PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Are liberals the new fascists?


BucEyedPea
08-20-2009, 12:52 PM
Those illiberal modern liberals....what are they really. Pin the correct label on the ideology.

Chiefshrink
08-20-2009, 12:56 PM
For those of us who are Conservatives and Libertarians we have always known Libs are fascists LOLO!!

KC native
08-20-2009, 12:59 PM
Pin the correct label on anyone I disagree with.

FYP

Ultra Peanut
08-20-2009, 01:00 PM
Not unless you have the maturity of a small child.

Reaper16
08-20-2009, 01:01 PM
More like Ill-Liberals. We gets ill wit it. Droppin that mad flow.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2009, 01:02 PM
For those of us who are Conservatives and Libertarians we have always known Libs are fascists LOLO!!

Only my closest friends call me that nickname.

Demonpenz
08-20-2009, 01:03 PM
Liberals are the new people who had aids in the 80's

BucEyedPea
08-20-2009, 01:22 PM
Liberals are the new people who had aids in the 80's

They all died. Where have you been?

Ultra Peanut
08-20-2009, 01:23 PM
More like Ill-Liberals. We gets ill wit it. Droppin that mad flow.Some drop science, but I'm droppin' ENGLISH!

blaise
08-20-2009, 01:30 PM
They're mostly people that want freedom of expression, open exchange of ideas, the ability to protest and take to the streets to be heard, and celebrate tolerance of differing views.
As long as those things expressed, the ideas exchanged, the cause protested, and the views they want tolerated are in 100% agreement with what they believe. Otherwise you're obviously a racist, sexist, homophobic, jingoistic, Christian nutjob, red-state ignorant redneck, astroturfing, danger to our society.
In short, "The only thing we won't tolerate is intolerance! (and views different than ours)"

Amnorix
08-20-2009, 02:01 PM
Those illiberal modern liberals....what are they really. Pin the correct label on the ideology.

You're obsessed with labels, especially "fascist" and "communist".

Messier
08-20-2009, 02:07 PM
Is orange the new red?

blaise
08-20-2009, 02:08 PM
Is orange the new red?

He's pretty far left but I don't know if he's a commie.

KCTitus
08-20-2009, 07:21 PM
From Wikipedia...

Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.

Possible...they loved dissent when out of power, but complain about Nazi's that dissent against them (See Pelosi, Nancy). Also, create email boxes to receive 'fishy' information about their proposed policies received in correspondence or casual conversations. Fortunately for the unwashed masses, an overwhelming majority of people in this country still value free speech.

Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.

Not even close, American liberals exploit class conflict for all their political gains. Class Warfare has become the overall philosophy of their 40 year old playbook.

In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism. This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour.

Well, lets see...

Bush took over the banks.
Obama has taken over one Auto company, has his sights set on the Energy industry and Health industry.

That only leaves the control and distribution of food. At that point, the Constitution is toilet paper.

eh...two out of three isnt bad, so while I'll not say 100% yes, how about 66.6% yes?

BucEyedPea
08-20-2009, 08:17 PM
He's pretty far left but I don't know if he's a commie.

Peaches isn't a commie but he is orange ( made up of orange and red) and he has swirly streaks of red and it's various tones mixed on his skin with some red down in the center—near the pit. :D

googlegoogle
08-20-2009, 09:39 PM
Why are Republican moderates, conservatives and libertarians against state secession?

It's really the simplest answer to all the problems.

Reaper16
08-20-2009, 09:56 PM
Why are Republican moderates, conservatives and libertarians against state secession?

It's really the simplest answer to all the problems.
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e57/Thereaper16/Chickenhawk-THEY-TOOK-OUR-INSURANCE.jpg

Messier
08-21-2009, 07:11 AM
Why are Republican moderates, conservatives and libertarians against state secession?

It's really the simplest answer to all the problems.

You go ahead and secede, get the ball rolling, and we'll all catch up.

patteeu
08-21-2009, 10:15 AM
He's pretty far left but I don't know if he's a commie.

