The liberal march towards EXTREME fascism

[P@triot]

Not really.... Liberty can cause a lot of problems.

 

[P@triot]

A lot of Republicans think that Rap music, or Porn cause a lot of issues.

It does...but only for the individual engaging in that behavior. That’s the beauty of liberty. Collectivism allows the minority to drag down all of society. Liberty ensures that only failures fail - successful people are allowed to survive and thrive.

 

[danielpalos]

Not really.... Liberty can cause a lot of problems.

View attachment 169346

End the drug war!

 

[P@triot]

You are a Liberal who probably supports these poor little victim Blacks getting owned by the big bad Poles.

Good Lord you absolutely are the epitome of the dumb polack. Yes - I really do support those blacks and muslims in your videos getting owned. They got exactly what they deserved becuase they were the dirt-bag aggressors. You’re too stupid to even understand what you said.

Secondly, you’re too stupid to realize that ever video you posted it was 2 or more dumb polacks against 1 aggressor (proving yet again that dumb polacks are pussies who only stand up when they greatly outnumber the opposition).

 

[hadit]

The term fascism has become a battle ground because both right and left want to pin it on the other. Forget about that. What's really happening here is left wing authoritarianism, in which they seek to impose their ideology at the point of a gun. They're successfully distracting attention away from that onto the pointless " You're fascist! No, you're fascist!" argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[P@triot]

Not really.... Liberty can cause a lot of problems.

View attachment 169346

End the drug war!

We’ve tried - the Dumbocrats won’t let us. Remember when Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats controlled the entire federal government and decided to egregiously violate the U.S. Constitution with Obamacare rather than ending the drug war? Yeah...I do too.

 

[P@triot]

The term fascism has become a battle ground because both right and left want to pin it on the other. Forget about that. What's really happening here is left wing authoritarianism, in which they seek to impose their ideology at the point of a gun. They're successfully distracting attention away from that onto the pointless " You're fascist! No, you're fascist!" argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually - that’s exactly what I’ve been saying. Fascism is pure authoritarianism/totalitarianism. The polar opposite of right-wing.

 

[danielpalos]

Not really.... Liberty can cause a lot of problems.

View attachment 169346

End the drug war!

We’ve tried - the Dumbocrats won’t let us. Remember when Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats controlled the entire federal government and decided to egregiously violate the U.S. Constitution with Obamacare rather than ending the drug war? Yeah...I do too.

that was then, this is now. there is no drug war clause in the doctrine of the Republicans.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

A lot of Republicans think that Rap music, or Porn cause a lot of issues.

It does...but only for the individual engaging in that behavior. That’s the beauty of liberty. Collectivism allows the minority to drag down all of society. Liberty ensures that only failures fail - successful people are allowed to survive and thrive.

Actually... The U.S.A is a Liberal society.... Where minorities wield power to drag down the majority (White males)

In Totalitarian society, generally the Majorities wield more power, actually.

The U.S.A is a society where White males have been castrated.... Because a lot of them are like you... They believe in Do nothing Liberty.... BIG MISTAKE.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The term fascism has become a battle ground because both right and left want to pin it on the other. Forget about that. What's really happening here is left wing authoritarianism, in which they seek to impose their ideology at the point of a gun. They're successfully distracting attention away from that onto the pointless " You're fascist! No, you're fascist!" argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually - that’s exactly what I’ve been saying. Fascism is pure authoritarianism/totalitarianism. The polar opposite of right-wing.

By definition most Americans are Liberals.

Yes, you are actually a Liberal.

Britannica says so too.

liberalism | Definition, History, & Facts


Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.

The problem is compounded when one asks whether this is all that government can or should do on behalf of individual freedom. Some liberals—the so-called neoclassical liberals, or libertarians—answer that it is. Since the late 19th century, however, most liberals have insisted that the powers of government can promote as well as protect the freedom of the individual. According to modern liberalism, the chief task of government is to remove obstacles that prevent individuals from living freely or from fully realizing their potential. Such obstacles include poverty, disease, discrimination, and ignorance. The disagreement among liberals over whether government should promote individual freedom rather than merely protect it is reflected to some extent in the different prevailing conceptions of liberalism in the United States and Europe since the late 20th century. In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies (see below Contemporary liberalism).

This article discusses the political foundations and history of liberalism from the 17th century to the present. For coverage of classical and contemporary philosophical liberalism, seepolitical philosophy. For biographies of individual philosophers, see John Locke; John Stuart Mill; John Rawls.

