Fascism is government control of the private sector with the allowance of private profit, which makes it just as dangerous as direct socialism because of the potential for corruption. Fannie and Freddie started off as socialist programs but became fascist after a while which is why we need to let freedom remain our platform and get back to the constitution.
the ease with which obama was able to take over banks, GM, the entire healthcare sector and suspend deep water drilling is plentiful proof that governments have supreme authority over the private sector. the US has been most fascistic under the democrat regimes of wilson, fdr and now obama. mussolini and hitler, like all socialists, had an iron grip on the entire society. they were not from industry, they controlled it like they controlled everything else.
Who else would be in control of the police (if not the government). The police department is a government program.
Also those programs you cited aren't fascist. Look up the definition of fascism and you will see that it is when private business controls the state. It was fascist when Hillary Clinton gave in to the demands of health insurance companies and stopped pushing for health care reform. THAT was fascist. But those things you said aren't.
You're missing the point. Protecting innocent life and private property is THE legitimate function of government.
However, when government then "partners" with business, it is THEY -- not business -- who are in control. It is always thus.
In other words, your notion of fascism is necessarily back-ass-wards. Worse yet, the teachers labor unions who run the schools and proselytize otherwise are keenly aware of their purposeful deception.
Your definition of fascism is a quote of Mussolini taken out of context. In Italy in the 20s and 30s, there was no such thing as an American style "corporation". He was using the word "corporate" to mean the same thing as the word "collective".
When interpreting historical comments, it is important to consider that the meaning of words changes over time, and mean different things in different societies.
Also, the Nazi Party Platform called for the government to take over responsibility for the health of German citizens. So national health care is consistant with fascism.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad, but it does mean that the conservative position on health care (that your health is your responsibility) is the OPPOSITE of fascist.
Your analogy indicates that you misinterpreted my logic.
You said that opposing socialized medicine was fascist. I argued that socialized medicine was a goal that liberals have in common with fascists, and therefore opposing it could not be consistent with fascism.
I did not say that if you support socialized medicine you are a Nazi. But I am saying that if you oppose socialized medicine you are taking the OPPOSITE view of the Nazi Party, and hence should not be accused of being a fascist.
so that means because for example bush is so unpopular and pushed through unpopular(unconstitutional)policies he must therefore b good?(biggest nonesense i've ever heared)its not about liberals or conservatives its about the fusion of government and corporations givin u the illusion of being free.They just missed carlins point completely..they must b braindead.
Funny part is: most of Bush's unconstitutional BS was actually popular at the time.
That's why the founders of our country did not believe in a pure democracy: The people are fascist at heart (though they didn't have the word "fascist" back then). People always lean towards a more powerful government.
we were actually founded as a constitutional republic. many things have been changed since the founding of this country, obama is doing the same crap bush did, but he has the media on his side so he gets away with it.
Whenever one of the many disparate sects of socialists gets control of all the machine guns, they first kill their competition, and then rule over all, e.g. Hitler & Mussolini
It's insightful that socialists attempt to deflect from that historical insight by inventing words like "corporatism", thereby shifting the mind's eye away from them and their horrific politics.
Mussolini had his brownshirts beat socialists in the streets. And the word facism defines a right-wing philosophy, but the word Totalitarian can apply to anywhere on the political spectrum.
Mussolini himself praised FDR and his New (Fascist) Deal.
Under FDR's administration, "Liberal" was redefined to mean anyone favoring FDR's socialist/fascist policies (The New Deal), a massive expansion of government authority and claims over all aspects of human life, which is a rejection of classical Liberalism. Those opposed were labeled "Conservative".
if you look at the history of the word liberal, it used to mean what we would now call a libertarian or conservative. Now, to not be confused we call the old liberal a classical liberal. The wording changed around the 40s or so. The modern day liberal is NOT what he was referring to. Fascism IS Anti-classical liberal. You can read about this change of language if you look up classic versus modern liberal. Remember in his time liberal meant something different.
I see it more as liberal socialists on both sides who want global government, total social control over everybody whether it's socialist or fascist or some combination of the two or whatever. Enlightened Nazism or Smiley-faced jack-booted 1984 CommUNism. Call it what you want but it's about TOTAL CONTROL and the freaks who want it are Satanists.
Hmm, if you knew anything about fascism, you would realize it's entirely a nationalistic ideology and "global government" is antithetical to it.
Also, it's funny to write something like "CommUNism" when the UN was essentially founded by the United States as an expression of liberal internationalism and the USSR and other socialist states were hostile or indifferent toward it initially.
Liberals are responsible for both is what you are failing to realise. You are stuck in the false spectrum and letting it give you false definitions instead of reading actual history and learning the truth. You are being dictated to and don't even know it.
Actually liberals are responsible for neither; there is no evidence to indicate that liberals are responsible for Marxism or fascism. Liberalism is responsible only as the basis for these ideologies to against which to react and contrast themselves. The differences are far more numerous than any similarities. Try and refute my previous statements--they still stand.
And please, read some books (other than Jonah Goldeberg's) and you will learn the "actual history"...
People should read "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek. If liberal policies came to fruition they would result in outcomes that most liberals would abhor. Many enemies of socialism were actually people who didn't benefit from their policies. By favoring unions for example.. the clerical people became the new underclass not favored by gov. policies. Also, many adherents to socialist movements were failed entrepenuers and such that were angry at the system.
unions suck. i have yet to work in a union that has actually done anything. the union that im reluctantly in im actually forced to pay and its called "fair share". and i have worked full time hours since i have started years ago, yet im still considered part time, so i have to pay out the ass for insurance, and i work in a hospital!!!! socialism sucks, unions suck all the politicians are working towards the same goal.