He's far enough left that I think he should change his name to persimmon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persimmon_%28color%29).

coral red

The Mad Crapper
03-23-2010, 11:26 AM
In 2006 and 2008, Americans voted for change from unresponsive and out-of-touch government officials, irrational fiscal policies, bitter partisanship, and political and government corruption. They voted for change and turned the government over to the Democrats without bothering to ask them to define change.

Now they know, as President Obama crowed after Sunday night's passage of Obamacare, "what change looks like": the status quo on steroids, with more socialism, arrogance, profligacy, bribery and unconstitutionality than they could have imagined. And they couldnot be more horrified. Today, solid majorities complain they did not get the change they voted for.

Actually, they did.

Certainly, Americans envisioned "health-care reform" as something more modest and sensible than Obamacare with its multitrillion-dollar cost; its $400 billion in job-killing taxes and $500 billion in Medicare cuts; its multitude of crooked deals, many of which have yet to come to light; its constitutionally suspect health-insurance mandate; and its wholesale transformation of a system with which up to 90 percent of Americans (and upward of 70 percent of Democrats) are at least somewhat satisfied. Minimally, they thought reform would rein in the trial lawyers and let insurers sell across state lines. This is what they thought change looked like.

Instead, they got Obamacare because Democrats are skilled in obfuscation. Strictly speaking, Obamacare is not a government takeover of the medical-insurance industry, it does not ration care, and it does not have "death panels." But those outcomes, along with higher medical costs and insurance premiums, are inevitable.

It's a "jobs bill" as long as you count only the tens of thousands of government positions created to enforce all the new laws and regulations but not the private-sector jobs that will be lost as businesses struggle to meet higher personnel and compliance costs and crushing new taxes.

Obamacare will cost only $1 trillion over 10 years as long as you overstate savings and double-count revenues, underestimate cost increases and don't count the inevitable unfunded liabilities; ignore the massive costs shifted onto states, companies and individuals; make believe the Democrats will tax the Cadillac health-care plans of their union masters and slash health care for the elderly; and imagine the legislation contains no hidden or unanticipated expenses that future congresses would have to fund with higher taxes or paper over with deficit spending.

And as long as you believe 16 million new clients won't stress the overburdened, underfunded Medicaid system to the breaking point and will be able to find doctors willing to lose money by treating them, then Obamacare expands health-care coverage, too.

But is this change or the same warmed-over socialism, pitched for decades by Democrats, that has trashed the economies and health-care systems in every country where it has been tried?

The socialistic Ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid have been with us for decades, and Obamacare merely builds upon those scams with their $108 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Obamacare, too, is in keeping with Democrats' core principles of Big Government dependence, intrusion and expansion that have been eroding individual liberties and contributing to the creep of socialism, dependence and entitlement since the days of Franklin Roosevelt.

Examples abound, but here are some recent ones: When lying borrowers found themselves in default or foreclosure after the bottom fell out of the housing market, the government bailed them out. When Americans recklessly ran up huge credit-card bills, the government bailed them out. When industries took oversized risks and cleaved to disastrous business models, the government bailed them out.

The bailouts were bad enough, but worse was the general expectation that it's the government's responsibility to rescue people from their own poor choices.

The president's assertion notwithstanding, Obamacare is not what change looks like. It's more of the same, only worse because it moves America closer to the Democrats' socialist utopia, and there's no turning back. And as with all other government bailouts, Obamacare punishes success by shifting the costs onto the many tens of millions of Americans who contribute to society, play by the rules and live within their means. Rest assured, this is what spreading the wealth around looks like.

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/03/23/opinion/473854.txt

penchief
03-23-2010, 12:46 PM
Those illiberal modern liberals....what are they really. Pin the correct label on the ideology.

Unfortunately for your bogus theory, fascism doesn't embrace liberal ideals. The level of idiocy around this place is getting out of hand.