General Characteristics
Liberalism is derived from two related features of Western culture. The first is the West’s preoccupation with individuality, as compared to the emphasis in other civilizations on status, caste, and tradition. Throughout much of history, the individual has been submerged in and subordinate to his clan, tribe, ethnic group, or kingdom. Liberalism is the culmination of developments in Western society that produced a sense of the importance of human individuality, a liberation of the individual from complete subservience to the group, and a relaxation of the tight hold of custom, law, and authority. In this respect, liberalism stands for the emancipation of the individual. See also individualism.

Liberalism also derives from the practice of adversariality in European political and economic life, a process in which institutionalized competition—such as the competition between different political parties in electoral contests, between prosecution and defense in adversary procedure, or between different producers in a market economy (see monopoly and competition)—generates a dynamic social order. Adversarial systems have always been precarious, however, and it took a long time for the belief in adversariality to emerge from the more traditional view, traceable at least to Plato, that the state should be an organic structure, like a beehive, in which the different social classes cooperate by performing distinct yet complementary roles. The belief that competition is an essential part of a political systemand that good government requires a vigorous opposition was still considered strange in most European countries in the early 19th century.

Underlying the liberal belief in adversariality is the conviction that human beings are essentially rational creatures capable of settling their political disputes through dialogue and compromise. This aspect of liberalism became particularly prominent in 20th-century projects aimed at eliminating war and resolving disagreements between states through organizations such as the League of Nations, the United Nations, and the International Court of Justice (World Court).

Liberalism has a close but sometimes uneasy relationship with democracy. At the centre of democratic doctrine is the belief that governments derive their authority from popular election; liberalism, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with the scope of governmental activity. Liberals often have been wary of democracy, then, because of fears that it might generate a tyranny by the majority. One might briskly say, therefore, that democracy looks after majorities and liberalism after unpopular minorities.

Like other political doctrines, liberalism is highly sensitive to time and circumstance. Each country’s liberalism is different, and it changes in each generation. The historical development of liberalism over recent centuries has been a movement from mistrust of the state’s power on the ground that it tends to be misused, to a willingness to use the power of government to correct perceived inequities in the distribution of wealth resulting from economic competition—inequities that purportedly deprive some people of an equal opportunity to live freely. The expansion of governmental power and responsibility sought by liberals in the 20th century was clearly opposed to the contraction of government advocated by liberals a century earlier. In the 19th century liberals generally formed the party of business and the entrepreneurial middle class; for much of the 20th century they were more likely to work to restrict and regulate business in order to provide greater opportunities for labourers and consumers. In each case, however, the liberals’ inspiration was the same: a hostility to concentrations of power that threaten the freedom of the individual and prevent him from realizing his full potential, along with a willingness to reexamine and reform social institutions in the light of new needs. This willingness is tempered by an aversion to sudden, cataclysmic change, which is what sets off the liberal from the radical. It is this very eagerness to welcome and encourage useful change, however, that distinguishes the liberal from the conservative, who believes that change is at least as likely to result in loss as in gain.

 

[P@triot]

The U.S.A is a society where White males have been castrated.... Because a lot of them are like you... They believe in Do nothing Liberty.... BIG MISTAKE.

Castration is asking someone to control you’re life because you’re not man enough to handle life. Liberty requires big boys with brains. Both eliminate polacks.

 

[danielpalos]

The term fascism has become a battle ground because both right and left want to pin it on the other. Forget about that. What's really happening here is left wing authoritarianism, in which they seek to impose their ideology at the point of a gun. They're successfully distracting attention away from that onto the pointless " You're fascist! No, you're fascist!" argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually - that’s exactly what I’ve been saying. Fascism is pure authoritarianism/totalitarianism. The polar opposite of right-wing.

By definition most Americans are Liberals.

Yes, you are actually a Liberal.

Britannica says so too.

liberalism | Definition, History, & Facts


Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.

The problem is compounded when one asks whether this is all that government can or should do on behalf of individual freedom. Some liberals—the so-called neoclassical liberals, or libertarians—answer that it is. Since the late 19th century, however, most liberals have insisted that the powers of government can promote as well as protect the freedom of the individual. According to modern liberalism, the chief task of government is to remove obstacles that prevent individuals from living freely or from fully realizing their potential. Such obstacles include poverty, disease, discrimination, and ignorance. The disagreement among liberals over whether government should promote individual freedom rather than merely protect it is reflected to some extent in the different prevailing conceptions of liberalism in the United States and Europe since the late 20th century. In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies (see below Contemporary liberalism).