I was a member of the American Federation of Musicians, because it was the only way I could cross the border to work in the US. All they did for me was take $200 a year.
During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.
Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.
Democrats publicly betrayed our most humane, effective and classified interrogation program as it was damaging the enemy. Democrats demanded video of it in the hope of maximizing the damage their treason inflicted on America. tylernull
"Otherwise moral people engage in "compromises" with this evil, officially sanctioning "lesser" moral evils in the expectation that they will appear "moderate" for not endorsing the greater evils. They certainly don't want to be branded as traitors for insisting that injustice and moral evil be rejected entirely. In has become a patriotic imperative to defend injustice and evil in the name of the Volk."
Use less melodrama, and do more thinking -- for the reasons I keep posting in reply to your numerous recitations and variations of your confusion between fascism and fighting fascism.
How can you get otherwise moral people to authorize morally evil acts? One effective method is to argue for committing much greater moral evils and then allow them to suggest a "compromise" whereby a somewhat lesser moral evil is permitted. You can even get people to think that a well-regulated and well-structured moral evil is a "victory" for the forces of law and good. (cont)
"In Hitler's Prisons: Legal Terror in Nazi Germany" The Führer, thought to embody the will of the German people, was given the authority to do whatever he thought was necessary in order to defend the German people and German nation. It was his responsibility to ensure that Germany not suffer as it had in the past.
This then inclined people to accept his claims that it was necessary to use torture on enemies of the state — if causing them to suffer might prevent the German nation from having to suffer, it was easy exchange to make.
Thus we shot, stabbed, mutilated, burned alive, eviscerated, eve gouged, and otherwise delivered torturously violent death and destruction, fire bombed civilian populations and otherwise brutalized the national socialists until the swine surrendered unconditionally. (It's called war.)
Fighting fascism isn't fascistic, and your inability to discriminate between the two evidences depravity.
Only in the Liberal Fascist mind is fascism defined as citizens holding not a shred of government authority whilst speaking their mind, and doing so to an audience entirely free to change the station.
Voicing dissent with Liberal Fascist ideology/theology/politics is not fascism. Think some more.
We just finished 2 long threads on two of my videos, including this one, wherein I painstakingly discussed one example; wherein you incessantly defended the treason. Your denials are now expanding from all of recorded history and current events to our own posts herein.
Democrats publicly betrayed our most humane, effective and classified interrogation program as it was damaging the enemy. Democrats demanded video of it in the hope of maximizing the damage their treason inflicted on America.
"a single shred of evidence of Democratic fascism"
In fact, after you posted an itemized list of 6 fascist traits -- Liberal Fascism (1) video -- I filled in each & every one with many examples of Democrat's Liberal Fascism, posting a host of replies.
I've had enough of your endless denials of reality as you tirelessly defend Democrat treason. Proselytize the glory of betraying America elsewhere.
No, fighting fascism is not fascist. Punishing Democrats for their treason against America is not fascist. Your record for getting everything perfectly backwards is unimpeachable.
The rich history of Democrat treasons, including the one to which we refer, have nothing to do with claims of torture, claims of war crimes, sanctions, support, speeches by Generals, the majority, the minority, Nazis, or any other of your growing list of lame defenses and complaints against observations of treason, except to the extent that Democrats and their friends (the enemy) often use such to defend their treasons.
There is something deeply deranged about these comments.
It is troubling that such a small group of people in this country can have such deep-seeded hatred for their fellow man.
I would imagine that something went terribly wrong in the development of this TylerNull; terribly wrong. Your arrogance and steely slicing comments about killing others borders on the psychopathic, no remorse or empathy. Your rhetorical hatred for muslims is no different than those of the nazis to the jews.
You managed to get it perfectly backwards with your dense batch of execrations against me (and General Patton?). My observations of Democrat treason and Democrat(ic) Party support of treason aren't evidence of hate, arrogance, wrong, derangement, lack of empathy, lack of remorse, Nazism, or psychopathology on my part. Neither are General Patton's quotes or my points regarding war ("killing others"), nor my points regarding the filth that always sides with America's enemies. You judge poorly.
Tyler sits in his mom's basement with a radioo and listens to four hours of Rush Limbaugh followed by four hours of Sean Hannity followed by four hours of Mark Levin and Michael the Savage Weiner. It's no surprise he is full of hatred for America and the Constitution.
"We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts."
-- General George S. Patton, Speech to the Third Army, June 5th, 1944
TylerNull; "We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks."
"We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts."
-- General George S. Patton, Speech to the Third Army, June 5th, 1944
But we didn't wage war the way Patton obviously wanted to, did we? Fortunately, saner minds were in charge of WWII. In fact, Patton was officially censured for his over-the-top statements.
Not only did America fight in the manner Patton spoke, but he led the fight. We used flame thowers on the enemy & firebombed their civilian populations. Such was reasoned, justified & infinitely more humane than the depravity of attempting a delicate war wherein a merciless enemy hides behind civilians, when not targeting them, and goes unpunished but for individuals, and then typically by the judiciary. History shows the success of Patton's leadership, as well as the silliness of your claims.
TylerNull; "Not only did America fight in the manner Patton spoke, but he led the fight. We used flame thowers on the enemy"
Sources, please.
"& firebombed their civilian populations."
The AIR FORCE firebombed civilian populations. Patton was on the ground, and there was always, for the most part, an attitude of mutual respect between the American and German forces when they finally met face-to-face at the conclusion of a battle.
My sources are generally referred to as the history of WWII.
