When Did Liberalism Become Fascism?

[Dogmaphobe]

Liberalism did not become fascism. It simply became an endangered species.

The left, however, has become fascistic in nature having rejected liberalism as its guiding principle and replacing it with identity politics and multiculturalism. The demands for lock step conformity to the schizoid double standard of political correctness has become so overpowering that few on the left are even capable of original thought any more. They simply say what all their little peeps say and that's that.

 

[BlindBoo]

1. On the Right, the Founders, classical Liberals, and conservatives, all of whom pay homage to the Constitution, which prominently promises this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

On the Left, Progressivism, Modern Liberalism, Socialism, Communism....and Fascism.
None of these adhere to, support or even give a nod to freedom.
All of them demand the bending of the neck and the knee to the collective.


2. Liberal Kirsten Powers wrote the most excellent best seller,
"The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech."



3. The WSJ's Kimberley Strassel has just penned an essay called,
"The Left’s War on Free Speech," part of which includes the most elemental description of politics today, explained through the words of her children.

"....three kids, ages twelve, nine, and five....a volley of protests about free speech rights....I asked each of them in turn to tell me what they thought “free speech” meant.


a. The twelve-year-old went first. A serious and academic child, he gave a textbook definition that included “Congress shall make no law,” an evocation of James Madison, a tutorial on the Bill of Rights, and warnings about “certain exceptions for public safety and libel.” I was happy to know the private-school fees were yielding something.

b. The nine-year-old went next. A rebel convinced that everyone ignores her, she said that she had no idea what “public safety” or “libel” were, but that “it doesn’t matter, because free speech means there should never be any restrictions on anything that anybody says, anytime or anywhere.”

c. ...the five-year-old’s turn. You could tell she’d been thinking hard about her answer. She fixed both her brother and sister with a ferocious stare and said: “Free speech is that you can say what you want—as long as I like it.”




4. I realized that my oldest was a constitutional conservative, my middle child a libertarian, and my youngest a socialist with totalitarian tendencies."
The Left’s War on Free Speech

Progressivism has ALWAYS been fascist. Liberalism isn't.

P and L have ALWAYS been lefty, Fascism always RW. Welcome to reality- Not bs GOP propaganda of the last 15 years....

Fascism was the model FDR used.....what sort of moron claims FDR was Rightwing???

Raise your paw.

"To compare is not to equate, as Schivelbusch says. It’s sobering to note the real parallels among these systems. But it’s even more important to remember that the U.S. did not succumb to dictatorship. Roosevelt may have stretched the Constitution beyond recognition, and he had a taste for planning and power previously unknown in the White House. But he was not a murderous thug. And despite a population that “literally waited for orders,” as McCormick put it, American institutions did not collapse. The Supreme Court declared some New Deal measures unconstitutional. Some business leaders resisted it. Intellectuals on both the right and the left, some of whom ended up in the early libertarian movement, railed against Roosevelt. Republican politicians (those were the days!) tended to oppose both the flow of power to Washington and the shift to executive authority.

Germany had a parliament and political parties and business leaders, and they collapsed in the face of Hitler’s movement. Something was different in the United States. Perhaps it was the fact that the country was formed by people who had left the despots of the Old World to find freedom in the new, and who then made a libertarian revolution. Americans tend to think of themselves as individuals, with equal rights and equal freedom. A nation whose fundamental ideology is, in the words of the recently deceased sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, “antistatism, laissez-faire, individualism, populism, and egalitarianism” will be far more resistant to illiberal ideologies."

Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt

I read the book.
Your use of Schivelbusch's quote has nothing to do with my statement:
Fascism was the model FDR used.....what sort of moron claims FDR was Rightwing???

You should know by now that I'm never wrong....but, let's gild the lily.


1. It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress. A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."


2. Tugwell was opposed to any private business not controlled by the government. General Hugh Johnson was working with Tugwell on a bill to create the NRA, and gave Francis Perkins the book by Rafaello Viglione, "The Corporate State," in which the neat Italian system of dictatorship for the benefit of the people was glowingly described."
Francis Perkins, "The Roosevelt I Knew."
The NRA was copied from Mussolini's corporative system.


