NationStates Jolt Archive

In this day and age there are many people out there that feel they have certain rights and such what. These people are the Liberals.

The Liberals are just a big fat bunch of Fascist twits.


Dicuss.

Are we acting like the people who get called "Liberals" or the real Liberals?

In this day and age there are many people out there that feel they have certain rights and such what. These people are the Liberals.

The Liberals are just a big fat bunch of Fascist twits.


Dicuss.

You're pointing out, in an interesting way, something I've believed for a long time. "Liberal" and "conservative" currently have no meaning, in terms of a political stance. They are now used as pejoratives.

*Adds a liberal dose of rhetoric*

Perhaps I am. Or maybe I just like saying MUSSOLINI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

In this day and age there are many people out there that feel they have certain rights and such what. These people are the Liberals.

The Liberals are just a big fat bunch of Fascist twits.


Dicuss.

This makes no sense. Are you saying that conservatives don't believe they have rights?

In this day and age there are many people out there that feel they have certain rights and such what. These people are the Conservatives.

The Conservatives are just a big fat bunch of Fascist twits.


Dicuss.

Fixed/

I can't think of anyone who doesn't believe that we all have some sort of rights, whether it be the right to freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms. So it would follow (by your description) that all people are Liberals. It would also follow, that all people are a bunch of Fascist twits.

I generally agree.

"Liberal" Response:

I'm disappointed that my opponent would say that.

Liberal Response:

Wow, what a jackass.

This is why I could never run for political office. I'd probably insult my opponent. And not like calling him "soft on crime". More along the lines of "You ignorant waste of skin."

Are we acting like the people who get called "Liberals" or the real Liberals?
Yes.
You're pointing out, in an interesting way, something I've believed for a long time. "Liberal" and "conservative" currently have no meaning, in terms of a political stance. They are now used as pejoratives.
Ah yes, but you seem to think that in todays cultrue people really are just throwing pejoratives around and pejoraticating people left and right, but the left is wrong. And thus forth, are Fascists.
*Adds a liberal dose of rhetoric*
Source, please.
Perhaps I am. Or maybe I just like saying MUSSOLINI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

:(

Well they both wear black and whine about everything…

Bah who am I kidding *shaves head and buys ford escort*

Erm... whut?

out of context kinda : i've noticed you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 20 years without changing a single one of your beliefs.

What will the Liberals complain about next? Vision and Hearing Tests in schools? "NO they're taking away my right to be deaf and blind!"

^kinda seems like this nowadays...

This makes no sense. Are you saying that conservatives don't believe they have rights?

The Conservatives know what is right and wrong. They follow the correct, moral stance. They are not saying they don't have rights, they are saying there needs to be a limit on what rights a person should have.

:(

Really, I think that Benito Mussolini had a very humorous name, even if I'm the only one that thinks that. Italy wasn't too fun of a place under him though.

out of context kinda : i've noticed you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 20 years without changing a single one of your beliefs.

Or vice-versa. Although it takes longer, Abe Lincoln would be a liberal nowadays.

Or vice-versa. Although it takes longer, Abe Lincoln would be a liberal nowadays.

hmmm confusing a little but, i see what you mean :)

The Conservatives know what is right and wrong. They follow the correct, moral stance. They are not saying they don't have rights, they are saying there needs to be a limit on what rights a person should have.

Rather, I think the conservatives have a more state-driven method of interpreting where the boundaries are in respecting individual rights, whereas the liberals have a more individualistic method of interpereting where those boundaries lie. Conservative = rights of society trumps rights of individual, Liberal = rights of individual is better for society.

State, or collective-driven determination of how rights should be applied or upheld are really more of a fascist thing, than a liberal one.

Liberals and Conservatives are funny. Conservatives believe people shouldn't be allowed to be themselves, and Liberals believe people shouldn't be allowed to be themselves, unless you'll pay them for it.

Neither's fascist, but both are idiotic.

Rather, I think the conservatives have a more state-driven method of interpreting where the boundaries are in respecting individual rights, whereas the liberals have a more individualistic method of interpereting where those boundaries lie. Conservative = rights of society trumps rights of individual, Liberal = rights of individual is better for society.

State, or collective-driven determination of how rights should be applied or upheld are really more of a fascist thing, than a liberal one.
Technically they are both state-driven interpretations and therefore both fascist on some level. To claim that liberals use an individualistic method is bologna, only classical liberals truly take the individualistic approach. Most liberal rights demand the apparatus of the state.