And I simply refuse to accept you are stupid enough to grasp neither the topic of discussion nor the point of my posts in its regard, even as yours suggests you are. Democrat's betrayal of a war program -- the topic of this discussion and spawn of your friend's nonsense -- is treason. Nothing your ilk posts can change that fact. Now go commiserate with your friend Nin0000 to proffer another irrelevance.
TylerNull; "And I simply refuse to accept you are stupid enough to grasp neither the topic of discussion nor the point of my posts in its regard, even as yours suggests you are."
Uh huh. I'm still waiting for you to refute the content of my post.
Glossing over the subject with stilted language to prove how "intellectual" you are just shows me that you are avoiding answering me.
BTW: Using stilted language the way you do just makes you look silly and awkward.
WWII is not something I need to "defend with hard facts".
Neither is that war involves all of what Patton stated.
Neither is that we fire bombed civilian populations.
Neither is that we used flame throwers.
Neither is Patton's record.
What of your fantasies to the contrary do you now fantasize requires rebuttal?
BTW: Exposing the verbose depravities of Liberal Fascists as they defend their treasons involves nothing more than observing reality, dunce. That's "the way it works".
First you pretend that you don't know war is the torturously violent death of lots of people. Now you regress to gesticulating a pretense of not understanding that your feigned stupidity was noticed. Again, I reject its sincerity.
All you have done here is publicly debase yourself in defense of Democrat treason, aside from offering the brilliant, irrefutable irrelevancy that fire bombs are dropped by airplanes. With and without "sources", Patton was right and your treasonous ilk are wrong.
TylerNull; "....Now you regress to gesticulating a pretense of not understanding that your feigned stupidity was noticed. Again, I reject its sincerity."
TylerNull, your attempts to present yourself as intellectual by inappropriately using "big words" is making you look ridiculous.
If you're not sure about the meaning of a word, and don't know the proper context for its usage, please refrain from using it.
That's the second time you suggest there's something "intellectual" required to chronicle the various topic-avoidance techniques you Liberals go through as you try to defend Democrat treason.
Again, there's not.
Your safest move is to avoid discussing your politics by complaining about the manner in which I notice that you do so, as you just did, for the second time.
Hey tyler I will debate you. You can use big words I understand them even if i cant spell them. I and labeled a liberal so I wouldnt mind a intllectual debate with some one I would probobly label a neocon.
"We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time."
-- General George S. Patton, Speech to the Third Army, June 5th, 1944
"We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks."
-- General George S. Patton, Speech to the Third Army, June 5th, 1944
In everything we do, we must punish those who commit treason, otherwise they will continue to betray America at each and every opportunity. Democrats sided with the communist North Vietnamese to defeat America, and they hid behind military figures as they did so. Don't let them get away with it again.
"If we neutered treasonous Democrats and sold them to murderous Muslims at below market prices in exchange for peace, how would that not satisfy the federally-enforced, Liberal Fascist mandate to Embrace Cultural Diversity?"
TylerNull March 3, 2008
You know nothing of my uniforms, and I am so relieved that your profile is a purposeful deception.
Refute what? You repost irrelevant statements already addressed, and add to them a few new that are equally irrelevant. None of them absolve Democrats of the treason of betraying a classified program.
Moreover, treasonous Democrats are using the EXACT SAME TACTICS they used during the Vietnam War, wherein they helped the communist N.Vietnamese defeat S.Vietnam and the USA.
Failure to execute treasonous Democrats then is why they so openly betray America now.
Democrats have a rich history of treason against America, however, "wholesale slaughter"? Just how many treasonous Democrats do you suggest there are?
Also, America has the most humane fighting forces in the history of mankind. That includes squirting water up the snout of Muslim savages. Endlessly chanting "torture", however, is an effective treachery. It also highlights that Democrat's always find a way to side with the enemy. Hiding behind the US military as they do so is nasty.
I observe US Democrat(ic) Party leaders on national television proudly betraying an effective interrogation program and demanding video of the interrogations to maximize the damage of their treason whilst US soldiers are at war with the child-torturing enemies of America.
Contrary to your Democrat/Islamist rhetoric, it is not fascist to fight fascism and uphold US law. Unless we start executing the treasonous swine, Democrats will keep helping the enemy.
It is racketeering for federal officials to NOT uphold law on this scale. The treasonous should be executed during war time. You suggest all Democrats are treasonous. I think it's a fraction thereof.
You now smear General Petraeus to cover Democrat Party treason.
The General did not betray the interrogation program.
Democrats are not absolved of their public treason regardless of how many Generals say they like or don't like such programs.
It is notable that Democrats first slandered the General as General "Betray Us", until they were able to use a blurb from his testimony to help the enemy.
Dem's public betrayal of the waterboarding program is treason.
That holds regardless of you or anyone else not liking it; regardless of how many times, or in how many ways, you ignore the point; regardless of how many times you abandon your own thread whenever your politics are refuted; regardless of how many new multi-post threads you try to start, as you ignoring your last failed attempt. Your only purpose here is to help me chronicle the vile politics of your ilk.
There's nothing new about H.G.Wells. Liberal Fascism is his term. Like many American socialists infesting our nation, he liked the fascist brand of socialism.
FDR and his socialist, fascist, and communist buddies rejected classical Liberalism and redefined Liberalism as those who agree with his fascist "New Deal". There's the source of your "newspeak".
Sadly, there are still regressives clinging to socialist ideology.
Thank Goldberg for exposing the origins of modern Liberalism.
He's absolutely right on how the word fascism is thrown around by the liberals.I cant tell you how many times I have gotten into arguments with liberals about Bush, McCain and Iraq. The weak minded liberals throw the word fascist around like its going out of style.I personally take offense to that term and find it along the lines of a curse word.
