The liberal march towards EXTREME fascism

[Tehon]

Just keep on regurgitating that Goldberg that has your conspiracy loving psyche propped up.

You must LOVE Info Wars

Well...considering I've never even heard of "Goldberg" (unless you are referring to the former Georgia Bulldog defensive lineman turned WWF wrestler), it's safe to say your desperate cries to blame your ignorance on him simply do not uphold in this instance.

First and foremost, it's basic common sense (something you clearly lack). The further right you go, government gets smaller and less powerful until you reach anarchy. No government. No rules. Pure, unadulterated freedom. Fascism is the polar opposite of that and one would have to be incredibly stupid not to realize it. Additionally, Nazi stood for National Socialist. So unless you think socialism is right-wing (which would further deteriorate your already pitiful credibility), it's unequivocally clear that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's were left-wing to their core. Would you deny they were fascists?

Finally, as I have posted on a multitude of occasions now, esteemed and world-renowned economist Friedrich Hayek (who held 3 doctorate degrees, including one for economics - so he has all of the pedigree that libtards love) clearly made the distinction back during the time of fascism (the 1930's) that it was exclusively a left wing ideology.

I have clearly illustrated why this is the case (the right believes in the individual and small government so the further right you go the individual becomes more empowered and government becomes smaller until it disappears and there are no laws or rules at all). All you've done is scream "Goldberg" like an idiot with Tourettes Syndrome (without even articulating who or what "Goldberg" is or why he/she/it is relevant). In short, you've been completely obliterated in this discussion. Do you have anything of substance at all to add? I'll give you one last shot before we all just laugh at you and put you on ignore. Can you even remotely articulate how it is you've come to the conclusion that oppressive, totalitarian fascism is on the same side of the political spectrum as libertarians, sovereign citizens, and anarchists without screaming "Goldberg"?!?

Here ya go Patriot...just add this to the drivel you're trying to pass off as original thought


Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning - See more at: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning | Jonah Goldberg | Conservative Book Club


