Liberal fascist.

Liberal fascist?

Liberal fascist?

Over the past couple of weeks I've been hearing this two words together a great deal from such "commentators" as Limbaugh, Beck, Levin, Hannity and other - ad nauseum...

Let's look at these two words - "liberal" first. As an adjective or descriptive word it means - favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. So a progressive thinker?

Now at fascist - as a noun it means - a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

So a progressive dictator? Is that like jumbo shrimp?

Wait - heres another word I've heard even more: tyranny.

Tyranny: oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler. The government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.

Hmmm... If I recall we, the People of the United States, voted and the majority voted for our current President.

When did I vote for an "absolute ruler"? or even a progressive dictator?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!?!?!?

Why is it that since the right-wing has lost - all these conservative leaning "commentators" (and MAN, do I use that term loosely) parade this sort of asinine rhetoric so easily on television.

They can't even put two fu<king words together logically in their zeal to drum up images from the recesses of peoples minds to paint their current idealogical situation.

You've got this ***** (and MAN does that word fit!), Glen Beck, crying on television about how tyranny is out to get us!

You got the ever present punk, Sean Hannity, spouting off about the complete and utter dissolving of our rights.

Then you have the best hypocritical blowhard to get airtime - Rush Limbaugh - so caught up in his own ravings that he now has registered Republican's calling his show and calling him a "brain-washed ****".

Now you have the next Joseph Goebbels wannabe, Mark Levin, frothing at the mouth about these so-called liberal fascists and the tyranny they aspire to...

Funny, this morning I got up and went to work, put in my 8+ hrs, then came home, drank beer and decided to write this. No one sensored me - so my 1st amendment right is still intact... my guns are still here - 2nd amendment, check! What rights have I lost in the here and now that has this quartet of blibbering nincompoops frothing at the mouth about.

They still get their air time - so their freedom of the press right is still valid.

Shame is I use to listen to three of these four and thought they had legitimate points - not so much now...

Learning from these morons is like ******* for your virginity - it ain't gonna happen unless you're like me and watch the other side's "commentators" cuz they're funnier and a shitload less scarry to look at too

 

Faux news and the rest of the wingnuts just continue to spew this propoganda bullshit. The sad part is morons eat this up. They're far more dangerous to America. I actually use to listen to Hannity, briefly. But I got tired of sifting through the endless garbage that came out of his mouth to find the little unbiased truth.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...ophobia---Obey

 

Here's another part of all this that troubles me a great deal... is that all this talk of tyranny and fascism does two things for sure - it scares and angers people to the point of making stupid, impulsive and sometimes deadly decisions.

Orson Wells learned this all too well in October of '38.

As I'm sure you know what happened I'll just be brief to make my point.

Europe was in the grip of fear with a possible war with Hitler. Tensions, though subdued in America, were still dicey. But not taking that into consideration, Wells and his radio show (their only media outlet at the time) put on a play of HG Wells' War of the Worlds as a Halloween treat - but with a twist. They made it sound like it was happening that night, at that very moment America was being invaded by Martians.

The show lasted less than an hour. But it caused such a panic that people fled and some even contemplated suicide - others even thought it was the Germans, and not Martian,s that were invading...

Now flash forward 70 yrs to now. You have all these conservative "commentators" ranting, postulating and in Beck's case - crying on both radio and national television about tyranny and fascism invading our country???

And you think this doesn't have an effect on people?

The guy who shot three cops in Pittsburgh was in fear that they were carrying out the actions that nitwits like Glen Beck and Sean Hannity describes nearly every night on his show.

Unfortunately, this isn't just an hour long play. This has been a 6 month bombardment since before the election. People are really dying and they still spout off inciting panic on those that easily fear such things...

And that's uncalled for.

 

Beck himself said hes a rodeo clown and people shouldn't take what he says as gospel (his words). I call BS on that one. He damn well knows the "apocalyptic" garbage he spews will incite people. Every "journalist" over at faux news and on the wingnut blogs know alot of people are still raw about the election and don't like the government's new direction. All they're doing is adding fuel to the fire for the sake of ratings. Fair and balanced my ***. Wheres the moral responsibility to broadcast the news without bias? They claim to be protecting our freedom but in actually they're just fearmongering to win votes. And the propaganda machine roles on.

 

Well there is a difference...