The people who call themselves Jewish and side with the liberal side are mostly descendents of American Jews who have no connection to the holocaust. People like John Stewart or Sarah Silverman or Adam Sandler use the word Jew or Jewish as a label or a slogan rather than a definition.
This is why I like Ron Paul and a few others like him on all sides of the political spectrum who don't get mentioned by the Corporate Media. The Corporations should not become or have a hand in any government. He that controls the media controls the government
You are on the right track. What is happening in America is corporations have gained control over both media and government. One of the original 20th century fascists, Benito Mussolini, compared fascsim to corporatism, calling it the merger of state and corporate power.
: bottom line is Government and Corporations(who are the real super delegates)should be kept apart and none of the so called Liberals or Conservatives(Left and Right)follow this rule.Both political parties are the same they are all liberal progressives with the only difference being what they call themselves. If only Jonah Goldberg would say this instead of just being anther republican advocate pushing his side to win when both sides of the coin are the same.
Glen Beck was on the other day with a full hour of Jonah Goldberg writer of the book-Liberal Fascism.First time I saw Jonah Goldberg was on the Daily Show with John Stewart were John seemed to go berserk and cut his interview up into little segments something I had never seen before on the Daily Show that is when I knew Jonah Goldberg was on to something Big.Well as it turns out Jonah Goldberg,John Stewart and Glen Beck are all Fascists(Big Surprise)and here's how I got there:
Fascism is government control of the private sector with the allowance of private profit, which makes it just as dangerous as direct socialism because of the potential for corruption. Fannie and Freddie started off as socialist programs but became fascist after a while which is why we need to let freedom remain our platform and get back to the constitution.
clintcastle 1 month ago
the ease with which obama was able to take over banks, GM, the entire healthcare sector and suspend deep water drilling is plentiful proof that governments have supreme authority over the private sector. the US has been most fascistic under the democrat regimes of wilson, fdr and now obama. mussolini and hitler, like all socialists, had an iron grip on the entire society. they were not from industry, they controlled it like they controlled everything else.
ellwyn 1 year ago
Fascism was defined by Mussolini. Perhaps we should look at what Mussolini and Hitler actually did.
How about "They thought they were free " Milton Mayer (1955)
Or how about former Nazi Martin Niemoller's poem
First they came for . . .
MrXfromPlanetX 1 year ago
You can call the liberals many things but not fascists. Noone hates corporate control of the government more than liberals.
badmuffy 2 years ago
You have the relationship back-ass-wards. The ones controlling all the machine guns and all the police powers are the ones in control.
From Fannie Mae to Medicare, and all of the other happy sounding fascist structures Democrats adore, the politicians call the shots.
Fascism is just one of the many manifestations of socialism, which is the core of Democrat politics.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Who else would be in control of the police (if not the government). The police department is a government program.
Also those programs you cited aren't fascist. Look up the definition of fascism and you will see that it is when private business controls the state. It was fascist when Hillary Clinton gave in to the demands of health insurance companies and stopped pushing for health care reform. THAT was fascist. But those things you said aren't.
badmuffy 2 years ago
"Who else would be in control of the police"
You're missing the point. Protecting innocent life and private property is THE legitimate function of government.
However, when government then "partners" with business, it is THEY -- not business -- who are in control. It is always thus.
In other words, your notion of fascism is necessarily back-ass-wards. Worse yet, the teachers labor unions who run the schools and proselytize otherwise are keenly aware of their purposeful deception.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Your definition of fascism is a quote of Mussolini taken out of context. In Italy in the 20s and 30s, there was no such thing as an American style "corporation". He was using the word "corporate" to mean the same thing as the word "collective".
When interpreting historical comments, it is important to consider that the meaning of words changes over time, and mean different things in different societies.
dragknuckle 2 years ago
Also, the Nazi Party Platform called for the government to take over responsibility for the health of German citizens. So national health care is consistant with fascism.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad, but it does mean that the conservative position on health care (that your health is your responsibility) is the OPPOSITE of fascist.
dragknuckle 2 years ago
Using that logic kindergarten is also fascist.
badmuffy 2 years ago
Your analogy indicates that you misinterpreted my logic.
You said that opposing socialized medicine was fascist. I argued that socialized medicine was a goal that liberals have in common with fascists, and therefore opposing it could not be consistent with fascism.
I did not say that if you support socialized medicine you are a Nazi. But I am saying that if you oppose socialized medicine you are taking the OPPOSITE view of the Nazi Party, and hence should not be accused of being a fascist.
dragknuckle 2 years ago 3
so that means because for example bush is so unpopular and pushed through unpopular(unconstitutional)policies he must therefore b good?(biggest nonesense i've ever heared)its not about liberals or conservatives its about the fusion of government and corporations givin u the illusion of being free.They just missed carlins point completely..they must b braindead.
jonz23m 3 years ago
Funny part is: most of Bush's unconstitutional BS was actually popular at the time.
That's why the founders of our country did not believe in a pure democracy: The people are fascist at heart (though they didn't have the word "fascist" back then). People always lean towards a more powerful government.
latewire 3 years ago
we were actually founded as a constitutional republic. many things have been changed since the founding of this country, obama is doing the same crap bush did, but he has the media on his side so he gets away with it.
emekonen 2 years ago 2
gotta love the last ten seconds, so true.
caribooho 3 years ago
fascism exists when corporations take over government. period.
trycoun 3 years ago
The lessons of history show the exact opposite.
