So Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians are in fact, Nazis

[bripat9643]

Nazis, Republicans and some Libertarians are Authoritarians.

Same Genus, different Species.

Hilarious. Libertarians are the opposite of "authoritarian," and what could be more authoritarian than an ideology that says government should make all the major decisions for society and for you personally?

Liberals are alaways trying to paint their opposition with their own faults.

No one's buying it but the congenitally naive.

 

[bripat9643]

Nazis, Republicans and some Libertarians are Authoritarians.

Same Genus, different Species.

No no no! They're really, really not!
This was just a parody to show how extremist tend to generalize the views of all those with opposing views, as being part of the opposite extreme view e.g. anyone who does not agree that we should have (virtually) NO federal government, obviously wants TOTAL federal government.

The only problem with your "parody" is that liberals are in fact socialists. I've been posting the evidence for that for decades. I just posted some to this forum.

 

[bripat9643]

John Dean in his book, Conservatives Without Conscience, describes the Conservative's need for authority.
‪Conservatives Without Conscience‬‏ - YouTube

Okay now just stop. My view of Conservatives is like this: They cherish the values that made our country great. Even though the world is changing, there is room for preserving the things that made us great in the first place. They hold dear the principles that the Founding Fathers risked their lives for. All of this is a good thing. The only time there is conflict, is when it is taken to the extreme and excludes any new ideas / progress as being "Socialists" or whatever.

There is nothing new about liberal ideas. They are as old as socialism, because that is exactly what they are.

 

[Woyzeck]

Nazis, Republicans and some Libertarians are Authoritarians.

Same Genus, different Species.

Hilarious. Libertarians are the opposite of "authoritarian," and what could be more authoritarian than an ideology that says government should make all the major decisions for society and for you personally?

Liberals are alaways trying to paint their opposition with their own faults.

No one's buying it but the congenitally naive.

So what do you think of libertarian socialism?

 

[Oddball]

So what do you think of libertarian socialism?

The same thing I think about unicorns and leprechauns.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

The rest of the world knows socialism is democratic and helps people, communism ALWAYS totalitarian and a failure. At this point 60% of the USA are sorely misled by the Pub propaganda machine: what is socialism, global warming, health reform, actual wealth numbers, etc, etc...

 

[Moonglow]

The rest of the world knows socialism is democratic and helps people, communism ALWAYS totalitarian and a failure. At this point 60% of the USA are sorely misled by the Pub propaganda machine: what is socialism, global warming, health reform, actual wealth numbers, etc, etc...

all they have to do is eduacate thenselves to see the truth from the lies, but alas, woe is them.

 

[Neotrotsky]

What does James Madison- “Father of the Constitution” have to say

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of
proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”​

Yet, he was wrong. Congress proved him wrong. The Supreme Court proved him wrong. And the general welfare stood for education, farmers and US Banks. It was used by Lewis & Clark to map America. To sell off US gov. lands. etc.

Alexander Hamilton, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[18]

Although The Federalist was not reliably distributed outside of New York,[19] the essays eventually became the dominant reference for interpreting the meaning of the Constitution as they provided the reasoning and justification behind the Framers' intent in setting up the federal government.[19]

In United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Justice Story's construction, holding the power to tax and spend is an independent power; that is, the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare. The Court wrote:

“ [T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare. ”

Wrong? My how bold.

Well the SCOTUS and Congress once supported slavery, so nothing is set in stone.

Even in the case you cite, the Welfare Clause is allowing them to spend tax money as they see ( taxing power is in the Constitution) only limited by Federal concerns.
It does NOT grant them ANY power. For example, the General Welfare clause would not support Congress passing a Law that says we all have to brush our teeth and comb our hair
nor for that matter, a law that says we have to buy something.

Too bad
The tax imposed in Butler was nevertheless held unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment reservation of power to the states.



Oh I know the Left loves a broad interpretation of the General Welfare statement or the Hamilton View.
Of course, it does beg the question, why even have the rest of the US Constitution?

General Welfare - should just be enough, right?

Just because buying toilets for the White House out of tax payer money may be allowed
even though it is not specifically granted in the Constitution, does not mean
that Congress can do ANYTHING it wants in the name of General Welfare.

 

[Woyzeck]

So what do you think of libertarian socialism?

The same thing I think about unicorns and leprechauns.

So what do you think libertarian socialism means?

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

#47-idiot

 

[Oddball]

So what do you think of libertarian socialism?

