The liberal march towards EXTREME fascism

[P@triot]

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

Yeah dumb-ass....because you are not all the way to extreme end of the spectrum. You're a typical idiot progressive. Not a communist/fascist/marxist.

This is as insanely stupid as me saying I'm right-wing and I don't believe in anarchy (and I don't) so anarchy must be a left-wing ideology. The more you try to cover up your original idiotic post, the deeper you keep digging and the dumber you make yourself look.

You cannot have right-wing totalitarianism. It is the polar opposite of the fringe right you moron.

 

[P@triot]

No thank you. I don't believe in doping people into drugged submission.

Unfortunately progressives do....

 

[Tehon]

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

Yeah dumb-ass....because you are not all the way to extreme end of the spectrum. You're a typical idiot progressive. Not a communist/fascist/marxist.

This is as insanely stupid as me saying I'm right-wing and I don't believe in anarchy (and I don't) so anarchy must be a left-wing ideology. The more you try to cover up your original idiotic post, the deeper you keep digging and the dumber you make yourself look.

You cannot have right-wing totalitarianism. It is the polar opposite of the fringe right you moron.

You cannot have right-wing totalitarianism. It is the polar opposite of the fringe right you moron.

Then why do you ignore post # 379.

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.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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?

Your personal stance doesn't prove anything, as we're talking about the parts of the spectrum on left in general, not one person. How about we settle this right now? The right in general believe in limited government, so how about you tell me how a small/limited government becomes totalitarian? Last I checked, the left side of the spectrum believes in rapid expansion of government... you know... like Russia.

 

[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?

Your personal stance doesn't prove anything, as we're talking about the parts of the spectrum on left in general, not one person. How about we settle this right now? The right in general believe in limited government, so how about you tell me how a small/limited government becomes totalitarian? Last I checked, the left side of the spectrum believes in rapid expansion of government... you know... like Russia.

That the term "limited government" is completely subjective is the point that has exceeded your grasp.

 

[Moonglow]

No such thing as right wing totalitarianism, yea, all military dictatorships and the Papacy are left wing...

 

[P@triot]

Then why do you ignore post # 379.

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.

Because it makes zero sense (typical of progressives)...

1. It is not our country. Most Americans could give a flying leap what goes on there and are not "rooting" for anyone. Your entire premise is built on the false narrative that conservatives are supporting this (another typical thing for progressives to do).

2. Just because someone might believe that one totalitarian dictator is better than another totalitarian dictator, does not mean they support totalitarian dictators. They are just choosing and/or hoping for the lesser of two evils. I would rather have Muammar Gaddafi running my country than Saddam Hussein. Does that mean I like Muammar? Of course not! It just means that he was less vicious, blood thirsty, sick and evil. It doesn't mean he wasn't thought things. Just not to the degree that Saddam Hussein was.

Any other idiotic false narratives that you would like me to dismantle for you?

 

[P@triot]

That the term "limited government" is completely subjective is the point that has exceeded your grasp.

Not really. I mean, maybe on a global scale. But here in the United States it is clearly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. 18 enumerated powers and not one damn more.

 

[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.

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

Your personal stance doesn't prove anything, as we're talking about the parts of the spectrum on left in general, not one person. How about we settle this right now? The right in general believe in limited government, so how about you tell me how a small/limited government becomes totalitarian? Last I checked, the left side of the spectrum believes in rapid expansion of government... you know... like Russia.

He's not mature enough to acknowledge that he was wrong in his initial premise that fascism was right-wing. As such, he now keeps digging himself deeper and deeper.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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?

Your personal stance doesn't prove anything, as we're talking about the parts of the spectrum on left in general, not one person. How about we settle this right now? The right in general believe in limited government, so how about you tell me how a small/limited government becomes totalitarian? Last I checked, the left side of the spectrum believes in rapid expansion of government... you know... like Russia.

That the term "limited government" is completely subjective is the point that has exceeded your grasp.

The point that Totalitarian government aren't limited, and limiting government prevents that outcome is what escapes your grasp. That and the fact that the further left you get, the fewer limits government has, and the larger the government gets. Understanding how each side works on its own shows that Totalitarian governments rise from lefty policies. The further right you get, the further you get from Totalitarianism, it's literally the opposite of what the right stand for.

 

[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.

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?

Your personal stance doesn't prove anything, as we're talking about the parts of the spectrum on left in general, not one person. How about we settle this right now? The right in general believe in limited government, so how about you tell me how a small/limited government becomes totalitarian? Last I checked, the left side of the spectrum believes in rapid expansion of government... you know... like Russia.

