Liberals More Inclined Toward Fascism?
Found the above link at Trucker Philosophy-- You'll find his link in the sidebar. It's well worth the time it'll take you to read.
I like this guys blog so much I'm considering an addition to my Family of Links.
I like this guys blog so much I'm considering an addition to my Family of Links.
from the mind of... Eric | 11:09 PM
12 Comments:
Up is down. Black is white. blah, blah, blah...
Paris Hilton is famous, Howard Stern is rich, America cannot win wars, and the President is a War Criminal.
At last, Dan said something that I agree with.
As to the point of your post, Lash...
Fascism, Communism, Socialism... The Libs have never met an "ism" that they didn't like, except for Capitalism, Americanism, or Patriotism.
They undermine Freedom in the name of Liberty, and Christianity in the name of Jesus, and call US fools for disagreeing with them.
They are a joke that is no longer funny.
Tug, you are free to say whatever comes in your head, but realistically speaking, if one looks at the description or definition of Fascism, what passes for "conservatism" today springs into mind.
The list on the link in this post vividly sounds like modern Bush-type "conservatism." You have to turn definitions of words on their heads to get liberalism out of that.
I AM a patriot, and I love my country and I will oppose those like Bush who seek to undermine her ideals as well as criminal terrorists who'd seek to attack us.
And to suggest that we'd (since I'm sure you lump me in as a liberal even though I'm probably more conservative than you) undermine Christianity when we're calling for following Jesus' teachings is a bit more of that upside down, Bizarro-world talk that was found on that link.
No one questioned your patriotism or your love for country.
I however often question your ability for rational thought. That's not a slam. Just being honest about my own thought process-- I find it difficult to understand how "Bush-type" conservatism could in any way be construed as fascistic. But then, I do realize that every man looks at such words through the prism of their own ideology. Just like 'Love,' 'Peace,' 'Evil,' 'Innocence,' 'Baby.' Despite the fact that these words all have specific definitions it is Man who tries to ascribe qualifying 'extras' based on the dictates of his/her own ideology.
To some 'Love' means taking money from others to give to certain few who aren't responsible enough to use the money wisely and in a manner consistent with the reason for its gifting... as in Katrina
To some 'Peace' means accepting the oppressive rule of a dictator or relgious leader provided the bloodshed stops (though it never does)... as in Islam and this current War on Islamic Fascists.
For some 'Evil' means someone who wants to crush Islamo-fascism, rather than those who have already killed indiscrimately, men, women, children, and continue to desire to bathe themselves and their immortal souls in the blood of 'infidels.'... as in the terrorists.
For some 'Innocence' has nothing to do with the unstained nature of perfection, as in a newborn child, and certainly not the potential of the unborn.
Indeed, for some 'Baby' has nothing to do with the fetus at all! The unborn are not even human! 'Human-ness' is not conferred upon children until after they pass beyond the threshold of human life-- a mothers womb. This, after all, is how they justify partial-birth abortion.
I don't question your patriotism or your love of country, only the prism through which you make such wild and incredible determinations.
Did you read the Signs of Fascism?
"Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Supremacy of the Military
Obsession with National Security; fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses."
This doesn't sound like those currently in power to you? It's certainly not a description of what you term "liberals."
El, your reference to "rational thought" applies to his last post, as well.
"Up is down. Black is white. blah, blah, blah..."
You've never said ANYTHING as blatamtly hypocritical than this, Dan.
Rationalize it all you wish, Dan. The 'List' describes Liberals/Democrats more than they do Bush. "Up is down"? Only in the sphere of Democratic rhetoric. "Black is white"? Only is the morally depraved mind of Liberal baby killers. "Blah, blah, blah..."? That's all I'm hearing from you right now.
You're a very bright man, Dan. No one can honestly deny that. So believe me when I say, "You can do better."
"Powerful and Continuing Nationalism, Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights, Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause, Supremacy of the Military, Obsession with National Security; fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses."
You've just described the United States of America under the leadership of a Democratic President...
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
The difference between us, though, is that I don't blame President Roosevelt for fire-bombing Germany... Dresden... and the countless innocent women and children who died.
In opposition: You have little more than disdain for the war-criminal more affectionately known as PRESIDENT George W. Bush?
We obviously disagree. Big Surprise. Why do you defend the morally bankrupt policies of the Left, choosing instead to shoot this country in the foot at every turn.
It is not shooting in the foot to speak truth to power. To try to stop what I think the evidence shows is clearly a rogue gov't.
As I've often pointed out, surely you'd agree that if that is what I think the evidence says, then I must try to stop it.
I only have disdain for Bush because of his actions. Before he started being a dangerous president, I merely was cautious towards him. Especially with the questionable election to begin with and then he begins by stonewalling the GAO and hiring two ex-cons!?
You don't think that's a bad beginning, one that would tend to make people wary?
And I must try to stop you from doing damage to this nation.
Yes! That's what I'm saying. IF we believe certain actions or policies are wrong, we must act on that.
But there are at least two other things we must consider.
1. Does the evidence support our position (and I know we've gone over evidence before) and
2. Will our actions to try to stop the "Wrong" be moral, ethical, legal and just or will they violate our own rules, moral traditions or laws?
If we're relatively certain that "The Other" is deadly wrong, then we must certainly stand in opposition. BUT, if we are endorsing breaking our own laws and moral traditions, that should send red flags a-flying, saying that it is time that we seriously re-evaluate our position - that we be conserative - or prudent - in what we advocate.
And I'm relatively certain, E, that I've seen you advocating us breaking our own laws here in this space. That should at the least give you pause.
Post a Comment
<< Home