“Fascists!” “Brownshirts!” “Jackbooted stormtroopers!” Such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. But who are the real fascists in our midst? In “Liberal Fascism,” National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg shows that the original fascists are really on the left — and that liberals, from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton, have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler and Mussolini. Replacing manufactured myths with enlightening research, Goldberg begins by showing how the Italian fascism, German Nazism and American Progressivism (forebear of modern liberalism) all drew from the same intellectual foundations the idea that the state can create a kind of social utopia for its citizens. He then traces fascism’s history in the U.S. — from Woodrow Wilson’s war socialism and FDR’s New Deal to today’s liberal push for a greater alliance between big business and government. Finally, Goldberg reveals the striking resemblances between the opinions advanced by Hitler and Mussolini and the current views of the left on such diverse issues as government’s role in the economy, campaign finance reform, campus “speech codes,” education, environmentalism, gun control, abortion, and euthanasia. Impeccably researched and persuasively argued, Liberal Fascism will elicit howls of indignation from the liberal establishment — and rousing cheers from the right. How fascism, Nazism, Progressivism, and modern liberalism are all alike in principle, in that all believe that government should be allowed to do whatever it likes, so long as it is for “good reasons” How, before World War II and the Holocaust, fascism was considered a progressive social movement both in the U.S. and Europe — but was redefined afterwards as “right wing” How the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National Socialism”) who loathed the free market, believed in free health care, opposed inherited wealth, spent vast sums on public education, purged Christianity from public policy, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life How the Nazis declared war on smoking; supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control; and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities — where campus speech codes were all the rage Adolph Hitler, Man of the Left: how his views and policies regarding capitalism, class warfare, environmentalism, gun control, euthanasia and even smoking are remarkably close to those of modern liberals How Woodrow Wilson and the other founding fathers of American liberalism were far crueler jingoists and warmongers than modern conservatives have ever been How Wilson’s crackdown on civil liberties in the name of national security far exceeds anything even attempted by Joe McCarthy, much less George W. Bush How Mussolini and Hitler both thought — quite rightly — that they were doing things along the same lines as FDR How, in the 1930s, FDR’s New Deal was praised for its similarity to Italian Fascism — “the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery,” said an influential member of FDR’s team How, just like modern liberals, Mussolini promised a “Third Way” that “went beyond tired categories of left and right” in order to “get things done” Mussolini’s and Hitler’s not-so-secret admirers: how many prominent progressives — from W.E.B. Dubois in the U.S. to George Bernard Shaw England — publicly praised German Nazism and Italian Fascism Liberal fascism and the cult of the state: how progressivism shared with fascism a conviction that, in a truly modern society, the state must take the place of religion How American Progressives, like Hitler’s Nazis, were convinced that the state could, through planning and pressure, create a pure race, a society of new men How Nazis, fascists and American progressives — including Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger — all shared a belief in racial engineering through eugenics, and the alleged “need” for abortion and euthanasia it implied How it was largely Christian conservatives who stood against the progressive enthusiasm for racist eugenics The fascist underpinnings of progressive education The 1960s: fascism takes to the streets — how the New Left used the means and methods of Hitler’s brownshirts and the fascist squadristi to further their agenda How the Kennedy-Johnson era marked the final evolution off Progressivism into a full-blown religion and a national cult of the state — with Kennedy its sacrificial “Christ” and LBJ its Pauline architect The Great Society: LBJ’s fascist utopia How the modern heirs of the fascist tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood The tempting of conservatism: the fascist tendencies lurking in “compassionate conservatism” and other pseudo-conservative trends “‘It is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion,’ Jonah Goldberg writes near the beginning of Liberal Fascism. My first reaction was that he is engaging in partisan hyperbole. That turned out to be wrong. Liberal Fascism is nothing less than a portrait of twentieth-century political history as seen through a new prism. It will affect the way I think about that history — and about the trajectory of today’s politics — forever after.” —-Charles Murray, author of “Human Accomplishment” and coauthor (with Richard J. Herrnstein) of “The Bell Curve” “In the greatest hoax of modern history, Russia’s ruling ‘socialist workers party,’ the Communists, established themselves as the polar opposites of their two socialist clones, the National Socialist German Workers Party (quicknamed ‘the Nazis’) and Italy’s Marxist-inspired Fascisti, by branding both as ‘the fascists.’ Jonah Goldberg is the first historian to detail the havoc this spin of all spins has played upon Western thought for the past seventy-five years, very much including the present moment. Love it or loathe it, Liberal Fascism is a book of intellectual history you won’t be able to put down — in either sense of the term.” —Tom Wolfe, author of “Bonfire of the Vanities” and “I Am Charlotte Simmons” “Liberal Fascism will enrage many people on the left, but Jonah Goldberg’s startling thesis deserves serious attention. Going back to the eugenics movement there has been a strain of elitist moral certainty that allows one group of people to believe they have the right to determine the lives of others. We have replaced the divine right of kings with the divine right of self-righteous groups. Goldberg will lead you to new understanding and force you to think deeply.” —Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, author of “Winning the Future” “Jonah Goldberg argues that liberals today have doctrinal and emotional roots in twentieth century European fascism. Many people will be shocked just by the thought that long-discredited fascism could mutate into the spirit of another age. It’s always exhilarating when someone takes on received opinion, but this is not a work of pamphleteering. Goldberg’s insight, supported by a great deal of learning, happens to be right.” —David Pryce-Jones, author of “The Strange Death of the Soviet Union” “Jonah Goldberg brilliantly traces the intellectual roots of fascism to their surprising source, showing not only that its motivating ideas derive from the left but that the liberal fascist impulse is alive and well among contemporary progressives-and is even a temptation for compassionate conservatives.” — Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine - See more at: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning | Jonah Goldberg | Conservative Book Club

So what exactly is your point here? I've never heard of Jonah Goldberg before this. Clearly he had no influence on me. You can't make an outrageous accusation and then hide behind some obscure name that actually proves you wrong to begin with.

