Come on liar quote me.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Quote me liar.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Come on liar you stated lies, time to back them up.
Poptech:Roosevelt was another progressive socialist. Churchill was a classical liberal/conservative.
Poptech:Ideologically Churchill does not appear to be a classic liberal but merely joined the liberal party. He comes off as a classic neo-conservative, who focused on foreign policy, played lip service to free market economics and at times supported big government solutions. I deduce this from the actual historical accounts and quotes provided.
Can we stop with the your a "liar, no you're a liar" stuff?
Hey Juan looks like I didn't state what you said. Thanks for lying!
I already gave my reason for what I did say.
"I presented him as a classic liberal/conservative because he was a member of both parties. Spinning it by leaving out the /conservative is disingenuous propaganda that you like to peddle in".
Though neo-conservative is more accurate.
Poptech: "I presented him as a classic liberal/conservative because he was a member of both parties. Spinning it by leaving out the /conservative is disingenuous propaganda that you like to peddle in".
LOL!
Juan:Poor poptech. What has your quibbling got to do with the fact that your right wing propaganda is no different than progressive propaganda (WWII good for democracy) ? By the way, the nazis were fascists...you know, like roosevelt and churchil...
...
You made absolutely no mention of him being a liberal/conservative only by party names, if thats what you meant then your reply was complete non-sequitar and nonsensical as Roosevelt wasn't in the Progressive Socialist Party.
Poptech:Hey Juan looks like I didn't state what you said. Thanks for lying!
Given that you're wrong, maybe you should tone it down a little. This is a big stretch for you. It's not like other websites. Nearly everyone here is in the upper 5th percentile. You're going to be challenged on the most minute details (as Juan was doing to me earlier this evening). That's par for the course. Accept it, and be the bigger man. You'll get some respect for that.
We were doing so well over the last week. You were even discussing 9/11 without being excessively insulting.
Angurse:You made absolutely no mention of him being a liberal/conservative only by party names, if thats what you meant then your reply was complete non-sequitar and nonsensical as Roosevelt wasn't in the Progressive Socialist Party.
I never said by party names but party affiliations. The UK liberal party was a classically liberal party.
Juan:Hey Sonny, can you read ?
I thought the '/' meant, or implied, "a combination of the two", in this context. I don't see how he isn't answering you by admitting that his previous assessment wasn't as accurate as the label 'neo-conservative' is.
In any case, the confusion of some people to consider Churchill even remotely classically liberal (aside from any possible rhetoric he might've borrowed from for political gain) isn't totally outrageous, as the link shows. I don't see how PT is continually lying in this case :\
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Poptech:I never said by party names but party affiliations. The UK liberal party was a classically liberal party.
Moot distinction, you never said party at all.
Nitroadict: I thought the '/' meant, or implied, "a combination of the two", in this context. I don't see how he isn't answering you by admitting that his previous assessment wasn't as accurate as the label 'neo-conservative' is. In any case, the confusion of some people to consider Churchill even remotely classically liberal (aside from any possible rhetoric he might've borrowed from for political gain) isn't totally outrageous, as the link shows. I don't see how PT is continually lying in this case :\
Exactly, which is why I used both words with a / and believe neo-conservative to be more accurate. Juan was attempting to state I was only calling him a classical liberal which is a lie.
I don't see how PT is continually lying in this case :\
Juan: Read him in context maybe ?
If only you knew what that was.
Nitroadict:I thought the '/' meant, or implied, "a combination of the two", in this context. I don't see how he isn't answering you by admitting that his previous assessment wasn't as accurate as the label 'neo-conservative' is.
I thought it meant either/or. Obviously, conservatism is not classic liberalism.
If it is a combination of the two, classic liberalism and neo-conservatism are an even less likely match.
Whether Poptech lied is largely irrelevant. He's woefully unfamiliar with Austrian perspectives, and approaches every topic with the Glenn Beck libertarian perspective, which I think we (excepting Poptech) would be able to agree, is not libertarian at all.
So it's not as much a matter of dishonesty, as inaccuracy. He's wrong. The liar, liar claims I believe relate to whether something was posted or not.
Either way, right now, Poptech will still object to Roosevelt being fascist (he was) or Churchill being fascist (he was). And that makes him still wrong.
Nitroadict:I don't see how he isn't answering you by admitting that his previous assessment wasn't as accurate as the label 'neo-conservative' is.
Neo-Conservatives, Progressives and Socialists are not Fascists.
