a more applicable analogy.