People like Beck, O'Reilly, Olbermann, Maddow, Limbaugh, levin, Hannity, Matthews and others are "commentators" not reporters.

They will skew their stories to hit their agendas - though I think Maddow saves face a great deal more in admitting when she's wrong than the rest - and some like Limbaugh and Beck will never admit they were wrong, but the people they got their info was wrong... so they are not accountable for misinformation.

Have to give credit to O'Reilly and Olbermann they will dish it out to each other but they're good enough to take hits as well. LOL... I though Billo was going to blow up when Letterman called him a goon on his show - but he smiled and took it.

But I have severe trouble with Beck - his emotional pleas to "save" the country is so over the top he's like a televangelist begging the elderly for cash. They believe the crocodile tears.

They are strirring up the lunatic fringe to point now where they are shooting cops... that's wrong.

 

A conservatives response:

The defintion of liberal that is provided here is general and ignores the political context that the political commentators are aprart of. But I can work with the it since it contains its own inconsistincies. Lets say that a liberal is someone who favors progress and reform. I assume that it is the liberal who will define what progress means. Then by defintion, a liberal must attack established traditions. You cannot be in favour of "progrees" and reform without undermining established tradition and values. A liberal is also someone who is broad minded. You can be open minded without being liberal, but a liberal must be excessively open minded in the sense that all ideas become equal through liberal tolerance and open mindedness. A liberal sees values as defined by the individual and apart from a collective consensus. It is agreeemnt and consensus that establishes tradition and denies the need for reform. Unfortunately, liberalism is consensus in itself. It declares liberal principles to be the tradition that is upheld. A liberal must appear to be extremely tolerant of all ideas, and at the same time favour the ideas of liberalism. They must also tolerate intolerance. If an individual values intolerance than it is the duty of a liberal to accept that view as equal to their own. On the other hand, a conservative seeks to establish a consensus of values that support a productive society. It is through scrutiny that the best values are discovered and others are discarded. This is why conservatives are often called close minded. They seek to provide a framework of values that society can use to determine right and wrong. Right and wrong are obvious restrictions on open mindedness and the liberal philosophy.

In a political context, a liberal must utilize government influence to balance liberal philosophy with reality. The acquisition of wealth creates more oppurtunity for those who are welathy. In some ways it increases their freedom over others. It also provides evidence that the values of individual responsibilty and self-reliance are more productive than other values such as sloth and dependence on others. Therefore, the liberal fears the accumulation of wealth by individuals or small groups. At the same time, they envy the freedom that wealth affords.

The main political difference concerns the size and role of government. A liberal tends to be very open minded about the role of government. A governemnt with clearly defined limits will result in traditions and prevent liberal progress. Liberals cannot effectively change the traditions of society without laws from government that force individuals to equate others values to their own. Liberals tend to prefer to place the burden of ineffective values on society. Then they determine that it is the governments role to accept the burden from society. They increase governments power and limit the freedom that they hoped to establish. This is why extreme liberalism is often called socialism. The government is used to releive the burden of individual responsibilty. Everyones values are considered equally effective because the success of the individual does not depend on their values. Hard work does not need to be valued because the reward is independent of the effectiveness of the effort.

 

Okay - I'll buy your explaination of liberal... so now tackle liberal fascist...

Where's my popcorn?

 

Like, c'mon!

Liberal socialist I can understand - almost a redundant statement in AutoU's extreme definition of the word.

Liberal -democrat, even heard it used against Republicans - though they prefer to be called "moderate".

But still liberal fascist??

 

The label likely intends to use fascist in the context of authoritarian, tyrannical, and anti-opposition. A liberal fascist would want complete power to enact the liberal agenda without debate or discussion.

 

Really... nah, don't buy it...

A "fascist" government is a one man or party rule. Which you may claim we have now - but unless they somehow repeal the democratic voting process - or better if the GOP finally connects with a greater base than the religious right - the Dems will lose their current majority in either side of Congress in just 20 months...

Then this "fascist" government will cease to be...

This is all just scare tactics that is drumming up the heartbeat of the fanaticals that unfortunately own guns and are too simple minded to see the truth or seek help. Just like all those devoted to televangelists giving their last penny... these twits are feeding off their fears to garner rates and advertising revenue and in turn instilling panic.

I can't tell you how many people I know that are scared from watching and listening to these yahoos.