3. Perkins, FDR's Sec'y of Labor, questioned whether Johnson 'really understood the democratic process..." New Dealers had no problem with the fascist nature of their plans.

See Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," chapter four.


How ya' like them apples, boyyyyyeeeeeee???

I love apples. But more to the point you Goldberg revisionists are always wrong. Always. You cherry pick you way through history to reach your predetermined conclusion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Progressivism has ALWAYS been fascist. Liberalism isn't.

P and L have ALWAYS been lefty, Fascism always RW. Welcome to reality- Not bs GOP propaganda of the last 15 years....

Fascism was the model FDR used.....what sort of moron claims FDR was Rightwing???

Raise your paw.

"To compare is not to equate, as Schivelbusch says. It’s sobering to note the real parallels among these systems. But it’s even more important to remember that the U.S. did not succumb to dictatorship. Roosevelt may have stretched the Constitution beyond recognition, and he had a taste for planning and power previously unknown in the White House. But he was not a murderous thug. And despite a population that “literally waited for orders,” as McCormick put it, American institutions did not collapse. The Supreme Court declared some New Deal measures unconstitutional. Some business leaders resisted it. Intellectuals on both the right and the left, some of whom ended up in the early libertarian movement, railed against Roosevelt. Republican politicians (those were the days!) tended to oppose both the flow of power to Washington and the shift to executive authority.

Germany had a parliament and political parties and business leaders, and they collapsed in the face of Hitler’s movement. Something was different in the United States. Perhaps it was the fact that the country was formed by people who had left the despots of the Old World to find freedom in the new, and who then made a libertarian revolution. Americans tend to think of themselves as individuals, with equal rights and equal freedom. A nation whose fundamental ideology is, in the words of the recently deceased sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, “antistatism, laissez-faire, individualism, populism, and egalitarianism” will be far more resistant to illiberal ideologies."

Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt

I read the book.
Your use of Schivelbusch's quote has nothing to do with my statement:
Fascism was the model FDR used.....what sort of moron claims FDR was Rightwing???

You should know by now that I'm never wrong....but, let's gild the lily.


1. It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress. A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."


2. Tugwell was opposed to any private business not controlled by the government. General Hugh Johnson was working with Tugwell on a bill to create the NRA, and gave Francis Perkins the book by Rafaello Viglione, "The Corporate State," in which the neat Italian system of dictatorship for the benefit of the people was glowingly described."
Francis Perkins, "The Roosevelt I Knew."
The NRA was copied from Mussolini's corporative system.


3. Perkins, FDR's Sec'y of Labor, questioned whether Johnson 'really understood the democratic process..." New Dealers had no problem with the fascist nature of their plans.

See Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," chapter four.


How ya' like them apples, boyyyyyeeeeeee???

I love apples. But more to the point you Goldberg revisionists are always wrong. Always. You cherry pick you way through history to reach your predetermined conclusion.

See if you can find anything wrong in either of my posts.....

Try, doggie.

Fascism was the model FDR used.....what sort of moron claims FDR was Rightwing???




Amazing how you Liberal dopes will look at documented, linked, sourced facts....and go right on with "Is not, issssss nooottttttttt!!!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberalism did not become fascism. It simply became an endangered species.

The left, however, has become fascistic in nature having rejected liberalism as its guiding principle and replacing it with identity politics and multiculturalism. The demands for lock step conformity to the schizoid double standard of political correctness has become so overpowering that few on the left are even capable of original thought any more. They simply say what all their little peeps say and that's that.

I believe you are misusing the term 'Liberalism."

It is not the classical liberalism of the Founders.....it is the name that communist John Dewey stole and applied to the Socialist Party.

"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
4. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
   1. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
5. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
   1. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
6. Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
7. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism."
   

http://orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/liberal_confusion.htm

Democracy & free markets vs socialism

Right wing Hollywood - Rotten Tomatoes Forum

 

[percysunshine]

When Did Liberalism Become Fascism?