Whenever one of the many disparate sects of socialists gets control of all the machine guns, they first kill their competition, and then rule over all, e.g. Hitler & Mussolini
It's insightful that socialists attempt to deflect from that historical insight by inventing words like "corporatism", thereby shifting the mind's eye away from them and their horrific politics.
TylerNull 3 years ago
There is an element within the Left that is:
-intolerant of free speech (political correctness).
-utopian views of nature (radical environmentalists).
-willing to inflict violence to silence opponents (view vids of Horowitz hounded off the stage).
-view their position as so pure & holy that they are entitled to do ANYTHING to achieve power and rule by force.
I've seen some of them here on Youtube. Openly contemptuous of democracy. Some on the Left are in fact fascist.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
Liberal fascism DOES exist. Just look at the Duke lacrosse rape hoax.
StoogeWatcher 3 years ago
Mussolini had his brownshirts beat socialists in the streets. And the word facism defines a right-wing philosophy, but the word Totalitarian can apply to anywhere on the political spectrum.
crazytvfan815 3 years ago
Mussolini himself said that fascism is anti-liberal
toyracers 3 years ago
Mussolini himself praised FDR and his New (Fascist) Deal.
Under FDR's administration, "Liberal" was redefined to mean anyone favoring FDR's socialist/fascist policies (The New Deal), a massive expansion of government authority and claims over all aspects of human life, which is a rejection of classical Liberalism. Those opposed were labeled "Conservative".
TylerNull 3 years ago
if you look at the history of the word liberal, it used to mean what we would now call a libertarian or conservative. Now, to not be confused we call the old liberal a classical liberal. The wording changed around the 40s or so. The modern day liberal is NOT what he was referring to. Fascism IS Anti-classical liberal. You can read about this change of language if you look up classic versus modern liberal. Remember in his time liberal meant something different.
kgwickings 3 years ago 3
There are fascists on both sides-liberals and conservatives- if you see it like that.
Geez
idd405 3 years ago
I see it more as liberal socialists on both sides who want global government, total social control over everybody whether it's socialist or fascist or some combination of the two or whatever. Enlightened Nazism or Smiley-faced jack-booted 1984 CommUNism. Call it what you want but it's about TOTAL CONTROL and the freaks who want it are Satanists.
rosieisahippo 3 years ago
Hmm, if you knew anything about fascism, you would realize it's entirely a nationalistic ideology and "global government" is antithetical to it.
Also, it's funny to write something like "CommUNism" when the UN was essentially founded by the United States as an expression of liberal internationalism and the USSR and other socialist states were hostile or indifferent toward it initially.
BrezhnevIsMyCoPilot 3 years ago
Liberals are responsible for both is what you are failing to realise. You are stuck in the false spectrum and letting it give you false definitions instead of reading actual history and learning the truth. You are being dictated to and don't even know it.
rosieisahippo 3 years ago
Actually liberals are responsible for neither; there is no evidence to indicate that liberals are responsible for Marxism or fascism. Liberalism is responsible only as the basis for these ideologies to against which to react and contrast themselves. The differences are far more numerous than any similarities. Try and refute my previous statements--they still stand.
And please, read some books (other than Jonah Goldeberg's) and you will learn the "actual history"...
BrezhnevIsMyCoPilot 3 years ago
People should read "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek. If liberal policies came to fruition they would result in outcomes that most liberals would abhor. Many enemies of socialism were actually people who didn't benefit from their policies. By favoring unions for example.. the clerical people became the new underclass not favored by gov. policies. Also, many adherents to socialist movements were failed entrepenuers and such that were angry at the system.
kgwickings 3 years ago
unions suck. i have yet to work in a union that has actually done anything. the union that im reluctantly in im actually forced to pay and its called "fair share". and i have worked full time hours since i have started years ago, yet im still considered part time, so i have to pay out the ass for insurance, and i work in a hospital!!!! socialism sucks, unions suck all the politicians are working towards the same goal.
emekonen 2 years ago
I was a member of the American Federation of Musicians, because it was the only way I could cross the border to work in the US. All they did for me was take $200 a year.
dragknuckle 2 years ago
here is the new fascist leader:
During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.
Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.
obama another lying crook liberal
drvltore 4 years ago 4
Hey drvltore, if every crooked politician is now a "fascist" we would need to relabel at least half the Republican caucus in Congress as fascist...
BrezhnevIsMyCoPilot 3 years ago
Democrats publicly betrayed our most humane, effective and classified interrogation program as it was damaging the enemy. Democrats demanded video of it in the hope of maximizing the damage their treason inflicted on America. tylernull
how profound and to the point! agreed.
drvltore 4 years ago 3
"Otherwise moral people engage in "compromises" with this evil, officially sanctioning "lesser" moral evils in the expectation that they will appear "moderate" for not endorsing the greater evils. They certainly don't want to be branded as traitors for insisting that injustice and moral evil be rejected entirely. In has become a patriotic imperative to defend injustice and evil in the name of the Volk."
My God have mercy on your soul.
Adrasteia988 4 years ago
Use less melodrama, and do more thinking -- for the reasons I keep posting in reply to your numerous recitations and variations of your confusion between fascism and fighting fascism.
TylerNull 4 years ago
How can you get otherwise moral people to authorize morally evil acts? One effective method is to argue for committing much greater moral evils and then allow them to suggest a "compromise" whereby a somewhat lesser moral evil is permitted. You can even get people to think that a well-regulated and well-structured moral evil is a "victory" for the forces of law and good. (cont)
Adrasteia988 4 years ago
"In Hitler's Prisons: Legal Terror in Nazi Germany" The Führer, thought to embody the will of the German people, was given the authority to do whatever he thought was necessary in order to defend the German people and German nation. It was his responsibility to ensure that Germany not suffer as it had in the past.
