[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I wasn't completely clear, and I get a thermonuclear smackdown. This other guy wasn't clear, and he gets a free pass from Kevin. Whatever... I'm sure he has some snappy explanation for it and would simultaneously find a way to mock and chip away at me somehow.

He wasn't clear? Funny I knew exactly what he meant.

Keep the spin going besson.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

- affirmative action
- higher tax rate on the wealthy
- environmental regulation
- welfare and various other social programs and initiatives
- larger federal umbrella, smaller states rights

Just because you may not see the causes championed by the right such as abortion or gay marriage as moral issues (unlike most of society) does not mean the left is void of the desire to control and legislate morality. They just have a twisted sense of it, relegating it to nothing more than labeling and enabling for their personal agendas. You may make the same claim of the right, but the claim the left does not is ridiculous. Unless you're prepared to define what moral and immoral is. I get that you're not Christian. Tell me who/what provides your moral compass and why that's any better than my Christian doctrine. Otherwise we could just let you define it the way you see fit and we can all move along.

i.e. it seem the Socialist left want control and because the religious right is at odds with these desires, they are somehow worse.

I think my original claim was completely misunderstood (and poorly stated), so I'm prepared to just let this one go. However, if you are curious what I was trying to claim, none of the examples in your list above are in the same category in my mind. I was thinking specifically of government trying to control the lives of individual citizens in these morally gray areas - making tough decisions on their behalf about actions that do not affect others.

Taxation and the like are policy issues that affect all of us.

I'm not sure if this clarification helps at all, so I'll just drop it...

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I get it, when one of the ones on "your side" does bad, they are automatically on the "other side"

Convenient. Hitler, Stalin, and now Tipper.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Just because one calls themselves a Christian or Muslim DOES NOT mean they are.

The Bible even talks about this. You will know who is by the fruits they produce.

   

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, you were calling them conservatives.

To set things straight.

Hitler = Fascist with conservative values

Stalin = Communist with no values

Tipper Gore = Democrate with conservative values

Originally Posted by Kevin

If they are doing so, and JUSTIFYING it as being right. As being what they are taught. Then no.

What if they don't care?

If somebody says:"Yes, I lie, yes I cheat, yes I steal and I know it's wrong, but I believe that Christ is my saviour and he died on the cross for my sins"

Is that person a Christian?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

First of all, the tone of his post was, "Wake me up when Christians start killing." My reply is "Christians have been killing, in large and highly organized operations, for about two millennia now"

If you're looking for current examples, Northern Ireland should cut the mustard, although it's cooled off recently.

Northern Ireland has nothing to do with religion. It's a conflict between those who want to be Irish and those who want to be British.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think my original claim was completely misunderstood (and poorly stated), so I'm prepared to just let this one go. However, if you are curious what I was trying to claim, none of the examples in your list above are in the same category in my mind. I was thinking specifically of government trying to control the lives of individual citizens in these morally gray areas - making tough decisions on their behalf about actions that do not affect others.

Right, so you mean like banning a smoker from smoking in a bar where everyone, including the bar staff and owner, wants to smoke?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

To set things straight.

Hitler = Fascist with conservative values

Stalin = Communist with no values

1) Hitler was no conservative. You really need to go study the bloke before you make statements which you've obviously gleaned from peer here-say.

2) Stalin had values. Communist values.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

   

While that was a clever attempt, the two aren't comparable.

Again, I am not talking about ACTIONS. But Justifications.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

To set things straight.

Hitler = Fascist with conservative values

Killing off jews isn't conservative thinking.

Tipper Gore = Democrate with conservative values

No, because not of all Tipper's values were such. Again, just because I am against the DP doesn't mean I have liberal values.

What if they don't care?

If somebody says:"Yes, I lie, yes I cheat, yes I steal and I know it's wrong, but I believe that Christ is my saviour and he died on the cross for my sins"

Is that person a Christian?

Yes. Why? Because they KNOW what they are doing is wrong. We ALL sin.

When you start deluding yourself into believing that what you are doing is right so you don't feel bad about it later, you are going down the slippery slope.

Or when you attempt to take that sin and say your religion supports it when It does not, also slippery slope.

Again, we all do wrong.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think my original claim was completely misunderstood (and poorly stated),

No one misunderstood you. We knew exactly what you said. Poorly stated? maybe .

You either
1. Meant what you originally said, then later backpedaled.
OR
2. Posted one thing, but meant another.