Let's forget about 'ole Jonah here. Not knowing who he is, I have no reason to grant him credibility. I'm still waiting on you to explain how an oppressive, totalitarian ideology could possibly be interpreted as "right-wing" when it is the polar opposite in every conceivable definition.

I have to apologize.

You may or may not care, but I have been taking a bad mood out on you.

I'm sorry.

Let me explain.

For whatever reason...The GOP has begun to try and do away with the Left V Right, Democrat V Republican, Liberal V Conservative, Commie V Nazis dichotomy. I believe that reason is because they were able to call lefties Commie Pinkos for decades, but also wanted to mitigate how lefties would play the Nazi card on them.

So...they, mainly Goldberg and Assoc...came up with a loosely strung together set of flawed generalitites posing as analologies, and evidence that Democrats are both Commies and Nazis...and Republicans are neither.

Truth is, both are neither.

Strange how stupid you liberals are...

View attachment 91715

Says the dipshit who uses that meme as a crutch.

 

[Tehon]

Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

Except that liberal during the period that Hayek wrote that was not the American progressive "liberal" of today. The American progressive "liberal" of today is the side trying to force their own "superior ways" by "bringing them the blessings of efficient government".

Except that it was published in 1960, so when, since then, do you think the modern liberal morphed?

And he was not critiquing liberalism, he was critiquing conservatism, so please, try to stay focused and avoid the red herring fallacies, mkay.

The modern liberal never morphed....they just changed the way the shackle people...

Well when you halfwits have come to an agreement on what your position is let me know.

 

[owebo]

Well...considering I've never even heard of "Goldberg" (unless you are referring to the former Georgia Bulldog defensive lineman turned WWF wrestler), it's safe to say your desperate cries to blame your ignorance on him simply do not uphold in this instance.

First and foremost, it's basic common sense (something you clearly lack). The further right you go, government gets smaller and less powerful until you reach anarchy. No government. No rules. Pure, unadulterated freedom. Fascism is the polar opposite of that and one would have to be incredibly stupid not to realize it. Additionally, Nazi stood for National Socialist. So unless you think socialism is right-wing (which would further deteriorate your already pitiful credibility), it's unequivocally clear that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's were left-wing to their core. Would you deny they were fascists?

Finally, as I have posted on a multitude of occasions now, esteemed and world-renowned economist Friedrich Hayek (who held 3 doctorate degrees, including one for economics - so he has all of the pedigree that libtards love) clearly made the distinction back during the time of fascism (the 1930's) that it was exclusively a left wing ideology.

I have clearly illustrated why this is the case (the right believes in the individual and small government so the further right you go the individual becomes more empowered and government becomes smaller until it disappears and there are no laws or rules at all). All you've done is scream "Goldberg" like an idiot with Tourettes Syndrome (without even articulating who or what "Goldberg" is or why he/she/it is relevant). In short, you've been completely obliterated in this discussion. Do you have anything of substance at all to add? I'll give you one last shot before we all just laugh at you and put you on ignore. Can you even remotely articulate how it is you've come to the conclusion that oppressive, totalitarian fascism is on the same side of the political spectrum as libertarians, sovereign citizens, and anarchists without screaming "Goldberg"?!?

