jillian
Princess
What surveys tell you that? I'm pretty sure the answer is none that anyone who actually knows political or economic policy participated in.
The liberal march towards EXTREME fascism
- Thread starter P@triot
- Start date
What surveys tell you that? I'm pretty sure the answer is none that anyone who actually knows political or economic policy participated in.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,419
- 2,180
In other words, you're a brainwashed dumbass.
There's nothing "scientific" about political science. It's all propaganda.
- May 24, 2016
- 3,254
- 452
- 130
Did you forget to post your own credentials?
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #205
Because they are run by left-wing liberal morons ashamed of the ideology they embrace.
Right-wing believe in small, limited government. Right-wing extremists believe in no government at all. Does that sound like even remotely like totalitarian fascism?!? Ignore your little college booklets and use your own common sense for a minute. Does that sound even remotely like small, limited (or no) government to you?
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #206
I told you could not read closely. Matthew said that. I said you are an idiot. And you are not an anarchist.bripat means statist but is confused with the words.The source is COMMON SENSE stupid. That was my post and everything stated is a fact.
You seriously can't comprehend the difference between right-wing and left-wing? Geez....
They can't even define "right wing" and "left wing."
The way it is becoming in America today?
Right ---> I hate government and lets rule over the people with Christianity.
Left-----> Lets help people, lets invest in our country and let people be people.
I'm an atheist, so how does that square with your moron definitions?
Wrong, moron, I meant atheist. You claimed I want government to "rule over the people with Christianity." How can that be true if I'm an atheist?
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #207
Fascism is a progressive statist philosophy and political impulse that uses big government to accomplish change in government, politics, society, and culture.
Right wing fascists try to use big government for nationalistic, nativistic, sexist, homophobic, and theocratic control of the nation. P@triot is a right wing fascist.
ABikerSailor
Diamond Member
You nailed it Jake.
Hum Dinger
Gold Member
- Aug 19, 2008
- 12,197
- 4,565
- 315
It's apparent that some people on this forum are obsessed with the words 'Liberal' and 'Conservative'. Somehow they've identified themselves (who they believe to be pure goodness), as 'Conservatives' or 'Right-Wing', and therefore identify 'Liberal' as being the opposite - that is all 'evil'. They build strawman after strawman...all false images of liberals.
When people who identify as 'Liberals' tell them that their idea of liberalism is just plain wrong, they refuse to re evaluate their understanding of liberalism. They cling to their strawmen.
It seems that their is a simple reason for this:
Wingnuts could not care less about any political or ideological beliefs, much less any concept of right and wrong or truth. They are interested ONLY in obtaining power. They want to win just to win. They will say anything that sounds good at the moment.
Even nonsense like declaring Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Hussein were 'Liberals'.
In the words of Tonto:
"I can't figure out whether this horse is stupid or if this horse is just pretending to be stupid".
When people who identify as 'Liberals' tell them that their idea of liberalism is just plain wrong, they refuse to re evaluate their understanding of liberalism. They cling to their strawmen.
It seems that their is a simple reason for this:
Wingnuts could not care less about any political or ideological beliefs, much less any concept of right and wrong or truth. They are interested ONLY in obtaining power. They want to win just to win. They will say anything that sounds good at the moment.
Even nonsense like declaring Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Hussein were 'Liberals'.
In the words of Tonto:
"I can't figure out whether this horse is stupid or if this horse is just pretending to be stupid".
regent
Gold Member
- Jan 30, 2012
- 10,459
- 1,152
- 245
You have made the size of government part of the definition, it is not, it is a means to their ideology.
Since you don't accept scholarly definitions of the terms, do we, as do, conservatives, just create our own definition of liberalism and conservatism?
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #211
The loons like Patriot have recreating their own terms, definitions, facts, and revisions since 2008.
Hum Dinger
Gold Member
- Aug 19, 2008
- 12,197
- 4,565
- 315
Sounds like you talking about anarcho-capitalism in particular, not about right-wing beliefs in general. The right-wing beliefs, in general, certainly do support a lot of government.
Supporting a HUGE military industrial complex and police force, making abortion illegal, making gay marriage illegal are all examples of BIG government.
The right-wing in general supports huge dictatorial government...they just want that government to dictate they way they want.
The anarcho-capitalists may truly be for small government, but they apparently do not have much life experience, havn't thought things thru or are just plain criminal that hate living in a civil society.
The fact is that the world started with anarchy. People formed gangs (tribes), gangs fought one another until they came under control of war lords, The word lords fought until there was a king, the kings fought until there was an emporer. Then people wised up and created modern democratic governments (at least in some areas of the world).
If anarcho-capitalists had their way we'd just restart the whole thing all over again. It only takes one Al Capone to force all business people to adopt gangster tactics - and that back to the beginning again.
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #213
It only takes one Joseph Stalin to do more damage in a single day than Al Capone did in a lifetime. Conservative estimates are that Stalin killed 20 million of his own countrymen. Al Capone wasn't even in the ballpark of 200. Who poses a bigger threat to liberty? Iraq was a full democracy until Saddam Hussein staged a military coup.
As a liberal looking for a handout - you're simply blinded by your greed to the dangers of government. Government has near unlimited resources and weapon systems that one can only dream about. An Al Capone has a few bucks and a Tommy Gun. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would immediately recognize which one poses an exponentially greater threat to liberty.
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it” - Thomas Jefferson (December 23, 1791)
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #214
Everything you just stated is the false liberal narrative. It's propaganda. Let's break it down one by one:
Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government and the single most important role of government. If we're overthrown - nothing else matters. And liberals are too näive and idealistic to recognize that whoever develops the next big weapon wins. Had Japan and/or Germany developed the nuclear weapon before we did - we would all be saying "hail de führer" right now. There is zero room for error. Zero.