No one mis-undestood you.

[Kevin]

Anyone this pretty much sums up any thread in here we have about religion and or politics.

http://religionandpolitics.ytmnd.com/

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Killing off jews isn't conservative thinking.

That's besides the point. He held a large number of socially conservative views.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, because not of all Tipper's values were such.

How many would she have to hold to consider her having conservative values (note, there is a difference between being a conservative and being conservative, IMO)?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes. Why?

So if somebody said, – yes, I kill Jews, yes I have sex with children, yes I'm for calling African Americans racial slurs and I know it's wrong, but I believe that Christ is my saviour and he died on the cross for my sins" they'd still be Christian?

Very interesting.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Or when you attempt to take that sin and say your religion supports it when It does not, also slippery slope.

Oh, you're already on that slippry slope.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Killing off jews isn't conservative thinking.

Neither is it Liberal thinking.

OMG! There might be more than 2 political perspectives?!?!?!

[Nicko]

I think there are some of those aftermentioned christian nuts in this thread

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Doofy

1) Hitler was no conservative. You really need to go study the bloke before you make statements which you've obviously gleaned from peer here-say.

2) Stalin had values. Communist values.

1. We could debate that. In a way, and not to be compared with the Conservative Party of course, Hitler was highly conservative, in an extremely sentimental way. That is what National Socialism is all about, the longing for a Germany that never was.


2. And Stalin's only values were the values that kept Stalin in power, don't you think? He didn't give a hoot about communism, that was just a tool to keep him where he was - at the top.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

1. We could debate that. In a way, and not to be compared with the Conservative Party of course, Hitler was highly conservative, in an extremely sentimental way. That is what National Socialism is all about, the longing for a Germany that never was.

How was Hitler Conservative? Are you speaking fiscally conservative? Socially conservative?


To say that Hitler was "conservative" in a sentimental way because that is what National Socialism is, makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. You're conservative in a sentimental way because you long for something that never was??? Conservative is maintaining a status quo when you deem things as not in need of change. There is nothing to conserve if there is nothing in existence. Conservatism can embrace change, but only in a painfully slow and disciplined way. There was nothing Conservative about Hitler. Absolutely nothing. Not fiscally, not socially, not even sentimentally. It seems the attempts to make this connection have been feeble at best.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Northern Ireland has nothing to do with religion. It's a conflict between those who want to be Irish and those who want to be British.

Northern Ireland was for many years the site of a bitter ethnic/religious campaign of violence between a minority of Nationalists (who were predominantly Catholic and wanted it to be reunified with the Republic of Ireland) and a majority of Unionists (who were predominantly Protestant and wanted it to remain part of the United Kingdom). The campaign was known popularly as The Troubles. The majority of both sides of the community had no actual association with the violent campaigns waged. Since the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998 the major paramilitary campaigns have either been on ceasefire or have declared their "war" to be over.

Sorry, you're incorrect. Religion has a lot to do with it (in this case, two branches of Christianity). So much for, "Thou shalt not kill" I suppose.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Northern Ireland was for many years the site of a bitter ethnic/religious campaign of violence between a minority of Nationalists (who were predominantly Catholic and wanted it to be reunified with the Republic of Ireland) and a majority of Unionists (who were predominantly Protestant and wanted it to remain part of the United Kingdom). The campaign was known popularly as The Troubles. The majority of both sides of the community had no actual association with the violent campaigns waged. Since the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998 the major paramilitary campaigns have either been on ceasefire or have declared their "war" to be over.

Sorry, you're incorrect. Religion has a lot to do with it (in this case, two branches of Christianity). So much for, "Thou shalt not kill" I suppose.

No, you're completely wrong.

Did the Belfast Agreement ban Catholicism and Protestantism? No, it did not. I'll refresh your memory:

• The principle that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland should be determined by the majority vote of its citizens.
• A commitment by all parties to "exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
• The establishment of a Northern Ireland Assembly with devolved legislative powers.
• Creation of a 'power-sharing' Northern Ireland Executive, using the D'Hondt method to allocate Ministries proportionally to the main parties.
• Creation of a North-South Ministerial Council and North-South Implementation Bodies to bring about cross-border cooperation in policy and programmes on a number of issues.
• Establishment of a British-Irish Council, composed of representatives from the governments of the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, to discuss areas of common concern.
• Conditional early release within two years of paramilitary prisoners belonging to organisations observing a ceasefire.
• Establishment of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
• A two year target for decommissioning of paramilitary weapons.
• The abolition of the Republic's territorial claim to Northern Ireland via the modification Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution.
• New legislation for Northern Ireland on policing, human rights and equality.
• Normalisation of security measures, e.g. closure of redundant army bases.
• Police reform. Undertaken by the Patten Commission (1998-1999).
• Equality of social, economic and cultural rights of all ethnic communities e.g. official recognition of the Irish and Ulster-Scots languages as equal to English.