Here ya go Patriot...just add this to the drivel you're trying to pass off as original thought


Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning - See more at: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning | Jonah Goldberg | Conservative Book Club


“Fascists!” “Brownshirts!” “Jackbooted stormtroopers!” Such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. But who are the real fascists in our midst? In “Liberal Fascism,” National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg shows that the original fascists are really on the left — and that liberals, from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton, have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler and Mussolini. Replacing manufactured myths with enlightening research, Goldberg begins by showing how the Italian fascism, German Nazism and American Progressivism (forebear of modern liberalism) all drew from the same intellectual foundations the idea that the state can create a kind of social utopia for its citizens. He then traces fascism’s history in the U.S. — from Woodrow Wilson’s war socialism and FDR’s New Deal to today’s liberal push for a greater alliance between big business and government. Finally, Goldberg reveals the striking resemblances between the opinions advanced by Hitler and Mussolini and the current views of the left on such diverse issues as government’s role in the economy, campaign finance reform, campus “speech codes,” education, environmentalism, gun control, abortion, and euthanasia. Impeccably researched and persuasively argued, Liberal Fascism will elicit howls of indignation from the liberal establishment — and rousing cheers from the right. How fascism, Nazism, Progressivism, and modern liberalism are all alike in principle, in that all believe that government should be allowed to do whatever it likes, so long as it is for “good reasons” How, before World War II and the Holocaust, fascism was considered a progressive social movement both in the U.S. and Europe — but was redefined afterwards as “right wing” How the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National Socialism”) who loathed the free market, believed in free health care, opposed inherited wealth, spent vast sums on public education, purged Christianity from public policy, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life How the Nazis declared war on smoking; supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control; and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities — where campus speech codes were all the rage Adolph Hitler, Man of the Left: how his views and policies regarding capitalism, class warfare, environmentalism, gun control, euthanasia and even smoking are remarkably close to those of modern liberals How Woodrow Wilson and the other founding fathers of American liberalism were far crueler jingoists and warmongers than modern conservatives have ever been How Wilson’s crackdown on civil liberties in the name of national security far exceeds anything even attempted by Joe McCarthy, much less George W. Bush How Mussolini and Hitler both thought — quite rightly — that they were doing things along the same lines as FDR How, in the 1930s, FDR’s New Deal was praised for its similarity to Italian Fascism — “the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery,” said an influential member of FDR’s team How, just like modern liberals, Mussolini promised a “Third Way” that “went beyond tired categories of left and right” in order to “get things done” Mussolini’s and Hitler’s not-so-secret admirers: how many prominent progressives — from W.E.B. Dubois in the U.S. to George Bernard Shaw England — publicly praised German Nazism and Italian Fascism Liberal fascism and the cult of the state: how progressivism shared with fascism a conviction that, in a truly modern society, the state must take the place of religion How American Progressives, like Hitler’s Nazis, were convinced that the state could, through planning and pressure, create a pure race, a society of new men How Nazis, fascists and American progressives — including Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger — all shared a belief in racial engineering through eugenics, and the alleged “need” for abortion and euthanasia it implied How it was largely Christian conservatives who stood against the progressive enthusiasm for racist eugenics The fascist underpinnings of progressive education The 1960s: fascism takes to the streets — how the New Left used the means and methods of Hitler’s brownshirts and the fascist squadristi to further their agenda How the Kennedy-Johnson era marked the final evolution off Progressivism into a full-blown religion and a national cult of the state — with Kennedy its sacrificial “Christ” and LBJ its Pauline architect The Great Society: LBJ’s fascist utopia How the modern heirs of the fascist tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood The tempting of conservatism: the fascist tendencies lurking in “compassionate conservatism” and other pseudo-conservative trends “‘It is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion,’ Jonah Goldberg writes near the beginning of Liberal Fascism. My first reaction was that he is engaging in partisan hyperbole. That turned out to be wrong. Liberal Fascism is nothing less than a portrait of twentieth-century political history as seen through a new prism. It will affect the way I think about that history — and about the trajectory of today’s politics — forever after.” —-Charles Murray, author of “Human Accomplishment” and coauthor (with Richard J. Herrnstein) of “The Bell Curve” “In the greatest hoax of modern history, Russia’s ruling ‘socialist workers party,’ the Communists, established themselves as the polar opposites of their two socialist clones, the National Socialist German Workers Party (quicknamed ‘the Nazis’) and Italy’s Marxist-inspired Fascisti, by branding both as ‘the fascists.’ Jonah Goldberg is the first historian to detail the havoc this spin of all spins has played upon Western thought for the past seventy-five years, very much including the present moment. Love it or loathe it, Liberal Fascism is a book of intellectual history you won’t be able to put down — in either sense of the term.” —Tom Wolfe, author of “Bonfire of the Vanities” and “I Am Charlotte Simmons” “Liberal Fascism will enrage many people on the left, but Jonah Goldberg’s startling thesis deserves serious attention. Going back to the eugenics movement there has been a strain of elitist moral certainty that allows one group of people to believe they have the right to determine the lives of others. We have replaced the divine right of kings with the divine right of self-righteous groups. Goldberg will lead you to new understanding and force you to think deeply.” —Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, author of “Winning the Future” “Jonah Goldberg argues that liberals today have doctrinal and emotional roots in twentieth century European fascism. Many people will be shocked just by the thought that long-discredited fascism could mutate into the spirit of another age. It’s always exhilarating when someone takes on received opinion, but this is not a work of pamphleteering. Goldberg’s insight, supported by a great deal of learning, happens to be right.” —David Pryce-Jones, author of “The Strange Death of the Soviet Union” “Jonah Goldberg brilliantly traces the intellectual roots of fascism to their surprising source, showing not only that its motivating ideas derive from the left but that the liberal fascist impulse is alive and well among contemporary progressives-and is even a temptation for compassionate conservatives.” — Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine - See more at: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning | Jonah Goldberg | Conservative Book Club

