Neofascism

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Gee, why didn't I think of that. Of course there is some reason to believe others are as stupid as you, consider this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osocGiofdvc]35W Bridge Collapse LIVE VIDEO ACTUAL Minneapolis Minnesota - YouTube[/ame]

So, in your considered opinion it is best that we allow the people to hold onto their money and not pay taxes to repair and replace the infrastructure of our nation, which, BTW, aid business and commerce.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

There is some truth to this comment but a fix exists, one which I have advocated in the past. If the POTUS had the line-item veto s/he could eliminate the 'vet from the budget and, if The Congress felt such a veto was wrong they could override it.

Of course that would take an Amendment to the COTUS and as we know The Congress is broken.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

There is some truth to this comment but a fix exists, one which I have advocated in the past. If the POTUS had the line-item veto s/he could eliminate the 'vet from the budget and, if The Congress felt such a veto was wrong they could override it.

Of course that would take an Amendment to the COTUS and as we know The Congress is broken.

It would take repealing the Budget Impoundment Act of 1974.

Demarxists passed it and that was the last time the President had any ability to influence parts of a budget

 

[bedowin62]

the self-delusions on the Left about the origins of fascism are amazing!
the Left says fascists attacked "other left-wing ideologies" and they are right. facism is a left-wing ideology; and sprung from left-wing ideology

Crips attack Bloods; does that mean one of them isnt a gang?

there is no such thing as "liberal indivudualism" when your motto is "it takes a village" or "each according to this means" or any number of other left-wing slogans


the Soviets built a huge empire on the notion of a Greater Slavic state;' and sent Jews and othes to Gulags. it is laughable to present the difference between right and left-wing ideologies as the Righ being racist
robert mugbe in zimbabwe has a different view

che geuvara made some statements on black people; . i wonder if the idiot here with the PROPAGANDA IN BLUE PRINT at the bottom of his posts would dare print them?

 

[bedowin62]

Fascists NATIONALIZED the HEALTH CARE AND OIL industries and BANNED PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS.
what self-respecting right-winger would do that?

 

[bedowin62]

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?

Gee, why didn't I think of that. Of course there is some reason to believe others are as stupid as you, consider this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osocGiofdvc]35W Bridge Collapse LIVE VIDEO ACTUAL Minneapolis Minnesota - YouTube[/ame]

So, in your considered opinion it is best that we allow the people to hold onto their money and not pay taxes to repair and replace the infrastructure of our nation, which, BTW, aid business and commerce.

YAWN
just idiotic. you post videos because your posts are meant for easily-duped sheep.
we have a federal fuel tax; AND state taxes for infrastructure.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

There is some truth to this comment but a fix exists, one which I have advocated in the past. If the POTUS had the line-item veto s/he could eliminate the 'vet from the budget and, if The Congress felt such a veto was wrong they could override it.

Of course that would take an Amendment to the COTUS and as we know The Congress is broken.

Except it's more likely that the line item veto would be used to get rid of spending cuts, rather than spending projects.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

There is some truth to this comment but a fix exists, one which I have advocated in the past. If the POTUS had the line-item veto s/he could eliminate the 'vet from the budget and, if The Congress felt such a veto was wrong they could override it.

Of course that would take an Amendment to the COTUS and as we know The Congress is broken.

It would take repealing the Budget Impoundment Act of 1974.

Demarxists passed it and that was the last time the President had any ability to influence parts of a budget

1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act - Timeline - Slaying the Dragon of Debt - Regional Oral History Office - University of California, Berkeley

"The long-term effects of the Congressional Budget Act are in dispute. Iwan Morgan argues the Act shifted budgetary leadership to the Congress, which exacerbated the problems inherent in that institution by creating unrealistic deadlines and demanding a level of coordination of which Congress is incapable."

Seems to make sense, given that The Congress is broken. Let the President decide, and if the people don't like it they will replace him or her.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

There is some truth to this comment but a fix exists, one which I have advocated in the past. If the POTUS had the line-item veto s/he could eliminate the 'vet from the budget and, if The Congress felt such a veto was wrong they could override it.

Of course that would take an Amendment to the COTUS and as we know The Congress is broken.

Except it's more likely that the line item veto would be used to get rid of spending cuts, rather than spending projects.

And if that were the case, the Congress could override his/her veto. Checks and balances.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Gee, why didn't I think of that. Of course there is some reason to believe others are as stupid as you, consider this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osocGiofdvc]35W Bridge Collapse LIVE VIDEO ACTUAL Minneapolis Minnesota - YouTube[/ame]

So, in your considered opinion it is best that we allow the people to hold onto their money and not pay taxes to repair and replace the infrastructure of our nation, which, BTW, aid business and commerce.

YAWN
just idiotic. you post videos because your posts are meant for easily-duped sheep.
we have a federal fuel tax; AND state taxes for infrastructure.

