Rep vs. Dem Differences

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

Now you are contradicting yourself. Now you are saying that communism is
left wing conservatism, where before you defined the left as being
liberal.

I don't give a hoot about your definitions. They are self contradictory
and
arbitrary, as many have pointed out before me.

They aren't "my" definitions. They are ones that are generally accepted
in political discussions, and can be found all over internet.

They are both meaningless and useless, no matter who uses them. Of course,
you are free to use the terms if you would prefer to avoid thinking for
yourself.

Tom S. wrote:

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

Fascism comes in a number of flavors, but the key elements a

An authoritarian power structure

Agreed.

A collectivist economy (either socialism or feudalism will do)

Disagree. While Fascism morphed somewhat over time, it was intensely
against socialism from the beginning. That opposition was one of the
prime tenets of the philosophy. That said, the ideology was also
against a completely free economy, preferring government direction, but
also not for the benefit of the masses. The idea of government control
was more in line with their authoritarian bent than it was a statement
of left or right leaning in economic terms.

In other words, a collectivist economy, as Wdtabor stated.

No. It wasn't at all collectivist. Industries weren't nationalized,
and the major corporations, like Bayer, Krupp, Siemens, et al continued
to exist in a cozy relationship with the government. It was quite
profitable for those companies, who worked with the government to
promote their economic policies. Kind of like how Haliburton works with
today's government, which certainly can't be called collectivist.

Overall, using strictly an
economic measure, Fascism was neither left nor right, but somewhere
slightly right of center.

Irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant, since the economic definition of left-right puts
Fascism close to the center, not at either extreme. They opposed both
extremes - socialism, or a laissez faire economy, preferring some
government control, but corporate organization. The economic measure is
probably the primary contributor to a left-right definition.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

The problem is that C.J. Campbell believes that "freedom from" implies
that
religion is kept away. Others on this thread apparently read this as
"freedom from imposition of".

I would say that the remarks of many here would support my thesis that
they
believe that religion should be suppressed from public view entirely.

From publicly funded ones.

Freedom of religion means anyone can worship anywhere at any time, even if
they are a public official.

You should not lose your civil rights just
because you became a government employee.

Government employees can't go to church?

In article , James Robinson
writes:


A collectivist economy (either socialism or feudalism will do)

Disagree. While Fascism morphed somewhat over time, it was intensely
against socialism from the beginning. That opposition was one of the
prime tenets of the philosophy. That said, the ideology was also
against a completely free economy, preferring government direction, but
also not for the benefit of the masses. The idea of government control
was more in line with their authoritarian bent than it was a statement
of left or right leaning in economic terms. Overall, using strictly an
economic measure, Fascism was neither left nor right, but somewhere
slightly right of center.


You might want to read Hayek's ROAD TO SERFDOM as it deals specifically with
the rise of Nazi fascism from socialist roots. And he was there to see it
happen.

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

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Tom S. wrote:

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

Fascism comes in a number of flavors, but the key elements a

An authoritarian power structure

Agreed.

A collectivist economy (either socialism or feudalism will do)

Disagree. While Fascism morphed somewhat over time, it was intensely
against socialism from the beginning. That opposition was one of the
prime tenets of the philosophy. That said, the ideology was also
against a completely free economy, preferring government direction,
but
also not for the benefit of the masses. The idea of government control
was more in line with their authoritarian bent than it was a statement
of left or right leaning in economic terms.

In other words, a collectivist economy, as Wdtabor stated.

No. It wasn't at all collectivist. Industries weren't nationalized,
and the major corporations, like Bayer, Krupp, Siemens, et al continued
to exist in a cozy relationship with the government.

I don't know your take on collectivism, but it's as much a matter of CONTROL
as it is of OWNERSHIP.


It was quite
profitable for those companies, who worked with the government to
promote their economic policies. Kind of like how Haliburton works with
today's government, which certainly can't be called collectivist.

You have no clue regarding political power versus economic power.

Halliburton is, far and away, the best at what they do. That's why they have
economic power. They've held that status for several years. The difference
between them and the rest of the pack is like the difference between the
1927 Yankees and today's AZ Diamondbacks.

Even gazillionaire Bill Gates was taken to the cleaners in Federal Court.
How much control did they have in making policy?

Speaking of which: the dot.com bubble burst and ensuing stock market slide
from the peak around 12,000 began on (+/-) March 23, 2000, which was the day
the Justice Department announced it's actions against Microsoft.

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

In article , James Robinson
writes:


Always seems to me that there is no adequate definition of left and
right in politics.

There is a group that is trying to introduce a second dimension to
political descriptions:

http://www.politicalcompass.org


I don't like that one very much. It is adpated from a British model that has
cultural baises built in. Among other things, racism/zenophobia is counted as a
conservative/libertarian trait.

The one at LP.org is better.

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

In article , James Robinson writes:


I don't give a hoot about your definitions. They are self contradictory and
arbitrary, as many have pointed out before me.

They aren't "my" definitions. They are ones that are generally accepted
in political discussions, and can be found all over internet.

Oh, well. That settles it then.

I think the definition of Fascist that is best indicative of the way it is used
on the Internet is Rush Limbaugh's "A fascist is a conservative who has just
won and argument with a liberal."

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

"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.

"Tom S." wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

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?

Your basic premise is wrong.

You are mixing up authoritarianism with economic and social policies.
You certainly can't label countries like Sweden, Holland, or Canada,
which have left-leaning political policies, as brutal or oppressive. You
can't label Gandhi or Nelson Mandela as brutal, yet they had fairly
leftist views. As a contrary example, one can list many South American
countries, like Augusto Pinochet's regime, as brutal and oppressive, yet
they have had very rightist views on economics and social policies.
Being left or right is not a direct indication of brutality, but being
authoritarian or libertarian is.

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!!

Well, as a result of the war, the Nazis ended up killing something like
42 million people in the European theater. It's pretty hard to beat
that.