So what exactly is your point here? I've never heard of Jonah Goldberg before this. Clearly he had no influence on me. You can't make an outrageous accusation and then hide behind some obscure name that actually proves you wrong to begin with.

Let's forget about 'ole Jonah here. Not knowing who he is, I have no reason to grant him credibility. I'm still waiting on you to explain how an oppressive, totalitarian ideology could possibly be interpreted as "right-wing" when it is the polar opposite in every conceivable definition.

I have to apologize.

You may or may not care, but I have been taking a bad mood out on you.

I'm sorry.

Let me explain.

For whatever reason...The GOP has begun to try and do away with the Left V Right, Democrat V Republican, Liberal V Conservative, Commie V Nazis dichotomy. I believe that reason is because they were able to call lefties Commie Pinkos for decades, but also wanted to mitigate how lefties would play the Nazi card on them.

So...they, mainly Goldberg and Assoc...came up with a loosely strung together set of flawed generalitites posing as analologies, and evidence that Democrats are both Commies and Nazis...and Republicans are neither.

Truth is, both are neither.

Strange how stupid you liberals are...

View attachment 91715

Says the dipshit who uses that meme as a crutch.

Says the public school student....

 

[owebo]

Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

Except that liberal during the period that Hayek wrote that was not the American progressive "liberal" of today. The American progressive "liberal" of today is the side trying to force their own "superior ways" by "bringing them the blessings of efficient government".

Except that it was published in 1960, so when, since then, do you think the modern liberal morphed?

And he was not critiquing liberalism, he was critiquing conservatism, so please, try to stay focused and avoid the red herring fallacies, mkay.

The modern liberal never morphed....they just changed the way the shackle people...

Well when you halfwits have come to an agreement on what your position is let me know.

Carry on fascist liberal....

 

[Tehon]

Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

Except that liberal during the period that Hayek wrote that was not the American progressive "liberal" of today. The American progressive "liberal" of today is the side trying to force their own "superior ways" by "bringing them the blessings of efficient government".

Except that it was published in 1960, so when, since then, do you think the modern liberal morphed?

And he was not critiquing liberalism, he was critiquing conservatism, so please, try to stay focused and avoid the red herring fallacies, mkay.

