The liberal march towards EXTREME fascism

The left attempts to achieve all of their political goals through violence...

You're actually sitting on this beard claiming that "Daniel Allen Baker, 33" is "the left"?
DING what is an example of Composition Fallacy for a thousand, Alex

Your failed thread was supposed to be about Liberalism, dumbass. What's this shit?
 
The left has embraced fascism in its purest form. They don’t believe in democracy. They believe in achieving their political goals through violence and unilateral, dictatorial actions.
 
The left has embraced fascism in its purest form. They don’t believe in democracy. They believe in achieving their political goals through violence and unilateral, dictatorial actions.
that would be the left embracing violence.

in order to have fascism, you need the governing body to become a dictatorial power, along with forced suppression of opposition. Also, fascism is the opposite of liberalism.
 
The left has embraced fascism in its purest form. They don’t believe in democracy. They believe in achieving their political goals through violence and unilateral, dictatorial actions.
that would be the left embracing violence.

in order to have fascism, you need the governing body to become a dictatorial power, along with forced suppression of opposition. Also, fascism is the opposite of liberalism.

You are correct. And, given the dictatorial leanings of Democrats and their championing of suppression, I'd say leftism is ALSO the opposite of liberalism.

But I can see where you would be confused, since - like all leftists - you think if you slap a label on things, it becomes true.
 
The left has embraced fascism in its purest form. They don’t believe in democracy. They believe in achieving their political goals through violence and unilateral, dictatorial actions.
that would be the left embracing violence.

in order to have fascism, you need the governing body to become a dictatorial power, along with forced suppression of opposition. Also, fascism is the opposite of liberalism.

You are correct. And, given the dictatorial leanings of Democrats and their championing of suppression, I'd say leftism is ALSO the opposite of liberalism.

But I can see where you would be confused, since - like all leftists - you think if you slap a label on things, it becomes true.
hmm ok. have any examples of supression?
 
The left has embraced fascism in its purest form. They want to control the economy, the media, etc. and eliminate free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to own firearms.
The left has embraced fascism in its purest form. They don’t believe in democracy. They believe in achieving their political goals through violence and unilateral, dictatorial actions.

Twice more in succession ----- IMMEDIATELY after being called on it ------ OP Buttsoiler has again conflated "Liberalism", his alleged topic, with "the left'. Dood's lost in space.
 
The left has embraced fascism in its purest form. They don’t believe in democracy. They believe in achieving their political goals through violence and unilateral, dictatorial actions.
that would be the left embracing violence.

in order to have fascism, you need the governing body to become a dictatorial power, along with forced suppression of opposition. Also, fascism is the opposite of liberalism.

You are correct. And, given the dictatorial leanings of Democrats and their championing of suppression, I'd say leftism is ALSO the opposite of liberalism.

But I can see where you would be confused, since - like all leftists - you think if you slap a label on things, it becomes true.
hmm ok. have any examples of supression?

Are you shitting me right now? Which rock have you been hiding under for the last decade? Or even just the last year? You are actually sitting there, blankly asking me what suppression the left is advocating, not to mention actually enacting?
 
that would be the left embracing violence.
Exactly. Like I said, “the left has embraced fascism in its purest form”.
in order to have fascism, you need the governing body to become a dictatorial power, along with forced suppression of opposition.
Uh...no you don’t. That would be the requirement for the United States to be “fascist”. Anyone one person or group can be fascist or dedicate themselves to fascism (as the left has)l
Also, fascism is the opposite of liberalism.
True liberalism. But the left hijacked that term over a hundred years ago. So like it or not, modern day liberalism is fascism.
 
The Democrats want a military filled only with people who have complete and total allegiance to them and their ideology - not to liberty or the US Constitution.
“This to me, dangerous, it looks like a political litmus test, and it’s a road that you would only find in communist China or in the former Soviet Union,” former Lieutenant Commander Rogers told NTD.
We all know how this ends.
 
The war of labels ......as seen above.

First of all I disagree with calling democrats fascists.....i think the more accurate description of them would be under the heading of Socialism/Marxism.

Fascism is very complex and the form it takes differs from country to country.

In the posts above we see many over-simplify the definition of it....I am not even sure it can be defined...it is a very broad political philosophy.

Mussolini and Hitler did not invent fascist ideology. Indeed, fascism was neither a 20th-century creation nor a peculiarly Italian or German one. Originating in the 19th century, fascist ideas appeared in the works of writers from France as well as Austria, Germany, and Italy, including political theorists such as Theodor Fritsch, Paul Anton de Lagarde, Julius Langbehn, Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, Joseph de Maistre, Charles Maurras, and Georges Sorel; scientists and philosophers such as Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Giovanni Gentile, Gustave Le Bon, Friedrich Nietzsche, Vilfredo Pareto, Karl Vogt, and Ernst Haeckel; historians and social thinkers such as Joseph-Arthur, comte de Gobineau, Hippolyte Taine, and Heinrich von Treitschke; artists, writers, and journalists such as Gabriele D’Annunzio, Richard Wagner, Édouard Drumont, Maurice Barrès, and Guido von List; and conservative politicians such as Otto Böckel and Adolf Stoecker.

 
Maxine Waters incited violence. The left loved it. Defended it. Then, when they thought a conservative was responsible for her comments, they were "outraged". :laugh:

 
The left has embraced fascism in its purest form. They don’t believe in democracy. They believe in achieving their political goals through violence and unilateral, dictatorial actions.
that would be the left embracing violence.

in order to have fascism, you need the governing body to become a dictatorial power, along with forced suppression of opposition. Also, fascism is the opposite of liberalism.

You are correct. And, given the dictatorial leanings of Democrats and their championing of suppression, I'd say leftism is ALSO the opposite of liberalism.

But I can see where you would be confused, since - like all leftists - you think if you slap a label on things, it becomes true.
hmm ok. have any examples of supression?

They are impeaching a president over the 1st amendment.
Trump over the last 40 years has been very vocal on nonviolence .
All because of misinformed political news opinions.
 
The left has embraced fascism in its purest form. They don’t believe in democracy. They believe in achieving their political goals through violence and unilateral, dictatorial actions.
that would be the left embracing violence.

in order to have fascism, you need the governing body to become a dictatorial power, along with forced suppression of opposition. Also, fascism is the opposite of liberalism.

You are correct. And, given the dictatorial leanings of Democrats and their championing of suppression, I'd say leftism is ALSO the opposite of liberalism.

But I can see where you would be confused, since - like all leftists - you think if you slap a label on things, it becomes true.
hmm ok. have any examples of supression?

They are impeaching a president over the 1st amendment.
Trump over the last 40 years has been very vocal on nonviolence .
All because of misinformed political news opinions.
advocating for imminent lawless action isnt protected under first amendment

.

 

Forum List

Back
Top