Adrasteia988 4 years ago
This then inclined people to accept his claims that it was necessary to use torture on enemies of the state — if causing them to suffer might prevent the German nation from having to suffer, it was easy exchange to make.
Adrasteia988 4 years ago
Thus we shot, stabbed, mutilated, burned alive, eviscerated, eve gouged, and otherwise delivered torturously violent death and destruction, fire bombed civilian populations and otherwise brutalized the national socialists until the swine surrendered unconditionally. (It's called war.)
Fighting fascism isn't fascistic, and your inability to discriminate between the two evidences depravity.
TylerNull 4 years ago
Fascism is popular. Hmm. Maybe that's why conservatives dominate talk radio. Just a thought.
getplaning 4 years ago
Only in the Liberal Fascist mind is fascism defined as citizens holding not a shred of government authority whilst speaking their mind, and doing so to an audience entirely free to change the station.
Voicing dissent with Liberal Fascist ideology/theology/politics is not fascism. Think some more.
TylerNull 4 years ago
We just finished 2 long threads on two of my videos, including this one, wherein I painstakingly discussed one example; wherein you incessantly defended the treason. Your denials are now expanding from all of recorded history and current events to our own posts herein.
Democrats publicly betrayed our most humane, effective and classified interrogation program as it was damaging the enemy. Democrats demanded video of it in the hope of maximizing the damage their treason inflicted on America.
TylerNull 4 years ago
"a single shred of evidence of Democratic fascism"
In fact, after you posted an itemized list of 6 fascist traits -- Liberal Fascism (1) video -- I filled in each & every one with many examples of Democrat's Liberal Fascism, posting a host of replies.
I've had enough of your endless denials of reality as you tirelessly defend Democrat treason. Proselytize the glory of betraying America elsewhere.
TylerNull 4 years ago
No, fighting fascism is not fascist. Punishing Democrats for their treason against America is not fascist. Your record for getting everything perfectly backwards is unimpeachable.
TylerNull 4 years ago
You quote a fascist to suggest punishing Americans who openly aide and abet the muslim fascists as America fights them in war is fascistic.
You're a gem of a Liberal Fascist.
TylerNull 4 years ago
Your latest bout of sudden-ignorance syndrome is amusing.
Civil War -- USA vs. Democrats
Vietnam War -- USA & S.Vietnam vs Democrats & N.Vietnam
One-China Policy -- USA & Taiwan vs. Democrats & Maoist China
(coffee break)
Cold War -- USA vs. Democrats & USSR
Nicaragua -- USA & Contras vs. Democrats & Sandanistas
Khomeini -- USA & Shah vs. Democrats & Islamic Fascists
And I'll keep calling for the execution of treasonous Democrats thru your claims that I "wiggle out" of doing so.
TylerNull 4 years ago
The rich history of Democrat treasons, including the one to which we refer, have nothing to do with claims of torture, claims of war crimes, sanctions, support, speeches by Generals, the majority, the minority, Nazis, or any other of your growing list of lame defenses and complaints against observations of treason, except to the extent that Democrats and their friends (the enemy) often use such to defend their treasons.
Yes, my words regarding yours.
TylerNull 4 years ago
So, in essence, your interpretation of what is treacherous with democrats, has nothing at all to do with those claims?
If that is the case, as you have just stated, then what treachery do you refer to?
Adrasteia988 4 years ago
Read the thread, genius.
TylerNull 4 years ago
There is something deeply deranged about these comments.
It is troubling that such a small group of people in this country can have such deep-seeded hatred for their fellow man.
I would imagine that something went terribly wrong in the development of this TylerNull; terribly wrong. Your arrogance and steely slicing comments about killing others borders on the psychopathic, no remorse or empathy. Your rhetorical hatred for muslims is no different than those of the nazis to the jews.
Adrasteia988 4 years ago
You managed to get it perfectly backwards with your dense batch of execrations against me (and General Patton?). My observations of Democrat treason and Democrat(ic) Party support of treason aren't evidence of hate, arrogance, wrong, derangement, lack of empathy, lack of remorse, Nazism, or psychopathology on my part. Neither are General Patton's quotes or my points regarding war ("killing others"), nor my points regarding the filth that always sides with America's enemies. You judge poorly.
TylerNull 4 years ago
Tyler sits in his mom's basement with a radioo and listens to four hours of Rush Limbaugh followed by four hours of Sean Hannity followed by four hours of Mark Levin and Michael the Savage Weiner. It's no surprise he is full of hatred for America and the Constitution.
IDriveAc17 4 years ago
Debunking Liberal mythology is not "hatred for America and the Constitution".
TylerNull 4 years ago
If you liberals care so much about the Constitution, then stop trying to get rid of the Second Amendment!
StoogeWatcher 3 years ago
"We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts."
-- General George S. Patton, Speech to the Third Army, June 5th, 1944
TylerNull 4 years ago
TylerNull; "We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks."
"We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts."
(Continued)
skhan1943 4 years ago
-- General George S. Patton, Speech to the Third Army, June 5th, 1944
But we didn't wage war the way Patton obviously wanted to, did we? Fortunately, saner minds were in charge of WWII. In fact, Patton was officially censured for his over-the-top statements.
skhan1943 4 years ago
Not only did America fight in the manner Patton spoke, but he led the fight. We used flame thowers on the enemy & firebombed their civilian populations. Such was reasoned, justified & infinitely more humane than the depravity of attempting a delicate war wherein a merciless enemy hides behind civilians, when not targeting them, and goes unpunished but for individuals, and then typically by the judiciary. History shows the success of Patton's leadership, as well as the silliness of your claims.