The modern liberal never morphed....they just changed the way the shackle people...

Well when you halfwits have come to an agreement on what your position is let me know.

Carry on fascist liberal....

Is this a new definition of "fascist" in the making.
Fascist;
What you call someone when you are unable to cogently articulate your own position.

 

[owebo]

Except that liberal during the period that Hayek wrote that was not the American progressive "liberal" of today. The American progressive "liberal" of today is the side trying to force their own "superior ways" by "bringing them the blessings of efficient government".

Except that it was published in 1960, so when, since then, do you think the modern liberal morphed?

And he was not critiquing liberalism, he was critiquing conservatism, so please, try to stay focused and avoid the red herring fallacies, mkay.

The modern liberal never morphed....they just changed the way the shackle people...

Well when you halfwits have come to an agreement on what your position is let me know.

Carry on fascist liberal....

Is this a new definition of "fascist" in the making.
Fascist;
What you call someone when you are unable to cogently articulate your own position.

No....just what I call you fascist liberals....

It's cool, you don't have to hide any longer....

 

[Tehon]

Except that it was published in 1960, so when, since then, do you think the modern liberal morphed?

And he was not critiquing liberalism, he was critiquing conservatism, so please, try to stay focused and avoid the red herring fallacies, mkay.

The modern liberal never morphed....they just changed the way the shackle people...

Well when you halfwits have come to an agreement on what your position is let me know.

Carry on fascist liberal....

Is this a new definition of "fascist" in the making.
Fascist;
What you call someone when you are unable to cogently articulate your own position.

No....just what I call you fascist liberals....

It's cool, you don't have to hide any longer....

 

[owebo]

The modern liberal never morphed....they just changed the way the shackle people...

Well when you halfwits have come to an agreement on what your position is let me know.

Carry on fascist liberal....

Is this a new definition of "fascist" in the making.
Fascist;
What you call someone when you are unable to cogently articulate your own position.

No....just what I call you fascist liberals....

It's cool, you don't have to hide any longer....

Indeed....

 

[P@triot]

Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

That perfectly describes conservatism today.

That is such BS, we burned through trillions of dollars bringing democracy to Iraq largely because conservatives marched in perfect lockstep with Bush.

You are nothing if not an ideologue.

I'm not following you here. What does that have to do with the discussion? Did Bush plant the American flag and place the the Iraqi people under American rule? Because that's what a fascist would do.

Uh....no. No he didn't. He immediately turned the country over to the people.

 

[P@triot]

The modern liberal never morphed....they just changed the way the shackle people...

Well when you halfwits have come to an agreement on what your position is let me know.

Carry on fascist liberal....

Is this a new definition of "fascist" in the making.
Fascist;
What you call someone when you are unable to cogently articulate your own position.

No....just what I call you fascist liberals....

It's cool, you don't have to hide any longer....

Stephen Colbert? A comedian? That's who you turn to? Yeah...because he's one of the great minds in history.

 

[Tehon]

Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

That perfectly describes conservatism today.

That is such BS, we burned through trillions of dollars bringing democracy to Iraq largely because conservatives marched in perfect lockstep with Bush.

You are nothing if not an ideologue.

I'm not following you here. What does that have to do with the discussion? Did Bush plant the American flag and place the the Iraqi people under American rule? Because that's what a fascist would do.

Uh....no. No he didn't. He immediately turned the country over to the people.

I'm not following you here. What does that have to do with the discussion?

You used Hayek as a source for your attempts to redraw the left/right paradigm. I use Hayek to show that you are full of shit. Of course you don't get it, it is not being spoon fed to you in a tidy little package thru one of your media outlets administered by your Ministry of Public Enlightenment.

 

[P@triot]

[You used Hayek as a source for your attempts to redraw the left/right paradigm. I use Hayek to show that you are full of shit.