At the most basic level... a few million years ago when the human brain evolved into one half being emotional and the other half being rational.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It didn't. You're an imbecile.

Rather than discuss intelligently, you prove his point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Brilliant!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Liberalism did not become fascism. It simply became an endangered species.

The left, however, has become fascistic in nature having rejected liberalism as its guiding principle and replacing it with identity politics and multiculturalism. The demands for lock step conformity to the schizoid double standard of political correctness has become so overpowering that few on the left are even capable of original thought any more. They simply say what all their little peeps say and that's that.

I believe you are misusing the term 'Liberalism."

It is not the classical liberalism of the Founders.....it is the name that communist John Dewey stole and applied to the Socialist Party.

"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
4. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
   1. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
5. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
   1. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
6. Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
7. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism."

http://orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/liberal_confusion.htm

Democracy & free markets vs socialism

Right wing Hollywood - Rotten Tomatoes Forum

I'm not misusing it at all.I use it according to the way it has been defined by the likes of John Stuart Mill and John Rawles.

Todays leftists are not liberal no matter what they choose to call themselves.


The most salient example I can think of has to do with the anti-humanist totalitarian ideology called Islam. Any liberal would recognize this awful supremacist screed as the very antithesis of liberalism, yet the left defends it by calling the rejection of it as an act of racism. Identity politics has trumped the ability to apply reason or to define positions based upon values.

 

[Richard-H]

"When did Liberalism become Fascism?"

Just about the same time you found the bottom of your Vodka bottle.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"When did Liberalism become Fascism?"

Just about the same time you found the bottom of your Vodka bottle.

So....you can't find a single error to point to in my posts?

That's because there are none.

 

[toxicmedia]

1. On the Right, the Founders, classical Liberals, and conservatives, all of whom pay homage to the Constitution, which prominently promises this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

On the Left, Progressivism, Modern Liberalism, Socialism, Communism....and Fascism.
None of these adhere to, support or even give a nod to freedom.
All of them demand the bending of the neck and the knee to the collective.


2. Liberal Kirsten Powers wrote the most excellent best seller,
"The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech."



3. The WSJ's Kimberley Strassel has just penned an essay called,
"The Left’s War on Free Speech," part of which includes the most elemental description of politics today, explained through the words of her children.

"....three kids, ages twelve, nine, and five....a volley of protests about free speech rights....I asked each of them in turn to tell me what they thought “free speech” meant.


a. The twelve-year-old went first. A serious and academic child, he gave a textbook definition that included “Congress shall make no law,” an evocation of James Madison, a tutorial on the Bill of Rights, and warnings about “certain exceptions for public safety and libel.” I was happy to know the private-school fees were yielding something.

b. The nine-year-old went next. A rebel convinced that everyone ignores her, she said that she had no idea what “public safety” or “libel” were, but that “it doesn’t matter, because free speech means there should never be any restrictions on anything that anybody says, anytime or anywhere.”

c. ...the five-year-old’s turn. You could tell she’d been thinking hard about her answer. She fixed both her brother and sister with a ferocious stare and said: “Free speech is that you can say what you want—as long as I like it.”




4. I realized that my oldest was a constitutional conservative, my middle child a libertarian, and my youngest a socialist with totalitarian tendencies."
The Left’s War on Free Speech

When Did Liberalism Become Fascism?.........it never did.

Fascists hate Liberals, and visa versa.

Your woeful lack of objectivity and fairness has allowed you to accept the redefinitions of "Fascism" that Conservative media and strategists have offered.

Revisions offered largely to assuage the similarities between post 911 Evangelical/Tea Party Republicans and Fascists.

That's kind of a long winded way to say "I know you are but what am I"

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. On the Right, the Founders, classical Liberals, and conservatives, all of whom pay homage to the Constitution, which prominently promises this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

On the Left, Progressivism, Modern Liberalism, Socialism, Communism....and Fascism.
None of these adhere to, support or even give a nod to freedom.
All of them demand the bending of the neck and the knee to the collective.


