Rep vs. Dem Differences

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.

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

James Robinson opined

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.

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

I would love to see some lists of the philosophers that you are talking
about. I particularly would like to see the classification of Karl Marx.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

In article , "Ash Wyllie"
writes:

James Robinson opined

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.


Uh, No. Left and right and liberal and conservative have become distorted from
their dictionary meanings.

I can make it simpler. Look at the party NAMES.

Do you want to live in a Republic, with unalienable rights not even the power
of government is permitted to violate, or do you want to live in a Democracy,
where there is no right of yours that is not subject to transgression if 51% of
the populace lusts for what right protects?

That is what the political spectrum is all about, the degree to wich the
individual is soveriegn compared to the degree to which the collective is
soveriegn.

The order is, strarting with maximum individual rights

Libertarian Republican Democrat Nazi Socialist Ants

If you own yourself, and are willing to be responsible for yourself, you are a
Libertarian. If you are owned by the collective, and expect to be guided and
protected from your own failures by that collective, you are an ant.

Pick the degree to which you are your own person or to which you are willing to
trade away your liberty for economic security, and find your place on the
spectrum.

The only wild cards are the theocrats, who are collectivists who submit to
their invisible friend instead of the majority. They are currently allied with
the Republicans, but for 100 years before SCOTUS ****ed them off were allied
with the Democrats.

Note that theocrats are less dangerous when allied with the GOP, where they
have succeeded in passing almost nothing, than they were when they were allied
with the statist Democrats, and passed the Sodommy laws, Prostitution laws,
Drug laws and Prohibition. An alliance between Theocrats and Collectivists
gives you the Taliban, an alliance between theocrats and individualists gives
you some hurtful rhetoric but nothing more.

So, forget the spin and demagoguery, and decide where you are on the political
spectrum based on the single matter of personal freedom vs submission to the
collective and you will not go wrong.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote in
:

In article , "Ash Wyllie"
writes:

snip

I can make it simpler. Look at the party NAMES.

Do you want to live in a Republic, with unalienable rights not even the
power of government is permitted to violate, or do you want to live in
a Democracy, where there is no right of yours that is not subject to
transgression if 51% of the populace lusts for what right protects?

That is what the political spectrum is all about, the degree to wich
the individual is soveriegn compared to the degree to which the
collective is soveriegn.

The order is, strarting with maximum individual rights

Libertarian Republican Democrat Nazi Socialist Ants

If you own yourself, and are willing to be responsible for yourself,
you are a Libertarian. If you are owned by the collective, and expect
to be guided and protected from your own failures by that collective,
you are an ant.


snip

Interesting, then, that our Republican government enacted the Patriot Act
that basically allows government to violate just about every basic right of
the individual without any checks and balances whatsoever...

In article , Judah
writes:


Interesting, then, that our Republican government enacted the Patriot Act
that basically allows government to violate just about every basic right of
the individual without any checks and balances whatsoever...


At least they put a sunset provision in it.

Look, we're at war. Things are different in wartime, even the Constitution
acknowledges that.

In WW2 we interned people based on race and took the propellors off private
aircraft for the duration.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
The only wild cards are the theocrats, who are collectivists who submit to
their invisible friend instead of the majority. They are currently allied
with
the Republicans, but for 100 years before SCOTUS ****ed them off were
allied
with the Democrats.

This is something about US life and US politics which confuses me.
Christians. From reading the bible, Christian values should be for equality
and for sharing, and that the accumulation of wealth is wrong. These are the
moral values which relate to money. There are also the moral values which
relate to, in a word, sex.

The US parties have, from what I understand from the arguments on here
and what I see in the media, polarised into two camps, Republicans and
Democrats. Maybe some of the ideas here are from their opponents, but
I see:

Republicans - conservative. Economics - want the creation of wealth among
a small number of people and hope that will make the whole country wealthy.
Morality - High moral values in terms of family, anti-this and that.

Democrats - less conservative. Economics - feel that wealth should be more
evenly distributed by making laws or by taxation.
Morality - More of a live and let live idea and allow such acts as sex
before
marriage, homosexuality and so on.

So. How have these moral codes become to be associated with these
parties and why do more Christians, or so called Christians support the
former? For them, it seems the moral code overrides the economic
issues? As mentioned in another post, should there be another two
parties which have the opposite economic and moral combinations?

Paul

In article , "Paul
Sengupta" wrote:

Republicans - conservative. Economics - want the creation of wealth among
a small number of people and hope that will make the whole country
wealthy.
Morality - High moral values in terms of family, anti-this and that.

wow! you don't understand Republicans.


Democrats - less conservative. Economics - feel that wealth should be
more
evenly distributed by making laws or by taxation.
Morality - More of a live and let live idea and allow such acts as sex
before
marriage, homosexuality and so on.

and you don't understand Democrats either.

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

Ok, let me give it a try:

Republicans -
Social - Conservative rhetoric, hypocritical execution. No limits
to gov't control.
Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.
Morality - Big talk, too close to Church (monoculture), poor
performance.
Personal Responsibility - Via criminal regulations and laws (tends
to Police State).
Aviation - Restrict until only for the ultrawealthy and congress.
Terrorism - Crapshoot, poor record.
Unity - Very divisive, extremism driven policies, poor to mixed
record.
Honesty - Great rhetoric, poor performance.

Democrats -
Social - Less government involvement. More volatility.
Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
properly, very mixed record.
Morality - Big talk, usually arms-length from Church, poor
performance.
Personal Responsibility - Via civil regulations and laws (tends to
over-regulation).
Aviation - Regulate until only for the ultrawealthy and congress.
Terrorism - Crapshoot, poor record.
Unity - Better rhetoric, mixed record.
Honesty - Great rhetoric, poor performance.

Both -
Subject to change over time, even reverse roles.


(Honest) modifications/additions welcome. Flames to /dev/null/.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "Paul
Sengupta" wrote:

Republicans - conservative. Economics - want the creation of wealth among
a small number of people and hope that will make the whole country
wealthy.
Morality - High moral values in terms of family, anti-this and that.

wow! you don't understand Republicans.


Democrats - less conservative. Economics - feel that wealth should be
more
evenly distributed by making laws or by taxation.
Morality - More of a live and let live idea and allow such acts as sex
before
marriage, homosexuality and so on.

and you don't understand Democrats either.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=557746

"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.


Probably you.

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.
They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
imagination.

At least that is how the left thinks of it. Actually, fascism and Nazism did
promote political change and claimed greater freedom and well being for the
common man. That they failed is obvious.

Most so-called left wing or liberal movements are in fact quite
authoritarian in nature -- far more authoritarian than so-called right wing
or conservative movements. Socialism, usually considered to be left wing,
requires an extremely authoritarian government with centrally planned
economies and minutely planned distribution of goods and services. The same
can be said for centrally planned educational standards and even
anti-discrimination laws -- though in the latter case I suppose since
slavery was banned and most equal rights laws were passed under Republican
administrations by Republican legislatures you might be able to make an
argument that anti-discrimination laws are a characteristic of right wing
philosophies.