LOL! Uh....no. No you didn't. You did no such thing. Hayek was very clear that fascism is the same as communsm, socialism, marxism, etc. Listening to you declare victory while everyone here isn't laughing at you makes this entire thing even funnier.

The right believes in small, limited government and the individual. That means, the further right you go government becomes smaller and less powerful until it ultimately ceases to exist (anarchists). That is the polar opposite of fascism.

The right believes in large, powerful government and the collective. That means, the further left you go government becomes larger and more powerful until it ultimately has full control over all. That is the very definition of fascism.

Try to articulate how I'm wrong here. I dare you.

 

[Tehon]

[You used Hayek as a source for your attempts to redraw the left/right paradigm. I use Hayek to show that you are full of shit.

LOL! Uh....no. No you didn't. You did no such thing. Hayek was very clear that fascism is the same as communsm, socialism, marxism, etc. Listening to you declare victory while everyone here isn't laughing at you makes this entire thing even funnier.

The right believes in small, limited government and the individual. That means, the further right you go government becomes smaller and less powerful until it ultimately ceases to exist (anarchists). That is the polar opposite of fascism.

The right believes in large, powerful government and the collective. That means, the further left you go government becomes larger and more powerful until it ultimately has full control over all. That is the very definition of fascism.

Try to articulate how I'm wrong here. I dare you.

Hayek was very clear that fascism is the same as communsm, socialism, marxism, etc.

Hayek argued that fascism is a form of collectivism or totalitarianism, where you fail is in claiming that he supports your position, that it is a leftist form of collectivism. Hayek makes no such argument.

 

[owebo]

[You used Hayek as a source for your attempts to redraw the left/right paradigm. I use Hayek to show that you are full of shit.

LOL! Uh....no. No you didn't. You did no such thing. Hayek was very clear that fascism is the same as communsm, socialism, marxism, etc. Listening to you declare victory while everyone here isn't laughing at you makes this entire thing even funnier.

The right believes in small, limited government and the individual. That means, the further right you go government becomes smaller and less powerful until it ultimately ceases to exist (anarchists). That is the polar opposite of fascism.

The right believes in large, powerful government and the collective. That means, the further left you go government becomes larger and more powerful until it ultimately has full control over all. That is the very definition of fascism.

Try to articulate how I'm wrong here. I dare you.

Hayek was very clear that fascism is the same as communsm, socialism, marxism, etc.

Hayek argued that fascism is a form of collectivism or totalitarianism, where you fail is in claiming that he supports your position, that it is a leftist form of collectivism. Hayek makes no such argument.

Indeed, he does....

Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion.”
― Friedrich Hayek

That you do not understand is not our problem.....

 

[Tehon]

[You used Hayek as a source for your attempts to redraw the left/right paradigm. I use Hayek to show that you are full of shit.

LOL! Uh....no. No you didn't. You did no such thing. Hayek was very clear that fascism is the same as communsm, socialism, marxism, etc. Listening to you declare victory while everyone here isn't laughing at you makes this entire thing even funnier.

The right believes in small, limited government and the individual. That means, the further right you go government becomes smaller and less powerful until it ultimately ceases to exist (anarchists). That is the polar opposite of fascism.

The right believes in large, powerful government and the collective. That means, the further left you go government becomes larger and more powerful until it ultimately has full control over all. That is the very definition of fascism.

Try to articulate how I'm wrong here. I dare you.

Hayek was very clear that fascism is the same as communsm, socialism, marxism, etc.

Hayek argued that fascism is a form of collectivism or totalitarianism, where you fail is in claiming that he supports your position, that it is a leftist form of collectivism. Hayek makes no such argument.

Indeed, he does....

Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion.”
― Friedrich Hayek

That you do not understand is not our problem.....

That quote needs to be correctly attributed to Peter Drucker, from "The End of Economic Man". Hayek merely quoted him.

 

[P@triot]

Hayek argued that fascism is a form of collectivism or totalitarianism, where you fail is in claiming that he supports your position, that it is a leftist form of collectivism. Hayek makes no such argument.