See anything in there about religion?

If The Troubles were about religion, why aren't the Catholics and Protestants in the ROI or on mainland UK fighting each other tooth and nail?

[Monique]

Doofy,

First, the reason why you are paying for social security, is that during the depression hundred of thousand of people old and young were starving and living on the streets. Rich people were never giving enough to help, even though they were living in opulence and saying that the poor should be left to rot in gutters. Thank God, some people decided it should not be like that, it was the duty of all of the society to take care of others. How rich are you to bi... so much about giving a few dollars to others? Would you give the same amount of money to charities?

Hitler, even if you do not want to, was from the right, facism is a right wing dictatorship. What you describe as individual policies of today are center right.

Tipper Gore is a democrat conservative there is not doubt about this one.

Uriel,

Which book is more true in the Bible the New or Old Testament??

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, you're completely wrong.

Did the Belfast Agreement ban Catholicism and Protestantism? No, it did not. I'll refresh your memory:



See anything in there about religion?

If The Troubles were about religion, why aren't the Catholics and Protestants in the ROI or on mainland UK fighting each other tooth and nail?

Oh come on. The conflict in Northern Ireland and religion are linked for sure. Now, I agree that the religious dispute originated in politics, but it is still there. The ruling English 'invaders' were predominantly CoE, i.e Protestant, the native Irish were Catholics.

Over time the boundaries between one's political stance and one's religion have become muddled, to such a degree that attacks based purely on the victims religion were commonplace.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

That's besides the point. He held a large number of socially conservative views.

Most of his views were not however. He was a tyrant. Not a conservative.

How many would she have to hold to consider her having conservative values (note, there is a difference between being a conservative and being conservative, IMO)?

I would say in order to be labeled such most of your beliefs would have to fall under conservatism. Hers do not.

So if somebody said, – yes, I kill Jews, yes I have sex with children, yes I'm for calling African Americans racial slurs and I know it's wrong, but I believe that Christ is my saviour and he died on the cross for my sins" they'd still be Christian?

Very interesting.

More like "I am doing these things, I know it's wrong, and I can't control it myself, please help me" And then not do it anymore.

Oh, you're already on that slippry slope.

You obviously don't know what the slippery slope is.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Nicko

I think there are some of those aftermentioned christian nuts in this thread

Just like there are some bigoted people making hateful comments.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Most of his views were not however. He was a tyrant. Not a conservative.

Hitler was a tyrant who held quite a few conservative values (much more so than marxist or even liberal). Look up the phrase "Deutsche Tugenden" and tell me that that isn't directly related to conservative thinking.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I would say in order to be labeled such most of your beliefs would have to fall under conservatism. Hers do not.

What kind of social and personal beliefs does she hold that are explicitly notconservative?

Originally Posted by Kevin

More like "I am doing these things, I know it's wrong, and I can't control it myself, please help me" And then not do it anymore.

What if they don't stop, but still think it's wrong?

Originally Posted by Kevin

You obviously don't know what the slippery slope is.

Yes, I do. And your definition of what it is to be a 'true Christian' is the fasted slippry slope into complete moral hypocrasy I've ever seen.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Hitler was a tyrant who held quite a few conservative values (much more so than marxist or even liberal). Look up the phrase "Deutsche Tugenden" and tell me that that isn't directly related to conservative thinking.

Ebuddy already debunked the whole Hitler was a conservative thing. Read up.

What kind of social and personal beliefs does she hold that are explicitly notconservative?

I only know of ONE socially conservative belief she holds was:

In 1984, she co-founded the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) because she heard her 12-year-old daughter playing "Darling Nikki" by Prince. Critics of the PMRC, including Jello Biafra and Frank Zappa, have accused the PMRC of conducting public and under-the-table censorship campaigns against various recording artists and have pointed out the PMRC's ties to the American religious right.

You have any others?

What if they don't stop, but still think it's wrong?

