Rep vs. Dem Differences

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Wdtabor wrote:

The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right.
It is
only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of history.

Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.

Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
authoritarian political order.

Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
greater freedom and well being of the common man.

Odd, isn't it, that the left wing countires are the most brutal and
repressive in recent history?

Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
imagination.

And the "liberal" ones, Soviet, China, Korea, Cuba, have slaughtered more
than Germany could ever hope to.

Spin that!!

James Robinson wrote:

Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
authoritarian political order.

Simple labels just fail too quickly. A political conservative in the US
would be a strong advocate of church/state separation. A social
conservative would want his/her own religious morals encoded into law.

It's all a matter of which values you consider "traditional".

- Andrew

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Wdtabor wrote:

Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.

Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
authoritarian political order.


Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
greater freedom and well being of the common man.

Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.

How so?

All right, since you clearly do not see the problem, George Bush is often
said to be both right wing and conservative. Using the definitions above and
George Bush's positions on issues, justify that belief.

Similarly, John Kerry is often said to be both left wing and liberal. Using
the definitions above and Kerry's positions on issues (even those where he
switches sides continually, if you want), justify that belief.

For example, Al Gore is often said to be a left wing liberal. Taking his
stated positions on the environment from his book "Earth in the Balance," we
see that Gore advocates abolishing the internal combustion engine, reverting
to an agrarian (albeit high tech agrarian) economy, and a political system
where all local decisions are made by credentialed environmentalists who
will tell you what job you will have, what level of education you will have,
what clothes you will wear, how you will decorate your house, whether you
may receive medication for your illnesses, where you may defecate, whether
you may have children and what sex they should be, etc. Think the Shire with
computers and ruled over by Environmental manor lords who free the happy
agrarian peasants from making any decisions. In order to achieve this, Gore
acknowledges that 80% of the world's population will have to die from
starvation, disease, warfare, and exposure, but he says it will be even
worse if we continue going the way we are now. Given your definitions above,
I would say that Gore represents extreme right wing conservatism. He feels
that people are essentially both the property and the wards of aristocratic
overlords and opposes most technological advances made since the early 18th
century.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, C J Campbell wrote:


"Brian Burger" wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...

And Kerry is the 'left' in the US Presidential race. Imagine where
this leaves W... (goosestepping rapidly over the horizon, possibly...)


Wow. We start right off with Godwin's law.

It was actually a comment on militaristic right-wingers in general, not an
attempt to invoke Der Godwinator...

What is "liberal" about Kerry
supporters that trash storefronts and beat Bush supporters up? How is their
behavior any different from that of thugs in 1935?

(cough) Speaking of Godwin...

Maybe I am jaded, but as far as I can see the only thing people are
interested in these days is in exercising dominion over others. They want
power, and are willing to go to any lengths and use any means to get it.
Ethics, justice, right and left: they are just hollow words signifying
nothing. I truly long for leaders who are genuinely just men, who are honest
and moral, who will not steal or lie. I would vote for such a person no
matter where on the spectrum of "left" or "right" he fell.

I'm not sure they exist, esp. in high level politics... power really does
corrupt, and all that.

Brian.

What is "liberal" about Kerry
supporters that trash storefronts and beat Bush supporters up? How is
their
behavior any different from that of thugs in 1935?

The reason a lot of people "support" Kerry is because he is not Bush and he
is the best shot at getting Bush out. They do not necessarily actually
support Kerry and his ideas. Another case of not voting "for" someone but
voting "against" someone else. I strongly suspect that who you call "Kerry
supporters" are in fact part of the anti-Bush crowd. I'm quite sure Kerry
would treat such hooligans pretty severely (as others have pointed out, the
differences between the parties here is actually small).

Myself? I am strongly biased against whoever is in power. They bear the
burden of proof of what they have done - their accomplishments. I am vastly
unimpressed by the current administration: the deception, the secrecy, the
control and manipulation, the intrusion of the Church into politics, the
poor economic performance, the corruption, the list goes on and on. I don't
know if Kerry would do any better but I would rather he and his
administration have the chance than continue on what to me seems like a very
bad path. Remember also that the Republicans had majorities across the
government these past 4 years so if ever there they had the opportunity to
show their mettle this was it and to me it looks pretty obvious their
performance was poor *at best*. I would never accept such screwed-up
leadership in a corporation I had interest in, so why should I in the
country I live in?

If Kerry gets in, I will be just or even more critical of his
administration's performance. The bigger the mess (and it seems to be
getting worse rather than better), the higher my expectations are of the
administration of the most powerful country on the planet.

Do I think we are better off than we were 4 years ago? No. Does the
current administration seem to have a clear plan to improve things? No.
Therefore, time for change.

Just my humble opinion.

In article , "Peter
Gottlieb" wrote:

Do I think we are better off than we were 4 years ago? No. Does the
current administration seem to have a clear plan to improve things? No.
Therefore, time for change.

any change? or change for the better?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
...snip...
What is "liberal" about a Europe or Canada that is grossly intolerant of
differing political or social views? ...snip...

Where do you get this?

The people of Canada have managed to tolerate six or seven different shades
as Federal and/or Provincial governments, from the far right to moderate
left. If and when the incumbents got too cocky or corrupt, Canadians simply
switched horses, turfed them out, and tolerated some other shade. Europe
has several governments with diverse coalitions that change more often than
some people change their underwear. Pretty hard to see how you can argue
them as "intolerant".

Canada has managed to tolerate most American Governments as friends... from
Lincoln to Clinton, even the senior Bush.

GW is a special case... even there, they tolerated his politics up to and
including the rout of the Taliban in Afghanistan... they were there, you
might recall.... they even tolerated 4 deaths and several casualties at the
hand of their "friends".

So over 150 years, Canada has disagreed with a single dubious policy of a
single American president... and they are not alone.... and this makes
Canada "grossly intolerant"?



--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

"Icebound" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...
Europe
has several governments with diverse coalitions that change more often
than
some people change their underwear.

The old saying...Italy has more elections than a Chinese honeymoon.

Paul

"Brian Burger" wrote in message

It's part of the problem, I think, with international relations - US
politics is skewed so far right that the rest of us just can't relate
anymore.

My wife likes to remind me that America was founded and raised by religious
types who were so weird and to the right that they felt a need to escape
Europe to exercise their religious freedom. The Quakers, the "puritans"
(as we call 'em now)...

We were doing alright until the Republicans and the Democrats got their
hands on the controls. Now, the house is divided by two groups who are not
interested in American democracy, but in seizing power and money for select
constituents.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Brian Burger" wrote in message

It's part of the problem, I think, with international relations - US
politics is skewed so far right that the rest of us just can't relate
anymore.

My wife likes to remind me that America was founded and raised by
religious
types who were so weird and to the right that they felt a need to escape
Europe to exercise their religious freedom. The Quakers, the "puritans"
(as we call 'em now)...

Except that neither the Quakers nor the Puritans had much to do with the
founding of America beyond being some of the earliest settlers.