Hey genius....? Are you really going to attempt to proclaim that "collectivism" and "totalitarianism" are not left-wing?

 

[P@triot]

You used Hayek as a source for your attempts to redraw the left/right paradigm. I use Hayek to show that you are full of shit.

LOL! Uh....no. No you didn't. You did no such thing. Hayek was very clear that fascism is the same as communsm, socialism, marxism, etc. Listening to you declare victory while everyone here isn't laughing at you makes this entire thing even funnier.

The right believes in small, limited government and the individual. That means, the further right you go government becomes smaller and less powerful until it ultimately ceases to exist (anarchists). That is the polar opposite of fascism.

The right believes in large, powerful government and the collective. That means, the further left you go government becomes larger and more powerful until it ultimately has full control over all. That is the very definition of fascism.

Try to articulate how I'm wrong here. I dare you.

Hayek argued that fascism is a form of collectivism or totalitarianism, where you fail is in claiming that he supports your position, that it is a leftist form of collectivism. Hayek makes no such argument.

I noticed you avoided the question. I guess when it's simplified to the point that you can't hide, you just change the subject.

 

[owebo]

You used Hayek as a source for your attempts to redraw the left/right paradigm. I use Hayek to show that you are full of shit.

LOL! Uh....no. No you didn't. You did no such thing. Hayek was very clear that fascism is the same as communsm, socialism, marxism, etc. Listening to you declare victory while everyone here isn't laughing at you makes this entire thing even funnier.

The right believes in small, limited government and the individual. That means, the further right you go government becomes smaller and less powerful until it ultimately ceases to exist (anarchists). That is the polar opposite of fascism.

The right believes in large, powerful government and the collective. That means, the further left you go government becomes larger and more powerful until it ultimately has full control over all. That is the very definition of fascism.

Try to articulate how I'm wrong here. I dare you.

Hayek argued that fascism is a form of collectivism or totalitarianism, where you fail is in claiming that he supports your position, that it is a leftist form of collectivism. Hayek makes no such argument.

I noticed you avoided the question. I guess when it's simplified to the point that you can't hide, you just change the subject.

I thin we collectively owned his ass.....

 

[Tehon]

Hayek argued that fascism is a form of collectivism or totalitarianism, where you fail is in claiming that he supports your position, that it is a leftist form of collectivism. Hayek makes no such argument.

Hey genius....? Are you really going to attempt to proclaim that "collectivism" and "totalitarianism" are not left-wing?

Yes, I agree with Hayek, collectivism and totalitarianism are not exclusive to the left or right.

If you are supportive of the overthrow of Salvador Allende and the imposition of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and I know most all of you anti communists are, then that shows a bent towards totalitarianism.

Now go ahead and deny it.

 

[Tehon]

You used Hayek as a source for your attempts to redraw the left/right paradigm. I use Hayek to show that you are full of shit.

LOL! Uh....no. No you didn't. You did no such thing. Hayek was very clear that fascism is the same as communsm, socialism, marxism, etc. Listening to you declare victory while everyone here isn't laughing at you makes this entire thing even funnier.

The right believes in small, limited government and the individual. That means, the further right you go government becomes smaller and less powerful until it ultimately ceases to exist (anarchists). That is the polar opposite of fascism.

The right believes in large, powerful government and the collective. That means, the further left you go government becomes larger and more powerful until it ultimately has full control over all. That is the very definition of fascism.

Try to articulate how I'm wrong here. I dare you.

Hayek argued that fascism is a form of collectivism or totalitarianism, where you fail is in claiming that he supports your position, that it is a leftist form of collectivism. Hayek makes no such argument.

I noticed you avoided the question. I guess when it's simplified to the point that you can't hide, you just change the subject.

I am of the left and I believe in limited government. That means you are a brain dead moron. See how simple it is?