Gay marriage is something that liberals insisted government get involved in (as they do with everything). One hundred years ago - it wasn't an issue. No conservative or Republican was calling for government to do anything with regards to homosexuality. Then along came liberals with their agenda to make all forms of extreme sexual deviance "normal" and "accepted" and here we are. At the end of the day, the 10th Amendment clearly states that anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers explicitly delegated to then by the states was left to the states or the people. Which means the Supreme Court has zero authority to intervene on gay marriage. It is an issue for the people of each state to decide.
Lastly (and most comically) is your false narrative on abortion. This one is like saying "conservatives are big government oppressive dictators because they won't let us liberals rape women". Sorry dude - it's not "big government" to protect constitutional rights. Such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nobody should be allowed to kill another human being. If a pregnant woman wants to place a gun in her mouth and kill herself - I 100% support her freedom to choose that. But she doesn't have the right to kill the baby.
So now that it's clear you were utilizing tired liberal talking points which are completley false straw men arguments - would you like to try again? Something with substance this time?
Hum Dinger
Gold Member
- Aug 19, 2008
- 12,197
- 4,565
- 315
There is no doubt that one of the primary responsibilities of the Federal government is national defense. However, you cannot be against 'big government' and support having a huge military. If the military is huge then the government is huge. You contradict yourself. You also cannot have a huge military without huge taxes - but that's far beyond the reasoning capability of most wingnuts.
Furthermore, along with the responsibility of "providing for the common defense", "Establishing Justice" and "Promoting the General Welfare" are equally the responsibility of the federal government.
It's conservatives that have challenged state laws in the Supreme Court, not liberals. The fact that their challenge backfired on them - forcing the supreme court to make gay marriage legal throughout the U.S. shows how dumb they truly are.
However, it is the preamble to the constitution that cites the responsibility of the Supreme court to make gay marriage the law of the land:
"to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty"
Gay marriage falls under both "establishing Justice" and "Securing the blessings of Liberty".
Once you can prove that an embryo is a person, then you may have a case, but the latest court ruling, based on the best science of the time determined that an embryo is not a person but is part of the woman, so it does not have rights as an individual. If you can prove otherwise please go ahead.
And BTW- I don't think that there are very many women that would agree that keeping abortion legal is equivalent to legalizing rape.
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #216
Why do you continue with your false liberal narratives when I've already obliterated them with facts, reason, logic, and reality? The size of government has nothing to do with the size of the military. When we speak of the size of government - it means what the federal government is responsible for and/or overseeing. The fact that you need that explained to you is pretty sad in itself.
The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Being responsible for 18 items makes you a very small government - no matter how large those 18 items are (I don't care how large the military grows, or the post office, etc. if they are needed). But liberals have taken government into education (unconstitutional/illegal), energy (unconstitutional/illegal), the environment (unconstitutional/illegal), parks (unconstitutional/illegal), art (unconstitutional/illegal), science (unconstitutional/illegal), college tuition (unconstitutional/illegal), and literally thousands of more sectors.
So like I said before - now that your entire false narrative has been obliterated, would you like to try again? Preferably something rooted in reality this time?
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #217
Yawn. Another boring false narrative from someone regurgitating the libtard talking points from MSNBC. Can you think for yourself at all or are you just a human-parrot hybrid?
We could drop the federal tax rate to less than 10% and still fully fund our military (i.e. increase the budget from the one Obama has decimated). That is a fact cupcake. The reason we're all paying 37% because of the unconstitutional/illegal entitlements like welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
Sooo...you are really failing miserably here. I keep inviting you to try again but you just keep repeating these absurd liberal talking points that have been debunked for decades. Should I even invite you to try again since you're apparently incapable of discussing anything based in reality?
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #218
Wow! Somebody even sleeps with MSNBC playing in the background. No. No they are not. At all. Not one thing you mentioned is one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government. The "General Welfare" clause that MSNBC libtards love to desperately grasp at is not an enumerated power. It provides the federal government broad powers within the 18 enumerated powers they are restricted to. The founders didn't want to write a 2,000 page document (like Obamacare) and didn't think they'd have to. They had no way of knowing a cancer known as liberalism would rise up and attempt to pervert everything they ever said. So they stated that the federal government had the right to lay taxes for the "general welfare" within those 18 enumerated rights. So they had broad powers for say - defense. The founders didn't want to have to justify every tiny thing the federal government could do with defense so they summarized "general welfare". Here is none other than Thomas Jefferson himself on multiple occasions making this very clear (and Thomas Jefferson knew more about the U.S. Constitution than every liberal that has ever walked the earth combined):
“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)
“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #219
Yet another outright liberal lie. Homosexuals were never denied any justice. They could not have their person's or possessions searched without a warrant. They could vote. They had the right to an attorney. They could carry a firearm. They had freedom of religion and speech. And not only all of that - any homosexual man could marry any woman he wanted (just like heterosexual men) and any homosexual woman could marry any man she wanted (just like heterosexual women). Any other false narratives you want me to shoot down for you?
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #220
Well that is a pretty weak argument. At one time, you would not have been able to find very many people who would have agreed that slavery was wrong. But then the world woke up and realized that owning another person like one would own a pet is an abomination.
Furthermore - there are many millions of women who would say that keeping abortion legal is far worse than legalizing rape. One is a horrific act. The other murder. I don't know too many people who would say they would rather be murdered than endure a 12 minute rape (and that's not to minimize the horrors of rape - but it's just not on the same level as losing life).
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Good history on how the Middle East was formed as we know it.- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