The same thing I think about unicorns and leprechauns.

So what do you think libertarian socialism means?

It means that Chomsky proves PT Barnum correct...There really is a sucker born every minute.

 

[Woyzeck]

The same thing I think about unicorns and leprechauns.

So what do you think libertarian socialism means?

It means that Chomsky proves PT Barnum correct...There really is a sucker born every minute.

I'll take that as a no, you don't know what it means.

 

[Oddball]

I know enough about semantics and the English language to recognize mutually exclusive terms when I see them.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So what do you think of libertarian socialism?

The same thing I think about unicorns and leprechauns.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Indeed, how can one be a Libertarian and a Socialist?

 

[Woyzeck]

I know enough about semantics and the English language to recognize mutually exclusive terms when I see them.

They're not mutually exclusive. They're actually anarchists.

Now if you want mutually exclusive contradicting terms, go for anarcho-capitalism.

 

[Oddball]

Indeed, how can one be a Libertarian and a Socialist?

You cannot.

The former abhors the proactive use of force, while the latter is entirely dependent upon it.

The people who by into the Chomsky-ite "libertarian socialism" con are flat out rubes.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So what do you think libertarian socialism means?

It means that Chomsky proves PT Barnum correct...There really is a sucker born every minute.

I'll take that as a no, you don't know what it means.

Oh no, we know what it means.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They cherish the values that made our country great. Even though the world is changing, there is room for preserving the things that made us great in the first place. They hold dear the principles that the Founding Fathers risked their lives for. All of this is a good thing. The only time there is conflict, is when it is taken to the extreme and excludes any new ideas / progress as being "Socialists" or whatever.

Conservatives for the most part like to cherry-pick the values that make our country great, they believe the Constitution is a cafeteria plan, where they acknowledge the rights they approve of and reject the rights they don’t, such as privacy rights with regard to abortion and due process rights with regard to same-sex marriage. Preserving the things that they hold dear to the detriment of other Americans is not a value advocated by the Founding Fathers.

If conservatives fought as hard in the courts for 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment rights of the individual with regard to privacy and due process issues as they do corporate interests with regard to the Necessary and Proper, Supremacy, and Commerce Clause issues, then they’d at least present a more consistent agenda with regard to their political philosophy.

Social ‘conservatives’ and Christian fundamentalists contaminate basic conservative tenets that may have some merit. exacerbating the dissonance between left and right.

The fundamental conflict stems from the belief by most conservatives that government social programs act as a ‘disincentive’ where the individual need not take responsibility for his own life. That without public education, Medicaid, and Social Security, people would work harder and earn more money to be able to educate their children, pay for healthcare, and have savings for retirement. Consequently, conservative dogma maintains, poverty would be rare and of small numbers to the extent that private non-profit entities and religious organizations would be able to ‘care’ for the poor.

There are also conflicts with regard to the size and role of government, taxation and regulation, and foreign policy issues, but the doctrine of the ‘governmental disincentive’ and its effect on the individual is at the core of conservative dogma and the source of the fundamental conflict with non-conservatives, who believe government plays an important and positive role in Americans’ daily lives.

No idea or law can be inflicted upon the masses without big government. Only through the use of men with guns can the government impose it's will on the people.

Paranoid nonsense: the rule of law ensures every American’s rights are protected from government – at all levels, state and local – overreach and excess, regardless the size of government. The rule of law protects Americans’ rights from the tyranny of the majority, be that via referendum or representative body.

Big Government is just that, BIG GOVERNMENT, regardless of what names or colors we assign it. And our government has gotten bigger with each consecutive president.

More paranoid nonsense: where in the Constitution does it say what ‘size’ the government should be? The government merely reflects the people, indeed, it is the people. And government is no more malevolent or benevolent than per the will of the people. Hence the rule of law, as men can not rule other men justly. Many on the right seem to think the people and the government are two separate and distinct entities, they are not.

The Framers created the Constitution not to protect the people from ‘the government’ but to protect the people from themselves.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The rest of the world knows socialism is democratic and helps people, communism ALWAYS totalitarian and a failure. At this point 60% of the USA are sorely misled by the Pub propaganda machine: what is socialism, global warming, health reform, actual wealth numbers, etc, etc...

all they have to do is eduacate thenselves to see the truth from the lies, but alas, woe is them.

Perhaps you should eduacate yourself as to the proper spelling of educate before you lecture others on the value of education.