Again it depends on what is in your heart. Your intentions. Something that cant be hidden. IF you do it thinking "oh well, I can ask for forgiveness later" I would say that wasn't covered. If you have good intentions and lose control and do something you weren't supposed to, and actually felt bad about doing so, knowing it was wrong, and actually WANT to stop doing it, then that is a different story.

Yes, I do. And your definition of what it is to be a 'true Christian' is the fasted slippry slope into complete moral hypocrasy I've ever seen.

No, you simply don't get it. You don't WANT to get it. So you never will. Unless your motivations change.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Oh come on. The conflict in Northern Ireland and religion are linked for sure. Now, I agree that the religious dispute originated in politics, but it is still there. The ruling English 'invaders' were predominantly CoE, i.e Protestant, the native Irish were Catholics.

Sure, there's a slight religious aspect to it - but religion ain't the cause. It ain't even the dividing line (there are some Protestant Nationalists and some Catholic Unionists).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique

Doofy,

First, the reason why you are paying for social security, is that during the depression hundred of thousand of people old and young were starving and living on the streets. Rich people were never giving enough to help, even though they were living in opulence and saying that the poor should be left to rot in gutters. Thank God, some people decided it should not be like that, it was the duty of all of the society to take care of others.

I've heard evidence that the poor people of my country were actually better off healthcare-wise before the NHS was introduced than after it. What used to happen was that hospitals were altruistically funded by rich folks. Apparently the system worked much, much better than the NHS.

Originally Posted by Monique

How rich are you to bi... so much about giving a few dollars to others? Would you give the same amount of money to charities?

None of your business how rich I am.

It's not the giving money to charities which I'm whining about. It's not the giving a few quid to help out others. It's the being forced to do it by the government that I don't like.

I'm currently making plans to move to somewhere where I'm not liable to pay tax. But what I will actually do once there is work out what my tax would have been and give it to institutions which I deem fit to be worthy of my "tax dollar" (i.e. hospitals, schools, police).

Originally Posted by Monique

Hitler, even if you do not want to, was from the right, facism is a right wing dictatorship. What you describe as individual policies of today are center right.

Nope. Fascism generally arises from the left, not the right. The true right simply doesn't believe in the mechanisms which allow fascism to flourish.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Nope. Fascism generally arises from the left, not the right. The true right simply doesn't believe in the mechanisms which allow fascism to flourish.

I can see your point, although in the US this is no longer true, as the true right (i.e. Libertarian wing) doesn't really exist anymore in political representation.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Monique

Doofy,

First, the reason why you are paying for social security, is that during the depression hundred of thousand of people old and young were starving and living on the streets. Rich people were never giving enough to help, even though they were living in opulence and saying that the poor should be left to rot in gutters. Thank God, some people decided it should not be like that, it was the duty of all of the society to take care of others. How rich are you to bi... so much about giving a few dollars to others? Would you give the same amount of money to charities?

Hitler, even if you do not want to, was from the right, facism is a right wing dictatorship. What you describe as individual policies of today are center right.

Tipper Gore is a democrat conservative there is not doubt about this one.

Uriel,

Which book is more true in the Bible the New or Old Testament??

I can't find any evidence or documentation that describes any starvation deaths during the "great depression". I'm sure there were some deaths related to lack of food - but that figure couldn't be any more than a few hundred, at best.

The great depression had many causes, but it was basically the result of widespread borrowing (credit) by Americans - who had no savings. Sounds familiar.

What I did find is a photo of FDR signing the "Social Security" (name was originally Economic Security Act) act into law in August 1935.



Note that there are 18 people in the picture. Guess how many are liberal Democrats? Yup, all 18.

So, Monique, it was impossible for Social Security to "save lives of poor old folks" because the first recipient didn't get a payout until 1937 - and initially the payout was given as a *single* lump sum which was less than $1. The very first recipient received 17 cents.

It would have been well after the great depression ended before any significant Social Security proceeds were distributed to Americans.

[ghporter]

I think the more appropriate term is "Progressive Democrats." "Liberal" Democrats at the time were pretty close to being what we'd call Socialists. I LIKE Progressives, because they are explicitly for change-change for the better.