In all honesty calling you stupid was an understatement.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

ROFL! Lincoln had people who criticized his administration executed without a trial. He put thousands of people in a concentration camps. He shut down 300 newspapers for printing articles critical of his administration. Lincoln makes Pinochet look like a choir boy.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

There are virtually no budget cuts that will increase future costs. In fact, precisely the opposite is the case. Less money spent now means less money spent in the future.

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?

Of course, 83% of the budget goes to feed parasites on the ass of society. Only a minute percentage is devoted to maintenance. Your buddy Obama's ACA recommended that women get fewer breast exams, so you look utterly foolish using that example.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Of course he does. His term "neo fascism" is meant to be a slur against everyone who supports limited government and economic freedom.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is some truth to this comment but a fix exists, one which I have advocated in the past. If the POTUS had the line-item veto s/he could eliminate the 'vet from the budget and, if The Congress felt such a veto was wrong they could override it.

Of course that would take an Amendment to the COTUS and as we know The Congress is broken.

Except it's more likely that the line item veto would be used to get rid of spending cuts, rather than spending projects.

And if that were the case, the Congress could override his/her veto. Checks and balances.

Congress is even less interested in spending cuts than the President would be, considering they're the ones who like to spend the money in their districts to help them get elected.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

"Pragmatic" is a euphemism meaning you have no principles or scruples. So, no, they aren't "pragmatic."

 

[Wry Catcher]

Except it's more likely that the line item veto would be used to get rid of spending cuts, rather than spending projects.

And if that were the case, the Congress could override his/her veto. Checks and balances.

Congress is even less interested in spending cuts than the President would be, considering they're the ones who like to spend the money in their districts to help them get elected.

True. But the Line-Item Veto puts the POTUS on the spot and when used puts greater visibility on The Congress.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And if that were the case, the Congress could override his/her veto. Checks and balances.

Congress is even less interested in spending cuts than the President would be, considering they're the ones who like to spend the money in their districts to help them get elected.

True. But the Line-Item Veto puts the POTUS on the spot and when used puts greater visibility on The Congress.

Which is essentially meaningless. The Congress and President already have enough visibility and it doesn't stop them from doing anything.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Congress is even less interested in spending cuts than the President would be, considering they're the ones who like to spend the money in their districts to help them get elected.

True. But the Line-Item Veto puts the POTUS on the spot and when used puts greater visibility on The Congress.

Which is essentially meaningless. The Congress and President already have enough visibility and it doesn't stop them from doing anything.

In therapy your counselor would call you on your, "Yes, but" responses. As I said, we'll never agree and I tire in the attempt to respond to such banalities.

This thread is about bripat, bedowin62 and the other Neo Fascists who pretend to be something other than what they are.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Neo fascism is a political philosophy and movement that arose in Europe in the decades following World War II. Like earlier fascist movements, neo fascism advocated extreme nationalism, opposed liberal individualism, attacked Marxist and other left-wing ideologies, indulged in racist and xenophobic scapegoating, and promoted populist right-wing economic programs. Unlike the fascists, however, neo fascist's placed more blame for their countries’ problems on non-European immigrants than on leftists and Jews"

Why do they hide behind a misnomer label, they're in no way or manner real conservatives? Neo fascists support economic policies which benefit the Corporate America and the power elite. As corporatist's many who support such policies are not in the same class as the rich and powerful; why they do is an interesting question best left to the psychologists.

Which libtard website did you pilfer that from? the rich got richer, and still are 5 years into a very leftist agenda. In other words...thread fail.

It was "pilfered" from the Encyclopedia Britannica, if you read the OP you wouldn't need to ask. You are free and encouraged to disagree with me, but in doing so I suggest you put away the personal attacks and make a concise and credible argument. Calling my argument a failure is childish, suggesting my source was a "libtard website" was ridiculous. I suggest you find a new hobby, it would be better than embarrassing yourself as you do here.

There are thick books written on the various forms of socialism and fascism, and therefore, a paragraph from the Encyclopedia (most likely created by a liberal college profesor) is not adequate to prove anything more than your own bias on the subject.

Both Socialism and Fascism are methods of government control of people, and they are not mutually exclusive. Both exist in black and white, and in every shade in between absolute freedom and absolute govermental control.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Which libtard website did you pilfer that from? the rich got richer, and still are 5 years into a very leftist agenda. In other words...thread fail.

It was "pilfered" from the Encyclopedia Britannica, if you read the OP you wouldn't need to ask. You are free and encouraged to disagree with me, but in doing so I suggest you put away the personal attacks and make a concise and credible argument. Calling my argument a failure is childish, suggesting my source was a "libtard website" was ridiculous. I suggest you find a new hobby, it would be better than embarrassing yourself as you do here.

There are thick books written on the various forms of socialism and fascism, and therefore, a paragraph from the Encyclopedia (most likely created by a liberal college profesor) is not adequate to prove anything more than your own bias on the subject.

Both Socialism and Fascism are methods of government control of people, and they are not mutually exclusive. Both exist in black and white, and in every shade in between absolute freedom and absolute govermental control.

NEO Fascism: Neo means "New", and it is defined in my signature.