Poptech:If only you knew what that was.
Since it was your reply to him, he knows what it should have been. If the reply was merely referencing party affiliation then it makes no sense as a reply.
Poptech:and believe neo-conservative to be more accurate
But that makes no sense. A neo-conservative is even more removed from classic liberalism than just plain conservatism. NeoCons are actually Straussians. Radical fascists.
Poptech: Neo-Conservatives, Progressives and Socialists are not Fascists.
Angurse:Since it was your reply to him, he knows what it should have been. If the reply was merely referencing party affiliation then it makes no sense as a reply.
ROFLMAO! He knows the context of my reply and why I said something? That is new.
You are way off tangent. I never said I was "just stating party affiliations" but was replying to him. My explanation for using those words (combined) was party affiliation. A better explanation of what I meant to imply was that Churchill was a quasi classical liberal/conservative, I have since redefined him as a neo-conservative.
Regardless I replied with TWO words not the one like he lied about. It is now fully documented that he is a liar.
Nitroadict:By literal definition, perhaps not.
This may be the problem as I (and billions of others) can only communicate using the definition of words. The more people freely misuse words and their definitions the more nonsensical their replies become.
I never said I was just stating party affiliations but replying to him with TWO words not the one like he lied about, which is now fully documented he is a liar.
Juan:Not even grammatically correct...
This coming from someone who does not know how to use a dictionary and consistently misuses words? Fascinating.
Poptech: Nitroadict:By literal definition, perhaps not. This may be the problem as I (and billions of others) can only communicate using the definition of words. The more people freely misuse words and their definitions the more nonsensical their replies become.
This assumption that everyone uses & interprets words the same way you do is unprovable, so let's not pretend it's true for the sake of clarity. To sum up why people continue to disagree with you on what constitutes Fascism: they see the shades of Fascism, you only see black & white. Nazi Germany didn't just pop up randomly one day; they were democratically elected (google for the swiss study for evidence, if you are still being literal). Enough people rationalized that they seemed to be the lesser of evils , versus other parties, & the Nazi's somehow managed to get the political leverage required to institute their version of Fascism. Fascism emerges from the political process, usually from politicians going by different labels, such as Progressive, Socialist, & Neo-Conservative. Just because you do not agree with other's interpretations of the words Fascism, does not make them not exist. It's that same mistake people constantly make when they ignore that Marx, whether they like him or not, had a huge effect in obfuscating & changing enough people's perceptions & usage of the word capitalism, & while they can insist on using more literal or original or more correct definitions, other people may simply not give a damn, & end up disagreeing with you on self-conjured strawmen which skew your actual positions. If there was only one literal meaning for every one word on earth, how do you explain metaphors? Comparisons? Similes? Poetry? Art? Culture? Think about it.
Poptech: ROFLMAO! He knows the context of my reply and why I said something? That is new. You are way off tangent. I never said I was just stating party affiliations (the reason why I used those words was party affiliation) but replying to him with TWO words not the one like he lied about, which is now fully documented he is a liar.
ROFLMAO! He knows the context of my reply and why I said something? That is new. You are way off tangent. I never said I was just stating party affiliations (the reason why I used those words was party affiliation) but replying to him with TWO words not the one like he lied about, which is now fully documented he is a liar.
Re-read what I said.
Why would your reply be in a context other than the one he was using? Your using two words and referencing to a party (retroactively meaning such anyhow) makes no difference to the point he was making which was that Churchill was a Fascist. As him simply being a member of either party doesn't make him not a fascist. Now if you elaborated in your original reply maybe you wouldn't be in this corner. So again, either your reply was meaningless or you were just wrong. Its still respectable to admit you were wrong, or made a mistake.
liberty student:If it is a combination of the two, classic liberalism and neo-conservatism are an even less likely match.
No it is a combination of classical liberalism and conservatism (not neo-conservatism) which is more clearly defined as neo-conservatism. Such as cutting taxes but not reducing spending.
liberty student:He's woefully unfamiliar with Austrian perspectives, and approaches every topic with the Glenn Beck libertarian perspective, which I think we (excepting Poptech) would be able to agree, is not libertarian at all.
Total nonsense, I have never presented the "Austrian" perspective since I cannot get established what that is! Is it the Mises, Hayek or Rothbard perspective? Because they are not all identical. You seem to keep declaring that your perspective is the only one and "official".
I don't believe I have ever brought up Glenn Beck once. I actually approach everything from a limited government libertarian perspective, which has not changed.