That the term "limited government" is completely subjective is the point that has exceeded your grasp.

The point that Totalitarian government aren't limited, and limiting government prevents that outcome is what escapes your grasp. That and the fact that the further left you get, the fewer limits government has, and the larger the government gets. Understanding how each side works on its own shows that Totalitarian governments rise from lefty policies. The further right you get, the further you get from Totalitarianism, it's literally the opposite of what the right stand for.

I can't even begin to imagine the type of mindset it takes to argue something so obvious and basic. It's like arguing that fire isn't hot. Left is big government and the collective. The further left you go, the more those things grow. The right is small government and the individual. the further right you go, the more those things grow. Duh!

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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?

Your personal stance doesn't prove anything, as we're talking about the parts of the spectrum on left in general, not one person. How about we settle this right now? The right in general believe in limited government, so how about you tell me how a small/limited government becomes totalitarian? Last I checked, the left side of the spectrum believes in rapid expansion of government... you know... like Russia.

That the term "limited government" is completely subjective is the point that has exceeded your grasp.

The point that Totalitarian government aren't limited, and limiting government prevents that outcome is what escapes your grasp. That and the fact that the further left you get, the fewer limits government has, and the larger the government gets. Understanding how each side works on its own shows that Totalitarian governments rise from lefty policies. The further right you get, the further you get from Totalitarianism, it's literally the opposite of what the right stand for.

I can't even begin to imagine the type of mindset it takes to argue something so obvious and basic. It's like arguing that fire isn't hot. Left is big government and the collective. The further left you go, the more those things grow. The right is small government and the individual. the further right you go, the more those things grow. Duh!

The type of person that eats up the lefttard propaganda and applies no independent thought. Of course I've never met a lefty that doesn't substitute thinking for propaganda. If I did, they wouldn't be a lefty. They'd argue with a brick wall if it had anything intelligent written on it.

 

[Tehon]

Then why do you ignore post # 379.

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.

Because it makes zero sense (typical of progressives)...

1. It is not our country. Most Americans could give a flying leap what goes on there and are not "rooting" for anyone. Your entire premise is built on the false narrative that conservatives are supporting this (another typical thing for progressives to do).

2. Just because someone might believe that one totalitarian dictator is better than another totalitarian dictator, does not mean they support totalitarian dictators. They are just choosing and/or hoping for the lesser of two evils. I would rather have Muammar Gaddafi running my country than Saddam Hussein. Does that mean I like Muammar? Of course not! It just means that he was less vicious, blood thirsty, sick and evil. It doesn't mean he wasn't thought things. Just not to the degree that Saddam Hussein was.

Any other idiotic false narratives that you would like me to dismantle for you?

1. It is not our country.

Correct, but we were undeniably involved in the coup regardless. The question is, do you support the actions taken by the US in Chile to oust the marxist president Allende?

 

[Moonglow]

Reagan must have been a lefty since he increased the size of govt...

 

[toxicmedia]

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

That's adorable.

Awe.....you need pictures to understand something.

Words can be daunting, can't they...

Poor thing, bless your heart

 

[P@triot]

That's adorable. Awe.....you need pictures to understand something. Words can be daunting, can't they... Poor thing, bless your heart

The really scary part is that not only are words "daunting" for progressives, but even the simplified graphics are too much for them to absorb. One really requires a background in special needs education to talk with progressives. They are just so limited in their mental capacity. They reject logic and reason in favor of emotion.

 

[Tehon]

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

Your personal stance doesn't prove anything, as we're talking about the parts of the spectrum on left in general, not one person. How about we settle this right now? The right in general believe in limited government, so how about you tell me how a small/limited government becomes totalitarian? Last I checked, the left side of the spectrum believes in rapid expansion of government... you know... like Russia.

That the term "limited government" is completely subjective is the point that has exceeded your grasp.

The point that Totalitarian government aren't limited, and limiting government prevents that outcome is what escapes your grasp. That and the fact that the further left you get, the fewer limits government has, and the larger the government gets. Understanding how each side works on its own shows that Totalitarian governments rise from lefty policies. The further right you get, the further you get from Totalitarianism, it's literally the opposite of what the right stand for.

I can't even begin to imagine the type of mindset it takes to argue something so obvious and basic. It's like arguing that fire isn't hot. Left is big government and the collective. The further left you go, the more those things grow. The right is small government and the individual. the further right you go, the more those things grow. Duh!

The type of person that eats up the lefttard propaganda and applies no independent thought. Of course I've never met a lefty that doesn't substitute thinking for propaganda. If I did, they wouldn't be a lefty. They'd argue with a brick wall if it had anything intelligent written on it.