2. Liberal Kirsten Powers wrote the most excellent best seller,
"The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech."



3. The WSJ's Kimberley Strassel has just penned an essay called,
"The Left’s War on Free Speech," part of which includes the most elemental description of politics today, explained through the words of her children.

"....three kids, ages twelve, nine, and five....a volley of protests about free speech rights....I asked each of them in turn to tell me what they thought “free speech” meant.


a. The twelve-year-old went first. A serious and academic child, he gave a textbook definition that included “Congress shall make no law,” an evocation of James Madison, a tutorial on the Bill of Rights, and warnings about “certain exceptions for public safety and libel.” I was happy to know the private-school fees were yielding something.

b. The nine-year-old went next. A rebel convinced that everyone ignores her, she said that she had no idea what “public safety” or “libel” were, but that “it doesn’t matter, because free speech means there should never be any restrictions on anything that anybody says, anytime or anywhere.”

c. ...the five-year-old’s turn. You could tell she’d been thinking hard about her answer. She fixed both her brother and sister with a ferocious stare and said: “Free speech is that you can say what you want—as long as I like it.”




4. I realized that my oldest was a constitutional conservative, my middle child a libertarian, and my youngest a socialist with totalitarian tendencies."
The Left’s War on Free Speech

When Did Liberalism Become Fascism?.........it never did.

Fascists hate Liberals, and visa versa.

Your woeful lack of objectivity and fairness has allowed you to accept the redefinitions of "Fascism" that Conservative media and strategists have offered.

Revisions offered largely to assuage the similarities between post 911 Evangelical/Tea Party Republicans and Fascists.

That's kind of a long winded way to say "I know you are but what am I"

The OP points out the outrage from a real Liberal, Kirsten Powers, and a conservative, Kimberley Strassel.

What are left are comments from the Fascists in mufti.....

...raise your paw.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Geee......concepts...and even words...appear too difficult for you to handle....

Let's try a graphic:

Here, in a sea of Liberals, Fascists, Leftists, totalitarians, is one, single conservative, free thinker....he actually believes in free speech.



See if you can find him!

 

[NYcarbineer]

It didn't. You're an imbecile.

Rather than discuss intelligently, you prove his point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Brilliant!

Can you disprove the imbecility of claiming that Liberalism and Fascism are the same thing?

btw, the OP has already lost this 'argument' ten times on this board, to me and to others. Look it up.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Fascism is a good thing.

How do you use individual freedom to combat Capitalist Liberalism spreading by Hollywood, and the media, as well as Capitalists hiring illegal immigrants, outsourcing jobs, and supporting feminism for cheap labor profits.

The answer is you don't.

Social Conservatives have been duped by the Capitalists.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It didn't. You're an imbecile.

Rather than discuss intelligently, you prove his point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Brilliant!

Can you disprove the imbecility of claiming that Liberalism and Fascism are the same thing?

btw, the OP has already lost this 'argument' ten times on this board, to me and to others. Look it up.

I can prove you're not following...
If you had put your indoctrination aside for just a moment and paid attention you would have noted that the OP differentiated between "Classical liberals" and those today calling themselves liberals.

Socialists and Communists are soiling the term liberalism by using it to clump their modern brand of intolerance and violence under a broad cultural umbrella. But most see through it. No matter how many times you may have agreed with your Socialist/Communist friends....does not make the OP wrong. In fact, logic would bring a wise person (based of evidence readily available in the news and elsewhere), that he is in fact correct.

Feel free to also call me an imbecile or whatever....I couldn't care less.

 

[Richard-H]

Fascism is a good thing.

How do you use individual freedom to combat Capitalist Liberalism spreading by Hollywood, and the media, as well as Capitalists hiring illegal immigrants, outsourcing jobs, and supporting feminism for cheap labor profits.

The answer is you don't.

Social Conservatives have been duped by the Capitalists.

1. Don't watch Hollywood movies.
2. Develop jobs skills greater than those of illegal aliens so you're not in competition with them.
3. Develop Jobs skills that aren't affected by outsourcing to foreign workers so you're not in competition with them.
4. Become a house husband.