This article discusses the political foundations and history of liberalism from the 17th century to the present. For coverage of classical and contemporary philosophical liberalism, seepolitical philosophy. For biographies of individual philosophers, see John Locke; John Stuart Mill; John Rawls.

General Characteristics
Liberalism is derived from two related features of Western culture. The first is the West’s preoccupation with individuality, as compared to the emphasis in other civilizations on status, caste, and tradition. Throughout much of history, the individual has been submerged in and subordinate to his clan, tribe, ethnic group, or kingdom. Liberalism is the culmination of developments in Western society that produced a sense of the importance of human individuality, a liberation of the individual from complete subservience to the group, and a relaxation of the tight hold of custom, law, and authority. In this respect, liberalism stands for the emancipation of the individual. See also individualism.

Liberalism also derives from the practice of adversariality in European political and economic life, a process in which institutionalized competition—such as the competition between different political parties in electoral contests, between prosecution and defense in adversary procedure, or between different producers in a market economy (see monopoly and competition)—generates a dynamic social order. Adversarial systems have always been precarious, however, and it took a long time for the belief in adversariality to emerge from the more traditional view, traceable at least to Plato, that the state should be an organic structure, like a beehive, in which the different social classes cooperate by performing distinct yet complementary roles. The belief that competition is an essential part of a political systemand that good government requires a vigorous opposition was still considered strange in most European countries in the early 19th century.

Underlying the liberal belief in adversariality is the conviction that human beings are essentially rational creatures capable of settling their political disputes through dialogue and compromise. This aspect of liberalism became particularly prominent in 20th-century projects aimed at eliminating war and resolving disagreements between states through organizations such as the League of Nations, the United Nations, and the International Court of Justice (World Court).

Liberalism has a close but sometimes uneasy relationship with democracy. At the centre of democratic doctrine is the belief that governments derive their authority from popular election; liberalism, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with the scope of governmental activity. Liberals often have been wary of democracy, then, because of fears that it might generate a tyranny by the majority. One might briskly say, therefore, that democracy looks after majorities and liberalism after unpopular minorities.

Like other political doctrines, liberalism is highly sensitive to time and circumstance. Each country’s liberalism is different, and it changes in each generation. The historical development of liberalism over recent centuries has been a movement from mistrust of the state’s power on the ground that it tends to be misused, to a willingness to use the power of government to correct perceived inequities in the distribution of wealth resulting from economic competition—inequities that purportedly deprive some people of an equal opportunity to live freely. The expansion of governmental power and responsibility sought by liberals in the 20th century was clearly opposed to the contraction of government advocated by liberals a century earlier. In the 19th century liberals generally formed the party of business and the entrepreneurial middle class; for much of the 20th century they were more likely to work to restrict and regulate business in order to provide greater opportunities for labourers and consumers. In each case, however, the liberals’ inspiration was the same: a hostility to concentrations of power that threaten the freedom of the individual and prevent him from realizing his full potential, along with a willingness to reexamine and reform social institutions in the light of new needs. This willingness is tempered by an aversion to sudden, cataclysmic change, which is what sets off the liberal from the radical. It is this very eagerness to welcome and encourage useful change, however, that distinguishes the liberal from the conservative, who believes that change is at least as likely to result in loss as in gain.

Our Founding Fathers established a liberal welfare State not an alleged conservative, warfare State.

 

[regent]

America has had welfare since the Constitution, and even before.

 

[danielpalos]

The Tennessee Valley Authority bailed out the South.

FDR's brand of socialism, works hard every day.

 

[P@triot]

Our Founding Fathers established a liberal welfare State

They did no such thing, snowflake. And no matter how many times you post that lie, it won’t make it true.

 

[P@triot]

FDR's brand of socialism, works hard every day...

...to collapse the United States.

 

[P@triot]

America has had welfare since the Constitution, and even before.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The U.S.A is a society where White males have been castrated.... Because a lot of them are like you... They believe in Do nothing Liberty.... BIG MISTAKE.

Castration is asking someone to control you’re life because you’re not man enough to handle life. Liberty requires big boys with brains. Both eliminate polacks.

You have no goals, plans to dominate, or compete with Leftists.

Therefor Leftists dominate.... But wait... You're a Liberal.... So you don't care.

 

[danielpalos]

FDR's brand of socialism, works hard every day...

...to collapse the United States.

Watch the YouTube video on the Tennessee Valley Authority.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Founding Fathers established a liberal welfare State

They did no such thing, snowflake. And no matter how many times you post that lie, it won’t make it true.

Of course they did, they even wrote it in the federal doctrine.