Nitroadict:This assumption that everyone uses & interprets words the same way you do is unprovable, so let's not pretend it's true for the sake of clarity.
It is not about interpreting something my way, it is about fabricating definitions for words.
Do you support freely defining words? How would anyone communicate if any word can mean whatever you want it to?
If the definition of the word they are using exists, show me the dictionary that defines it as such. What I am asking for should have been learned in elementary school.
Saying something can lead to fascism is not the same as saying something is fascism. My problem is with the continued misuse of clearly defined words.
Angurse:Why would your reply be in a context other than the one he was using? Your using two words and referencing to a party (retroactively meaning such anyhow) makes no difference to the point he was making which was that Churchill was a Fascist. As him simply being a member of either party doesn't make him not a fascist. Now if you elaborated in your original reply maybe you wouldn't be in this corner. So again, either your reply was meaningless or you were just wrong. Its still respectable to admit you were wrong, or made a mistake.
I was replying to him that he is not a fascist but a quasi classical liberal/conservative, the reason I used those two words was based on his party affiliation. This isn't complicated. You keep going off on tangents. I am not wrong as he was not a fascist. If you believe Churchill was a fascist, define fascist for me from a dictionary and prove he was.
Juan:A Biting Indictment of the Coming of Domestic Fascism in America
Like I said.
Poptech: liberty student:If it is a combination of the two, classic liberalism and neo-conservatism are an even less likely match. No it is a combination of classical liberalism and conservatism (not neo-conservatism) which is more clearly defined as neo-conservatism. Such as cutting taxes but not reducing spending.
That is not the definition of neo-conservatism. Neo-Conservatism is the polar opposite of classic liberalism. Like I said, they don't belong together. Conservatism and neo-conservatism could be associated with one another, but conservatism is not classic liberalism, and neoconservatism is straussian radical fascism.
Poptech:Total nonsense, I have never presented the "Austrian" perspective since I cannot get established what that is!
Why not ask for sources? We would show you Rockwell, DiLorenzo and Woods. You know Tom Woods.
Poptech:Is it the Mises, Hayek or Rothbard perspective?
Them, and more. It is also Hoppe, Long, Block, Kinsella, GAP etc. It is also Menger and Bohm Baewerk. Jeffrey Tucker (iirc) mentioned that you could spend your entire life on Mises.org and not be able to get through all of the scholarship here.
Poptech:Because they are not all identical. You seem to keep declaring that your perspective is the only one and "official".
But you don't know what my perspective is. I consider myself an Austro-Libertarian, in that my positions don't conflict with Austrian canon, but more accurately define myself as an anarcho-capitalist, as I also sympathize with non-Austrian anarchists like David Friedman. This is such a rich tradition of ideas, that continues to expand daily.
Poptech:I don't believe I have ever brought up Glenn Beck once. I actually approach everything from a limited government libertarian perspective, which has not changed.
I never said you did. But your libertarianism is Glenn Beck libertarianism. Small government libertarianism is LP libertarianism. What we call BIG L libertarianism. We're small L libertarians.
I don't want you to leave, but this isn't really a site for Big L libertarians. Ron Paul Forums, C4L, maybe the LP has a forum, those are sites that cater to minarchist libertarianism. Political activism, voting, fund raising, party affiliation etc.
We typically discuss free market economics and philosophy here. Not politics and certainly not partisan politics.
I was replying to him that he is not a fascist but a quasi classical liberal/conservative, the reason I used those two words was based on his party affiliation. This isn't complicated. You keep going off on tangents.
Poptech:Saying something can lead to fascism is not the same as saying something is fascism. My problem is with the continued misuse of clearly words.
Saying something can lead to fascism is not the same as saying something is fascism. My problem is with the continued misuse of clearly words.
At exactly what objective point does "something leading to fascism" become "fascism?" How is the distinction any less arbitrary than considering certain ideologies to be fascist, even if not in name?
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
Poptech:I was replying to him that he is not a fascist but a quasi classical liberal/conservative, the reason I used those two words was based on his party affiliation. This isn't complicated. You keep going off on tangents. I am not wrong as he was not a fascist. If you believe Churchill was a fascist, define fascist for me from a dictionary and prove he was.