<begin rant>Today's "Liberal Democrats" are only for change toward their rigid, idiological point of view, which is NOT anything like what FDR was for. FDR and his supporters figured people could handle their own affairs, but that the job of Government (note the capital 'G') was to keep the field level and to make sure that the big guy didn't run over the little guy. Today's idiologically-oriented Liberal Democrats seem to think that people can't handle anything themselves, and government (yes, the small 'g' is intentional) should do all of that for them, patting their little stupid heads and smiling blandly while managing their whole lives.<end rant>

But back to Social Security. It's never been supposed to be a "retirement plan," but instead it's supposed to be a safety net. Even when it was envisioned, it was only supposed to keep people from being completely destitute. I don't know where people got the notion that they could stop working and live in their accustomed lifestyle on Social Security benefits alone...

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I think the more appropriate term is "Progressive Democrats." "Liberal" Democrats at the time were pretty close to being what we'd call Socialists. I LIKE Progressives, because they are explicitly for change-change for the better.

<begin rant>Today's "Liberal Democrats" are only for change toward their rigid, idiological point of view, which is NOT anything like what FDR was for. FDR and his supporters figured people could handle their own affairs, but that the job of Government (note the capital 'G') was to keep the field level and to make sure that the big guy didn't run over the little guy. Today's idiologically-oriented Liberal Democrats seem to think that people can't handle anything themselves, and government (yes, the small 'g' is intentional) should do all of that for them, patting their little stupid heads and smiling blandly while managing their whole lives.<end rant>

But back to Social Security. It's never been supposed to be a "retirement plan," but instead it's supposed to be a safety net. Even when it was envisioned, it was only supposed to keep people from being completely destitute. I don't know where people got the notion that they could stop working and live in their accustomed lifestyle on Social Security benefits alone...

Good points. I stand corrected on the 'liberal' vs 'progressive' Democrat thing. Only *some* of the folks in the picture could be called 'liberal'. Still, in my mind, there is scant little difference.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Fascism generally arises from the left, not the right.

Wooohooooo, errr NO.

You hardly ever get authoritarian, nationalist and 'law and order' type of governments from the left (Sorry, I have to edit this. Of course Stalinist and Communist regimes are all about the things I mentioned here. In this case with left I mean 'liberal', social democratic etc.).

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the core of fascist ideology isn't an anti-individualist stance (though this is a part of all dictatorial ideologies), but a unchecked zeal for authoritarianism (especially in regards to crime and punishment), rule by brute force and NATIONALISM.

I can understand how you want to justify neo-conservativism, and want to set it up as the champion of freedom and progressive thinking. But in the end it is just another authoritarian ideology, - one which has more in common with fascism, than liberalism, social democracy, or even marxism (even if the 'left' does share the 'socialist' aspect with fascism).

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Good points. I stand corrected on the 'liberal' vs 'progressive' Democrat thing. Only *some* of the folks in the picture could be called 'liberal'. Still, in my mind, there is scant little difference.

So what's your alternative? Private charity?

[Monique]

And private charity alone does not work.

[chris v]

"Every man for himself" is a suck-ass ethos. Why do we band together in societies, if not for the common good?

[Toutgood]

God Bless Libertaria

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Monique

And private charity alone does not work.

It worked quite well for the first 165 years in America.

Better than "public charity" is working today.

Churches and communities used to help those in need.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the core of fascist ideology isn't an anti-individualist stance (though this is a part of all dictatorial ideologies), but a unchecked zeal for authoritarianism (especially in regards to crime and punishment), rule by brute force and NATIONALISM.

Ummm... How can one have any authoritarianism and brute force rule under system which doesn't believe in giving the government the tools to do so?

Oh... ...and nationalism isn't a prerequisite for fascism. That's just one of the comforting little lies which lefties tell themselves to justify their beliefs to themselves.

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

I can understand how you want to justify neo-conservativism, and want to set it up as the champion of freedom and progressive thinking.

Wrong. I'm not a neo-con. I'm a minarchist.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique

And private charity alone does not work.

There's historical evidence* to suggest that it does.

(* not online, so don't bother asking for a link)

Originally Posted by chris v

"Every man for himself" is a suck-ass ethos. Why do we band together in societies, if not for the common good?

Why are you equating "no forced charity" (i.e. tax -> social security) with "every man for himself"? Is it because if the government didn't force you to pay for social security you wouldn't bother helping poor folks out?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It worked quite well for the first 165 years in America.

Better than "public charity" is working today.

Churches and communities used to help those in need.