TylerNull 4 years ago
TylerNull; "Not only did America fight in the manner Patton spoke, but he led the fight. We used flame thowers on the enemy"
Sources, please.
"& firebombed their civilian populations."
The AIR FORCE firebombed civilian populations. Patton was on the ground, and there was always, for the most part, an attitude of mutual respect between the American and German forces when they finally met face-to-face at the conclusion of a battle.
Otherwise, there never would have been any POWs.
skhan1943 4 years ago
My sources are generally referred to as the history of WWII.
And I simply refuse to accept you are stupid enough to grasp neither the topic of discussion nor the point of my posts in its regard, even as yours suggests you are. Democrat's betrayal of a war program -- the topic of this discussion and spawn of your friend's nonsense -- is treason. Nothing your ilk posts can change that fact. Now go commiserate with your friend Nin0000 to proffer another irrelevance.
TylerNull 4 years ago
TylerNull; "My sources are generally referred to as the history of WWII"
That's not the way it works, TylerNull. You made a statement, now defend it with hard facts.
skhan1943 4 years ago
TylerNull; "And I simply refuse to accept you are stupid enough to grasp neither the topic of discussion nor the point of my posts in its regard, even as yours suggests you are."
Uh huh. I'm still waiting for you to refute the content of my post.
Glossing over the subject with stilted language to prove how "intellectual" you are just shows me that you are avoiding answering me.
BTW: Using stilted language the way you do just makes you look silly and awkward.
skhan1943 4 years ago
WWII is not something I need to "defend with hard facts".
Neither is that war involves all of what Patton stated.
Neither is that we fire bombed civilian populations.
Neither is that we used flame throwers.
Neither is Patton's record.
What of your fantasies to the contrary do you now fantasize requires rebuttal?
BTW: Exposing the verbose depravities of Liberal Fascists as they defend their treasons involves nothing more than observing reality, dunce. That's "the way it works".
TylerNull 4 years ago
(Applause)
EXCELLENT dodge and divert, TylerNull.
You managed to use up almost 500 characters to say absolutely nothing.
skhan1943 4 years ago
First you pretend that you don't know war is the torturously violent death of lots of people. Now you regress to gesticulating a pretense of not understanding that your feigned stupidity was noticed. Again, I reject its sincerity.
All you have done here is publicly debase yourself in defense of Democrat treason, aside from offering the brilliant, irrefutable irrelevancy that fire bombs are dropped by airplanes. With and without "sources", Patton was right and your treasonous ilk are wrong.
TylerNull 4 years ago
TylerNull; "....Now you regress to gesticulating a pretense of not understanding that your feigned stupidity was noticed. Again, I reject its sincerity."
TylerNull, your attempts to present yourself as intellectual by inappropriately using "big words" is making you look ridiculous.
If you're not sure about the meaning of a word, and don't know the proper context for its usage, please refrain from using it.
skhan1943 4 years ago
That's the second time you suggest there's something "intellectual" required to chronicle the various topic-avoidance techniques you Liberals go through as you try to defend Democrat treason.
Again, there's not.
Your safest move is to avoid discussing your politics by complaining about the manner in which I notice that you do so, as you just did, for the second time.
TylerNull 4 years ago
Hey tyler I will debate you. You can use big words I understand them even if i cant spell them. I and labeled a liberal so I wouldnt mind a intllectual debate with some one I would probobly label a neocon.
ZeroCoolCirca1982 4 years ago
"We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time."
-- General George S. Patton, Speech to the Third Army, June 5th, 1944
TylerNull 4 years ago
"We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks."
-- General George S. Patton, Speech to the Third Army, June 5th, 1944
TylerNull 4 years ago
In everything we do, we must punish those who commit treason, otherwise they will continue to betray America at each and every opportunity. Democrats sided with the communist North Vietnamese to defeat America, and they hid behind military figures as they did so. Don't let them get away with it again.
Citizen TylerNull
TylerNull 4 years ago
"If we neutered treasonous Democrats and sold them to murderous Muslims at below market prices in exchange for peace, how would that not satisfy the federally-enforced, Liberal Fascist mandate to Embrace Cultural Diversity?"
TylerNull March 3, 2008
You know nothing of my uniforms, and I am so relieved that your profile is a purposeful deception.
TylerNull 4 years ago
Refute what? You repost irrelevant statements already addressed, and add to them a few new that are equally irrelevant. None of them absolve Democrats of the treason of betraying a classified program.
Moreover, treasonous Democrats are using the EXACT SAME TACTICS they used during the Vietnam War, wherein they helped the communist N.Vietnamese defeat S.Vietnam and the USA.
Failure to execute treasonous Democrats then is why they so openly betray America now.
TylerNull 4 years ago
Democrats have a rich history of treason against America, however, "wholesale slaughter"? Just how many treasonous Democrats do you suggest there are?
Also, America has the most humane fighting forces in the history of mankind. That includes squirting water up the snout of Muslim savages. Endlessly chanting "torture", however, is an effective treachery. It also highlights that Democrat's always find a way to side with the enemy. Hiding behind the US military as they do so is nasty.
TylerNull 4 years ago
I observe US Democrat(ic) Party leaders on national television proudly betraying an effective interrogation program and demanding video of the interrogations to maximize the damage of their treason whilst US soldiers are at war with the child-torturing enemies of America.
That is treason.
TylerNull 4 years ago
Your argument that our interrogation program was "torture" is subjective, arguable, and irrelevant.