Technically they are both state-driven interpretations and therefore both fascist. To claim that liberals use an individualistic method is bologna, only classical liberals truly take the individualistic approach. Most liberal rights demand the apparatus of the state.

State doesn't equal fascist. It's just that fascism leads more heavily towards the importance of the state than liberalism.

State doesn't equal fascist. It's just that fascism leads more heavily towards the importance of the state than liberalism.
Except that in both systems we have a tendency to want the importance of the state for their own purposes. American liberalism is very statist thought so to claim that it is an individualistic philosophy must be seen as false if we consider the view of society that most left-wing populists push for.

Except that in both systems we have a tendency to want the importance of the state for their own purposes. American liberalism is very statist thought so to claim that it is an individualistic philosophy must be seen as false if we consider the view of society that most left-wing populists push for.

Naturally modern liberals use the apparatus of the state to pursue their goals. I'm not arguing that they don't. I'm arguing that liberals argue that the right of individuals takes precedence over the needs of the state. Conservatives tend to stress the needs of the state over the rights of the individual. (broad generalizations here.)

Stressing the needs of the state, and the importance of the state over the individual, is a fascist trait. I'm not saying that conservatives are fascist, I'm saying it lends itself to fascism more than liberalism does.

Naturally modern liberals use the apparatus of the state to pursue their goals. I'm not arguing that they don't. I'm arguing that liberals argue that the right of individuals takes precedence over the needs of the state. Conservatives tend to stress the needs of the state over the rights of the individual. (broad generalizations here.)

Stressing the needs of the state, and the importance of the state over the individual, is a fascist trait. I'm not saying that conservatives are fascist, I'm saying it lends itself to fascism more than liberalism does.
Those are very broad generalizations there. You really mean the nation though and not the state given the "starve the beast" mentality taken by many conservatives. Conservatives tend to stress nationalism more than liberals, however, liberals tend to stress interventionism more than conservatives. Fascism is both traits, it is nationalistic economic progressivism.

Frankly, given the populism on both sides I see a very scary trend in both for anyone who cares about individual freedom.

Those are very broad generalizations there. You really mean the nation though and not the state given the "starve the beast" mentality taken by many conservatives. Conservatives tend to stress nationalism more than liberals, however, liberals tend to stress interventionism more than conservatives. Fascism is both traits, it is nationalistic economic progressivism.

Frankly, given the populism on both sides I see a very scary trend in both for anyone who cares about individual freedom.

Well, I mean nationstate. And I would define fascism as nationalistic state-controlled corporate militarism (stressing the idea that the state matters more than the individual.) I don't think I would put fascism and progressivism in the same sentence. Fascism is radical reactionism. (Crap, you got me using socialist terminology... :( )

Well, I mean nationstate. And I would define fascism as nationalistic state-controlled corporate militarism (stressing the idea that the state matters more than the individual.) I don't think I would put fascism and progressivism in the same sentence. Fascism is radical reactionism. (Crap, you got me using socialist terminology... :( )
Except that many economic strategies used by the fascists are somewhat Keynesian and reject conservative economic ideas. Fascists use price controls and other measures for their controlled economy. I would put fascism and progressivism in the same sentence though, fascism is not a philosophy built entirely on past measures, what past society tried to fully integrate the state and the economic structures so fully? I would put it with progressivism because of the economic structures put in place to deal with the problems, and create the wanted efficiency. Nazis stands for national socialism(and other crap too).

The Conservatives know what is right and wrong. They follow the correct, moral stance. They are not saying they don't have rights, they are saying there needs to be a limit on what rights a person should have.

Yes, like the Conservative moral compasses former Congressman Mark "I Was Just Having Innocent Conversation With The Pages- Oh and I'm an Alcoholic" Foley and Pastor Ted "I Only Got Massage and Crystal Meth from the Male Escort- Oh and I've Been Certified Not Gay" Haggard.

they are saying there needs to be a limit on what rights a person should have.

does anyone argue otherwise? i don't see many people pimping the benefits of hobbes' state of nature

Ruffy is spelled incorrectly, and should be spelled "Ruffi".

In this day and age there are many people out there that feel they have certain rights and such what. These people are the Liberals.

The Liberals are just a big fat bunch of Fascist twits.


Dicuss.

Agreed.