Somehow you seem to believe that the world owes you a living. If that's true you should support world wide socialism.

Fascists will have you digging ditches for minimum wage or less, or send you all over the world to fight their wars for them.

 

[Richard-H]

"When did Liberalism become Fascism?"

Just about the same time you found the bottom of your Vodka bottle.

So....you can't find a single error to point to in my posts?

That's because there are none.

Your primary error is that you've apparently started another bottle of Vodka.

 

[toxicmedia]

1. On the Right, the Founders, classical Liberals, and conservatives, all of whom pay homage to the Constitution, which prominently promises this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

On the Left, Progressivism, Modern Liberalism, Socialism, Communism....and Fascism.
None of these adhere to, support or even give a nod to freedom.
All of them demand the bending of the neck and the knee to the collective.


2. Liberal Kirsten Powers wrote the most excellent best seller,
"The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech."



3. The WSJ's Kimberley Strassel has just penned an essay called,
"The Left’s War on Free Speech," part of which includes the most elemental description of politics today, explained through the words of her children.

"....three kids, ages twelve, nine, and five....a volley of protests about free speech rights....I asked each of them in turn to tell me what they thought “free speech” meant.


a. The twelve-year-old went first. A serious and academic child, he gave a textbook definition that included “Congress shall make no law,” an evocation of James Madison, a tutorial on the Bill of Rights, and warnings about “certain exceptions for public safety and libel.” I was happy to know the private-school fees were yielding something.

b. The nine-year-old went next. A rebel convinced that everyone ignores her, she said that she had no idea what “public safety” or “libel” were, but that “it doesn’t matter, because free speech means there should never be any restrictions on anything that anybody says, anytime or anywhere.”

c. ...the five-year-old’s turn. You could tell she’d been thinking hard about her answer. She fixed both her brother and sister with a ferocious stare and said: “Free speech is that you can say what you want—as long as I like it.”




4. I realized that my oldest was a constitutional conservative, my middle child a libertarian, and my youngest a socialist with totalitarian tendencies."
The Left’s War on Free Speech

When Did Liberalism Become Fascism?.........it never did.

Fascists hate Liberals, and visa versa.

Your woeful lack of objectivity and fairness has allowed you to accept the redefinitions of "Fascism" that Conservative media and strategists have offered.

Revisions offered largely to assuage the similarities between post 911 Evangelical/Tea Party Republicans and Fascists.

That's kind of a long winded way to say "I know you are but what am I"

The OP points out the outrage from a real Liberal, Kirsten Powers, and a conservative, Kimberley Strassel.

What are left are comments from the Fascists in mufti.....

...raise your paw.

I simply responded to the hyperbolic assertion within the title of your thread.

I'm weary of how the crap you cut-n-paste after that rarely supports the assertion

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Fascism is a good thing.

How do you use individual freedom to combat Capitalist Liberalism spreading by Hollywood, and the media, as well as Capitalists hiring illegal immigrants, outsourcing jobs, and supporting feminism for cheap labor profits.

The answer is you don't.

Social Conservatives have been duped by the Capitalists.

1. Don't watch Hollywood movies.
2. Develop jobs skills greater than those of illegal aliens so you're not in competition with them.
3. Develop Jobs skills that aren't affected by outsourcing to foreign workers so you're not in competition with them.
4. Become a house husband.

Somehow you seem to believe that the world owes you a living. If that's true you should support world wide socialism.

Fascists will have you digging ditches for minimum wage or less, or send you all over the world to fight their wars for them.

It's hardly about job skills, it's more about what's cheaper to the Capitalist scums.

Capitalism is wrecking the U.S.A, the Capitalists need to be put on a short-leash.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fascism is a good thing.

How do you use individual freedom to combat Capitalist Liberalism spreading by Hollywood, and the media, as well as Capitalists hiring illegal immigrants, outsourcing jobs, and supporting feminism for cheap labor profits.

The answer is you don't.

Social Conservatives have been duped by the Capitalists.

"Fascism is a good thing."

What an imbecile.