Your argument that it's illegal to torture child-torturing combatants is arguable, suspicious, and irrelevant.
Your argument that any discovery of an "illegality" validates treason is false.
Your suggestion that military generals give legal council is false.
TylerNull 4 years ago
We have no treaty with Islamic Fascists. (And your treasonous ilk knows as much.)
Your desperate attempts to defend those who aid and abet the enemy are getting stale.
TylerNull 4 years ago
War is not a Judicial Branch matter. Chanting "illegal" anytime the enemy is in jeopardy is treasonous.
We should torture, but we don't.
I'm calling for US Gov't officials to uphold the law. Failure to execute treasonous Democrats is felony racketeering.
Failure to torture Muslim savages who routinely violate the Geneva Convention and slaughter women and children is a crime against humanity.
You are an enemy to mankind.
TylerNull 4 years ago
No, General Patreaus did not betray the US Government's interrogation program. Nor did he accuse the US Gov't of a crime.
Stop putting words in other people's mouths. People who betray US war programs are treasonous, as are those who support them.
Stop pretending you are an imbecile to cover for your treasonous ilk.
TylerNull 4 years ago
Contrary to your Democrat/Islamist rhetoric, it is not fascist to fight fascism and uphold US law. Unless we start executing the treasonous swine, Democrats will keep helping the enemy.
It is racketeering for federal officials to NOT uphold law on this scale. The treasonous should be executed during war time. You suggest all Democrats are treasonous. I think it's a fraction thereof.
TylerNull 4 years ago
You now smear General Petraeus to cover Democrat Party treason.
The General did not betray the interrogation program.
Democrats are not absolved of their public treason regardless of how many Generals say they like or don't like such programs.
It is notable that Democrats first slandered the General as General "Betray Us", until they were able to use a blurb from his testimony to help the enemy.
TylerNull 4 years ago
Dem's public betrayal of the waterboarding program is treason.
That holds regardless of you or anyone else not liking it; regardless of how many times, or in how many ways, you ignore the point; regardless of how many times you abandon your own thread whenever your politics are refuted; regardless of how many new multi-post threads you try to start, as you ignoring your last failed attempt. Your only purpose here is to help me chronicle the vile politics of your ilk.
Say thank you.
TylerNull 4 years ago
There's nothing new about H.G.Wells. Liberal Fascism is his term. Like many American socialists infesting our nation, he liked the fascist brand of socialism.
FDR and his socialist, fascist, and communist buddies rejected classical Liberalism and redefined Liberalism as those who agree with his fascist "New Deal". There's the source of your "newspeak".
Sadly, there are still regressives clinging to socialist ideology.
Thank Goldberg for exposing the origins of modern Liberalism.
TylerNull 4 years ago
He's absolutely right on how the word fascism is thrown around by the liberals.I cant tell you how many times I have gotten into arguments with liberals about Bush, McCain and Iraq. The weak minded liberals throw the word fascist around like its going out of style.I personally take offense to that term and find it along the lines of a curse word.
ThunderAppeal 4 years ago
The people who call themselves Jewish and side with the liberal side are mostly descendents of American Jews who have no connection to the holocaust. People like John Stewart or Sarah Silverman or Adam Sandler use the word Jew or Jewish as a label or a slogan rather than a definition.
ThunderAppeal 4 years ago 2
This is something I've known for a while. Anyone can look at germany's history in the 30's and will see they were a bohemian nation.
ThunderAppeal 4 years ago 2
This is why I like Ron Paul and a few others like him on all sides of the political spectrum who don't get mentioned by the Corporate Media. The Corporations should not become or have a hand in any government. He that controls the media controls the government
Balok66 4 years ago
You are on the right track. What is happening in America is corporations have gained control over both media and government. One of the original 20th century fascists, Benito Mussolini, compared fascsim to corporatism, calling it the merger of state and corporate power.
getplaning 4 years ago
Your right. Please stay involved in our business so that ignorant Americans like ThunderAppeal might have a chance at waking up!
I think the literal definition of fascism is Governmental controll by corporations.
HEYBUDD 4 years ago
Youre pretty arrogant to think that any American would care what you think. You cant vote in our elections so no one cares about you.
ThunderAppeal 4 years ago
: bottom line is Government and Corporations(who are the real super delegates)should be kept apart and none of the so called Liberals or Conservatives(Left and Right)follow this rule.Both political parties are the same they are all liberal progressives with the only difference being what they call themselves. If only Jonah Goldberg would say this instead of just being anther republican advocate pushing his side to win when both sides of the coin are the same.
Balok66 4 years ago
Balok,
You claim the author of "Liberal Fascism" is a fascist because he's Conservative.
You claim that Conservatives are fascists as a lead in to claim guru Ron Paul -- a Conservative -- is the answer.
Your aggressively anti-logical posts are why I conclude that most Ron Paul supporters are just nascent Leftists.
TylerNull 4 years ago
Glen Beck was on the other day with a full hour of Jonah Goldberg writer of the book-Liberal Fascism.First time I saw Jonah Goldberg was on the Daily Show with John Stewart were John seemed to go berserk and cut his interview up into little segments something I had never seen before on the Daily Show that is when I knew Jonah Goldberg was on to something Big.Well as it turns out Jonah Goldberg,John Stewart and Glen Beck are all Fascists(Big Surprise)and here's how I got there:
Balok66 4 years ago
Oh yeaaaaa.....now tell us "what we need to know".
Ha Ha.
HEYBUDD 4 years ago
Are you going to have the whole interview up?
sluhser 4 years ago
Most of it. I broke the hour into bits and I'm editing out the redundant intro's and such.
TylerNull 4 years ago