8 21

Leftwingers on this site take note. When you throw certain words around in an attempt to debase someone who you may disagree with especially in regards to political views, in the end you will only make yourself look like the jackass that you probably are. Libertarian (which is what I identify as) is far removed from being fascist, and frankly most progressive leftwingers these days are much closer to a fascist mentality than I could ever hope to.

When Keith Olbermann throws the word "fascist" around and hits a noted Libertarian, the word becomes meaningless-

SpikeTalon 10 Apr 19

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


This is just two guys sniping at each other. I doubt Olbermann even knew the guy was a Libertarian. But Olbermann is essentially correct in saying "mask wearing" should be a medical issue not a political one. Governments have a tendency to overreact in these kinds of situations, but that seems just human nature. This is the same thing as a Libertarian objecting to the government rationing food and fuel during wartime, trying to make a safety issue into a political one. It's not only unnecessary, but stupid.

I care not if they were just sniping at each other, or if Olbermann wasn't aware that guy was a Libertarian, the point was to show that alot of those on the political left appear to have a problem with throwing the word fascist around, everyone who doesn't identify as a progressive gets labeled a fascist right away these days. I've personally dealt with such already on this site. While there are certain topics that shouldn't become political, they have a way of becoming so regardless, that's life and politics are a big deal in the US.

Regarding the last part of your comment, that's strictly your opinion and not everyone would agree. Talking about human nature... during some sort of an emergency it generally is human nature to panic and in return think about stocking up on necessary supplies. Rationing of that kind involving the Government almost always leads to some sort of civil unrest. Vain and petty human beings try to overcome what nature designed, natural instinct to survive during a disaster, often with negative results. You can't truly ration the will to survive, but some people attempt to anyway.

@SpikeTalon I seriously doubt that all progressives think that someone who disagrees with them is a fascist. Olbermann was clearly wrong in labeling the guy a fascist. I wasn't talking about the will to survive. I was talking about how effectively a government manages an emergency or uncommon situation. Expecting the government to handle any situation perfectly is, of course, nonsense. The fact that governments overreact, error on the side of caution, is to be expected. What infuriates me is the constant drumbeat from the right that says the real motivation for the restriction is some sort of dictatorial control rather than doing what's in the best interest of the public good. There is no rational reason to believe that.

@TyKC On the last part of your comment there, the question is who exactly gets to decide for the rest of us what is in the best interest of the public good? Some of these guidelines and restrictions do seem to be rather authoritarian in nature, and I can understand why some think that way.

@SpikeTalon Oh, for God's sake. The our forefathers created a Constitution with three branches of government. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch carries them out and the judiciary puts limits on the other two branches. Those are the people who decide on what's in the public good. We elect most of those people and if they don't do what's in our best interest, we vote them out. If we choose not to participate in that process, which most of us don't, then we've made the bed we sleep in. The only other alternative is a violent overthrow of the government. That's probably next. Is it justified? Probably not.

@TyKC Such politicians who don't do their job don't always get voted out of office like they should. I strongly disagree on you stating most of us don't participate in that process, 2016 and 2020 saw record turnout and many new young voters.

At this point, don't know if a violent overthrow of Government is warranted yet, but alot of folks are sure losing their patience though. I didn't ask that last question in the literal sense by the way, as I already know who is running things, and it's not always the politicians. The Founders also warned about corruption in politics, and I contend both major political parties have long become corrupt.

@SpikeTalon The research below doesn't agree with your assessment. The US ranks 30 out of 35 democratic nations for voter turnout. The most voter turnout was in 2008: 58%, not last year as you claim. And this turnout is when a president is running. In off years, it is far less than that. And in primaries it's barely 15%. For some reason our country has failed to instill a sense of civic duty in our citizens. There was once a draft, but even that is gone now.


@TyKC Think I may have been wrong about 2016, but not for 2020. A record number of newly registered (mostly younger) voters was recorded last year. As for the civic duty part, some have long ago concluded Government has become too powerful for its own good and in turn want nothing to do with a broken system. The Draft was done away with for good reason, a country cannot compel its citizens into Military service, too authoritarian a move in nature for what is supposed to be a free country. I generally don't trust polls either, the margin of error at times can be too much, and human beings are known to lie if any sort of agenda needs to be advanced.

@SpikeTalon In 1985 The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the draft act in the Selective Draft Law Cases on January 7, 1918. The decision said the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war and to raise and support armies. The number of eligible voters has nothing to do with the number of registered voters. Whether or not people think the government is too powerful should not interfere with people's sense of civic duty. It should be obvious to all that lack of participation in a democratic style government brings ruin to that state. Part of the reason the government has become too powerful is because of the apathy on the part of our citizens.