You see, you didn't say hes a quasi-classical/conservative, you said:
You took no time at all to distinguish between Churchill's own ideologies and how hes wasn't actually a classical-liberal or an actual conservative, or a fascist for that matter. Yes, you were wrong. Don't expect people to read "Churchill was a classical liberal/conservative" and then think " Churchill wasn't a classical-liberal or a conservative." Just admit to your error, its not difficult.
We've had "the dictionary as a higher authority" chat already and you disappeared.
Poptech: Saying something can lead to fascism is not the same as saying something is fascism. My problem is with the continued misuse of clearly words.
liberty student:That is not the definition of neo-conservatism. Neo-Conservatism is the polar opposite of classic liberalism. Like I said, they don't belong together. Conservatism and neo-conservatism could be associated with one another, but conservatism is not classic liberalism, and neoconservatism is straussian radical fascism.
Really. Then using a dictionary define "neo-conservative". I have only asked hundreds of times, yet NO ONE can do it
Is the Austrian perspective, Menger, Mises, Hayek or Rothbard?
If it is all of them, then anarcho-capitalist views are NOT the "correct" or "only" perspective.
Who defines what the correct perspective is?
liberty student:But you don't know what my perspective is... but more accurately define myself as an anarcho-capitalist
Actually I did.
liberty student:I never said you did. But your libertarianism is Glenn Beck libertarianism. Small government libertarianism is LP libertarianism. What we call BIG L libertarianism. We're small L libertarians.
Wait I am allowed to use the word "libertarian" now? I thought I was a neo-con socialist?
Anyway I was aware of the Big L vs little l nonsense. Which is why I consistently labeled myself a limited government libertarian.
Did the word "libertarian" exist before "anarcho-capitalism"?
liberty student:Not politics and certainly not partisan politics
Yes you do. Look in the forums.
Juan: And churchill and roosevelt were fascists.
Using a dictionary, define "fascist" and explain how they both were.
Poptech:Really. Then using a dictionary define "neo-conservative". I have only asked hundreds of times, yet NO ONE can do it
If you don't read Ron Paul, and you don't read Tom Woods, and you don't read Lew Rockwell, and you don't read antiwar.com and you don't know what a Straussian is, and you don't know the work of Irving Kristol, then I just can't help you. People don't go to school, and get handed a dictionary, and when they have read A to Z, they leave. Words have context, and they evolve from usage. You're either being dishonest (you know what neoconservatism is, and are playing a childish game to score meaningless points) or you're very poorly read on the topics you discuss. You know them to argue them online, but I suspect you don't actually know them well enough to discuss them with other people who know them.
I thought it was the latter, but you seem addicted to the same behaviour that lead to your removal at HotAir. You're strictly here to troll and argue, and you're not interested in Austrian theory or libertarianism at all. Which is a shame, because you're squandering a lot more goodwill than most people get.
Poptech:Who defines what the correct perspective is?
At LvMI, the management does. If you want to see what the management thinks and does, then dig into Lew Rockwell's articles here, and start reading his blog. He gave a great speech on heroism in the Austrian tradition that is on the misesmedia YT channel. While Rockwell is not an economist, he is most certainly one of a handful of names synonymous with modern libertarian thought.
Poptech:Wait I am allowed to use the word "libertarian" now? I thought I was a neo-con socialist?
To small L libertarians, big L libertarians are simply statists. There's no way around that. All state is socialism, and your foreign policy views are imperialist. Despite what you claim about bringing troops home, I've read your posts on your own forum. Your foreign policy positions are very different from Ron Paul, who plays a libertarian minarchist to the hilt.
Poptech:Anyway I was aware of the Big L vs little l nonsense. Which is why I consistently labeled myself a limited government libertarian.
You label yourself with an oxymoron.
Poptech:Did the word "libertarian" exist before "anarcho-capitalism"?
You don't want to go into etymology. It won't make you happy. Rothbard was a key figure in the establishment of American political and philosophical libertarianism. Have you read Ethics of Liberty or For a New Liberty yet?
Poptech: liberty student:Not politics and certainly not partisan politics Yes you do. Look in the forums.
If we eliminate your posts, it's barely a fraction of the discussion. Start a thread on natural rights theory, and there will be more posts in a week, than we get on politics in a month. Go read the Mises Daily Articles or the Mises Blog. Policy and politics are marginal topics at best. If you want to talk libertarian politics, you'll have to try LewRockwell.com and antiwar.com. The Independent Institute blog occasionally. I'm sure you're a big Bob Higgs fan, right?
Anyway, drop the dictionary bit. Start reading. Ask some insightful questions. Get up to speed.