It worked very poorly for 165 years. It worked for people the folks in the church knew, people on their block, people who "looked like them." But kids in Appalacha starved BEFORE the Depression. People of color couldn't afford (and weren't allowed) to shop in nice stores or live in nice neighborhoods. The economic situation was very bad for anyone who wasn't white and Protestant. It wasn't until the Depression that it became clear that private charity was fast drying up and nobody was going to get any help that the thought of a social safety net was seriously considered.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Ummm... How can one have any authoritarianism and brute force rule under system which doesn't believe in giving the government the tools to do so?

Oh whoo, wait a second here. We were talking about which ideology most often serves (or better yet, historically has served) as a 'starting point' for fascism.

A limited role of the govt. hasn't always playd a central theme to conservative (and definetly not rightist) ideology (again, your 'minarchist' bias).

And as long as the govt. controls the military/police and has the 'monopoly on force', it will always have the tools to enforce authoritarianism. Unless you are suggesting a system, in which the 'executive' forces aren't controlled by the govt. - which is a whole other can of worms all together.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Oh... ...and nationalism isn't a prerequisite for fascism.

Oh yes it is! By just about any and every definition I've ever read.

A recent definition that has attracted much favorable comment is that by Robert O. Paxton:

* "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." (Anatomy of Fascism, p 218)

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He said in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:

"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

Originally Posted by Doofy

Wrong. I'm not a neo-con. I'm a minarchist.

Sorry, I should be a little bit more discerning. I usually subsumize all 'minimal govt.' , and social darwinistic ideologies (like objectivism, Libertarianism, neo-liberalism etc.) under the term neo-conservativism.

[itistoday]

Woah. Sorry for jumping in on this here very serious and important discussion, but something caught my eye:

Originally Posted by Kevin

besson I am a libertarian because I believe in free will.

You're a libertarian??? Since when?? I'm a libertarian! (On most issues at least). How can you be a libertarian and support Bush, anti-abortion, wars, etc.?

And Doofy: Fascism by definition is as right as you can get.

[Doofy]

...

Originally Posted by Oswald Mosley, British Union of Fascists

“I am not, and never have been, a man of the right."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Fascism by definition is as right as you can get.

Did the bumper sticker you got this notion from happen to include the definition?

You might know the lines that divide left from right are blurred today more than ever. The term right originated from those in defense of the monarchy literally seated on the right at assembly. They were seated firmly in favor of status quo. "Right" generally means in favor of traditional values (often Christian) and in support of capitalism over socialism or communism and favor the status quo in general. You've provided no definition of fascism as I have and you've not indicated how the ideology is "right" by any stretch of the use of the term today. I have however provided a definition and indicated with each point why the ideology is in fact "leftist".

This is generally where you'd make your quiet exit. I know... you're busy.

Goodbye itistoday, until tomorrow...err... maybe the next day.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Why are you equating "no forced charity" (i.e. tax -> social security) with "every man for himself"? Is it because if the government didn't force you to pay for social security you wouldn't bother helping poor folks out?

ya know, in elementary school they'd educate you on painfully simple concepts like the difference between giving a man a fish and teaching a man how to fish. Both of them require teamwork and collective effort. One enables the needy in creating a dependancy class and the other empowers the needy in creating a future teacher of others.

It is not until we reach the Institutions of higher learning that we truly lose our common sense. Afterall, drama was always more fun than economics.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The term right originated from those in defense of the monarchy literally seated on the right at assembly. They were seated firmly in favor of status quo.

and what were the people on the left arguing for?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You've provided no definition of fascism…

Just for you ebuddy, I'll re-post the definition (by non-other than Mussolini himself (I even highlighted the important parts)):

"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Just for you ebuddy, I'll re-post the definition (by non-other the Mussolini himself (I even highlighted the important parts)):

Right then. What was Mussolini doing hanging out with Mosley if they're from opposite ends of the spectrum? Could it be that Mussolini, like all lefties, didn't actually know what he was on about?

[Mastrap]

You really have a habit of making excellent points, then devaluing them with blanket statements. What's up with that?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

and what were the people on the left arguing for?

Something entirely different than the status quo obviously.

The "right" simply means in favor of status quo. This is why the term "conservative" is often used in conjunction. This does not mean the "right" favors monarchy, it means the "right" is viewed and used in context today to mean conserving status quo.

You knew this right?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Just for you ebuddy, I'll re-post the definition (by non-other than Mussolini himself (I even highlighted the important parts)):

If we're going to allow "people" to define ideology, than really Hitler himself was neither right nor left, but in fact Darwinist?

I posted a literal definition of fascism and illustrated how each point of the literal definition matches closely with the socialist notions found prominently among the left. Keep trying.