They'd argue with a brick wall if it had anything intelligent written on it.

An appropriate analogy, I must say.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Your personal stance doesn't prove anything, as we're talking about the parts of the spectrum on left in general, not one person. How about we settle this right now? The right in general believe in limited government, so how about you tell me how a small/limited government becomes totalitarian? Last I checked, the left side of the spectrum believes in rapid expansion of government... you know... like Russia.

That the term "limited government" is completely subjective is the point that has exceeded your grasp.

The point that Totalitarian government aren't limited, and limiting government prevents that outcome is what escapes your grasp. That and the fact that the further left you get, the fewer limits government has, and the larger the government gets. Understanding how each side works on its own shows that Totalitarian governments rise from lefty policies. The further right you get, the further you get from Totalitarianism, it's literally the opposite of what the right stand for.

I can't even begin to imagine the type of mindset it takes to argue something so obvious and basic. It's like arguing that fire isn't hot. Left is big government and the collective. The further left you go, the more those things grow. The right is small government and the individual. the further right you go, the more those things grow. Duh!

The type of person that eats up the lefttard propaganda and applies no independent thought. Of course I've never met a lefty that doesn't substitute thinking for propaganda. If I did, they wouldn't be a lefty. They'd argue with a brick wall if it had anything intelligent written on it.

They'd argue with a brick wall if it had anything intelligent written on it.

An appropriate analogy, I must say.

What can I say? You lefties have proven it fact about yourselves daily, I really didn't even have to point it out as it's common knowledge.

 

[P@triot]

Then why do you ignore post # 379.

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.

Because it makes zero sense (typical of progressives)...

1. It is not our country. Most Americans could give a flying leap what goes on there and are not "rooting" for anyone. Your entire premise is built on the false narrative that conservatives are supporting this (another typical thing for progressives to do).

2. Just because someone might believe that one totalitarian dictator is better than another totalitarian dictator, does not mean they support totalitarian dictators. They are just choosing and/or hoping for the lesser of two evils. I would rather have Muammar Gaddafi running my country than Saddam Hussein. Does that mean I like Muammar? Of course not! It just means that he was less vicious, blood thirsty, sick and evil. It doesn't mean he wasn't thought things. Just not to the degree that Saddam Hussein was.

Any other idiotic false narratives that you would like me to dismantle for you?

1. It is not our country.

Correct, but we were undeniably involved in the coup regardless. The question is, do you support the actions taken by the US in Chile to oust the marxist president Allende?

I don't know enough about either of the leaders to say. And I don't know enough about the situation to say. But again - it does nothing to support your false narrative. If we're simply supporting one oppressive dictator because he's a little bit better than a worse oppressive dictator, that does not make conservatives "fascist". That makes them pragmatists. Something we will never see from emotional and irrational progressives.

So now that I've throughly debunked that false narrative, are there any others you would like to attempt?

 

[Tehon]

Then why do you ignore post # 379.

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.

Because it makes zero sense (typical of progressives)...

1. It is not our country. Most Americans could give a flying leap what goes on there and are not "rooting" for anyone. Your entire premise is built on the false narrative that conservatives are supporting this (another typical thing for progressives to do).

2. Just because someone might believe that one totalitarian dictator is better than another totalitarian dictator, does not mean they support totalitarian dictators. They are just choosing and/or hoping for the lesser of two evils. I would rather have Muammar Gaddafi running my country than Saddam Hussein. Does that mean I like Muammar? Of course not! It just means that he was less vicious, blood thirsty, sick and evil. It doesn't mean he wasn't thought things. Just not to the degree that Saddam Hussein was.

Any other idiotic false narratives that you would like me to dismantle for you?

1. It is not our country.

Correct, but we were undeniably involved in the coup regardless. The question is, do you support the actions taken by the US in Chile to oust the marxist president Allende?

I don't know enough about either of the leaders to say. And I don't know enough about the situation to say. But again - it does nothing to support your false narrative. If we're simply supporting one oppressive dictator because he's a little bit better than a worse oppressive dictator, that does not make conservatives "fascist". That makes them pragmatists. Something we will never see from emotional and irrational progressives.

So now that I've throughly debunked that false narrative, are there any others you would like to attempt?

Bullshit. Richard Nixon was the President that oversaw the coup in Chile and every right wing jackass I have ever run across has said that it was the right thing to do.

The point is the right supported the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile, which shows conclusively that they are not immune to authoritarianism. Which your hero Hayek, as I have shown, also knew and wrote about.

And don't think it is an isolated case.