@TyKC Corruption also brings ruin to democratic-style Government, and for some folks they cannot violate their conscience by partaking in such a system, and regardless if I may or may not agree with them on that I'd still understand and respect their decision. I can partly agree on the last sentence there, apathy towards such has indeed resulted in such corruption, but so have individuals with clout and in positions of authority who have all the wrong motivations. For example, in a borough next to the city I live in, their police force has for years been known to be corrupt, and have been the center of scandal(s) even. A majority of the citizens who live in that borough actively participate in local politics, but even that appears to have not much deterred said corruption. In other words, sometimes even when a majority of the citizens actively participate in the system that does not automatically mean corrupt individuals won't get elected into office, they find a way to get elected regardless and by the time that happens and more citizens become aware of such it is too late (at least for a specific amount of time anyway).


"sticks and stones" and "get over it" are reasonable, in fact commendable reactions to name-calling. Myself, I prefer laughter. However, this only applies when an actual discussion (exchange of ideas) is taking place. That is not the case in almost all of the public situations in the last few years. It is now a preamble to violence. It's sorta like yelling "rabid dog", and then you (or someone ) shoots it. These drones are trained to first apply a horrific label and then follow up with the (obviously) justified punishment. It is a justification for violence. This, IMHO, is deliberate.
If a frothing at the mouth canine were to come running up to you, if unarmed, you ought to reach for a rock. 'Cause that mutt is gonna attack.


I think the idea that Fascism is "Right Wing" is a fallacy; one that is purposefully propagated to generate the illusion of equal propensity toward tyranny "on both sides..."
But, that determination would depend entirely on how you define the relative "Left/Right"... something that almost nobody you've encountered has likely given even a moment's thought.
The common-use of the terms is arbitrary, subjective, vague and inconsistent; in other words: useless.
As such, their use does more to disrupt any useful dialog, than it does to facilitate it. Better to just say what you mean than to rely on subjective, inflammatory, and inaccurate labels as rhetorical "shortcuts".

I posted a whole screed on the topic a while back, but basically... the only metric that makes sense to me is a measure of Individual Sovereignty; that being the foundation of Western Culture and all.
On the "Right" extreme: Anarchy; in which ALL Sovereignty is retained by the Individual, to be exercised entirely at his discretion.
On the "Left" extreme: Collectivism (under any name... pick your favorite); in which NO Sovereignty is retained by the Individual, and is instead exercised ostensibly at the discretion of the "Collective".
But, in actual practice... is exercised at the discretion of those presuming to act on behalf of the Collective.
This definition is clear, simple, objective and consistent; in other words: useful.
Also, this definition clearly places Fascism on the "Left", where it belongs.
And where it can be more intuitively associated with its tyrannical ideological peers.

Since youth, too far back to recall, I'd always thought of political "areas" as plots on a globe, not a linear spectrum. Sort of like a venn diagram in a sorta 3D. With that, I always placed fascism and communism as spectra that met and overlapped on the other side of the globe. A sort of wraparound. Many of their practices and adherents are incompatible -- which might explain why Hitler and Stalin fought. But, many of their practices also overlap and compete -- which also might explain the animosity. Both ideologies inevitably lead to internal purges and tyranny. We are on that path in the US now.


Olbermann is a cuckold that loves to clean-up.


Dinesh had a guest on who discussed the history of fascism. I think it was earlier this week. Spoiler - left and right both engage in fascism. Libertarians are the party of don’t tread on me (anyone).


So lemme get this straight: Soave is objecting to a government imposed mandate that he views as oppressive, arbitrary, and capricious. Olbermann is defending that same oppressive, useless mandate. But he doesn’t (and can’t) deny that it’s an affront to liberty. So Soave is the fascist???? We should mock the aforementioned Olbermann.


Most Leftwingers don't know or understand history (or the English language, it seems).
They throw around these words and labels simply as slurs to bring up an emotional reaction. And their definitions are cynically used, as often they change meaning to whatever suits their own argument.
They will call all their 'enemies' fascist, but the only thing they know about fascism is the war and concentration camps.
They'll defend communism, even though it closely resembles fascism.
How stupid does one have to be to ignore or be unaware of gulags, pogroms and all the other atrocities and massacres of the Reds?


Disagreeing with another point of view is stimulating providing it is done with an air of decency.

I concur.

In the past on this site I had been called a fascist by a few of the resident left-leaning individuals, and apparently neither of them were aware of the fact that fascists and libertarians could never be friends as the viewpoints are too drastically different.

@SpikeTalon "I've been called worse by better: Sol Star." An appropriate quote in this situation, wouldn't you think?

@WayneHawthorne Remember the old kid's ditty, "stick and stones"????
In 25 plus years of wearing a badge and gun, I have been called things you and I had never heard of, so consider the source, and get over it!!!!!!
PS, like the quote!!!!

@WayneHawthorne The problem is, you’ll never understand how they think. If they can’t articulate what they mean it becomes a meaningless waste of time.
Suffer not fools.
It brings you down to their level.

@Rick-A They don't think. That's the problem. They only know how to react in the way they've been trained. Marxist and post-modernist theories have destroyed their ability to think, reason and apply logic (and that is the whole point of the ideology - to turn you into obedient fanatic willing to sacrifice everything and everyone. Sound familiar? It should - the Nazis tried it. These leftists are essential no different than the brainwashed Hitler Youth).

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:213157 does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.