[Kerrigan]

The last few elections have seen the usual round of unpatriotic chatter from democrats, proclaiming that they will flee the US and live in Canada or Belgium or some other such place if a republican takes the White House. Well, what are you supposedly going to do this time around if McCain wins?

Of course, some take the whole matter even further, and allow politics to affect their mental well-being.

I have a leftist friend (yes, I have a number of those) who had a mental breakdown after Bush was re-elected. This was no laughing matter. He was an Ivy League student who ran a polemical anti-Bush blog, and his mind constantly revolved around opposition to the Bush administration's policies. He had such strong opposition to the war in Iraq that a sense of moral urgency to undermine Bush's re-election became the organizing principle of his life. Shortly after Bush won in 04, he slipped into a state of despondency, flunked most of his classes, became unable to function in everyday life, shirked getting a job, and allowed debt collectors to hound him and compound his sense of despair.

It is a genuinely tragic story, and it has quite a lot to do with his level of brilliance (the cleverer you are, the more likely it is that something will push you off the deep end). Luckily, none of you are that brilliant so you will not come to the same fate he did, but I'm sure at least a few of you here are contemplating some ridiculous act of rebellion if McCain is elected. Care to share?

[BRussell]

Maybe I'll regularly post bitter troll threads on MacNN against those with different political beliefs than mine. Nah, I'd never sink to that level.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

The last few elections have seen the usual round of unpatriotic chatter from democrats, proclaiming that they will flee the US and live in Canada or Belgium or some other such place if a republican takes the White House. Well, what are you supposedly going to do this time around if McCain wins?

Of course, some take the whole matter even further, and allow politics to affect their mental well-being.

I have a leftist friend (yes, I have a number of those) who had a mental breakdown after Bush was re-elected. This was no laughing matter. He was an Ivy League student who ran a polemical anti-Bush blog, and his mind constantly revolved around opposition to the Bush administration's policies. He had such strong opposition to the war in Iraq that a sense of moral urgency to undermine Bush's re-election became the organizing principle of his life. Shortly after Bush won in 04, he slipped into a state of despondency, flunked most of his classes, became unable to function in everyday life, shirked getting a job, and allowed debt collectors to hound him and compound his sense of despair.

It is a genuinely tragic story, and it has quite a lot to do with his level of brilliance (the cleverer you are, the more likely it is that something will push you off the deep end). Luckily, none of you are that brilliant so you will not come to the same fate he did, but I'm sure at least a few of you here are contemplating some ridiculous act of rebellion if McCain is elected. Care to share?

So is it unpatriotic when I've heard Republicans say the same thing about Kerry or Obama?

Your infantile partisan provocations are so transparent they're not worth responding to.

[Atomic Rooster]

I'm headin' to Zimbabwe. At least it's peaceful and democratic.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

So is it unpatriotic when I've heard Republicans say the same thing about Kerry or Obama?
.

links please?
You are talking about someone high profile correct? Its not like your loser best friend who spat that out while you two were taking pulls off a bottle of courvoisier?

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Of course, some take the whole matter even further, and allow politics to affect their mental well-being.

I have a leftist friend (yes, I have a number of those) who had a mental breakdown after Bush was re-elected. This was no laughing matter. He was an Ivy League student who ran a polemical anti-Bush blog, and his mind constantly revolved around opposition to the Bush administration's policies. He had such strong opposition to the war in Iraq that a sense of moral urgency to undermine Bush's re-election became the organizing principle of his life. Shortly after Bush won in 04, he slipped into a state of despondency, flunked most of his classes, became unable to function in everyday life, shirked getting a job, and allowed debt collectors to hound him and compound his sense of despair.

I remember seeing a TV documentary (actually called "Lefties") which told of a chick back in the 70s who went all the way and topped herself because Labour didn't win something or other.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

It is a genuinely tragic story, and it has quite a lot to do with his level of brilliance (the cleverer you are, the more likely it is that something will push you off the deep end).

I don't believe that for a moment. Properly intelligent people don't vote for leftist parties.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

I don't believe that for a moment. Properly intelligent people don't vote for leftist parties.

I understand you are just being "edgy," but study after study has shown that, at least in the US, liberals are statistically more intellengent than conservatives. Here's one:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...wed-storylevel

As the "left" (although truly these lables have become pretty much useless in the UK- Cameron wants us to hug hoodies and Blair was the hawk with Jesus as his co-pilot) in the UK is more traditionally aligned with the working classes, this may not be the case in the UK.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

links please?
You are talking about someone high profile correct? Its not like your loser best friend who spat that out while you two were taking pulls off a bottle of courvoisier?

I think this is not as prevalent as it used to be. Conservatives have realised there is nowhere they can reasonably go in the civilized world that agrees with their world view anymore.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I understand you are just being "edgy,"

Nope. I genuinely believe that lefties are pretty damn stupid.

Here's a quick example: Most "intelligent" lefties seem to believe (and this is the reason they vote that way) that a leftist government will bring them more freedom - when history has shown time and time again that this simply isn't the case. All left-wing policies require government oppression in one form or another.
When the leftist government gets into power and starts acting like a leftist government, those supposedly intelligent people who voted them in almost always start bleating something like "now they're in power they're acting like fascists!". Observe how the hardcore lefties accuse NuLabour of acting like the Tories. Observe the same thing about a year after Lula was voted in in Brazil. Happens all the time.
And it's not the leftie governments acting more like right-wingers - it's simply down to the fact that lefties don't seem to understand that their own politics always bring oppression, not freedom.
So the lefties, not realising it's their own policies which cause this oppression, try to free themselves by voting for someone even more left-wing. Which then causes even more problems because they're even more left-wing so bring even more oppression.

I genuinely believe that if most lefties were intelligent enough to realise what effects their utopian policies cause when put into practice in real life, they'd pretty much all start voting libertarian.

Originally Posted by Paco500 

but study after study has shown that, at least in the US, liberals are statistically more intellengent than conservatives.

And who, exactly, are these studies usually conducted by?

[Horsepoo!!!]

I'd flee the US right now...it doesn't matter who wins. The US is screwed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I understand you are just being "edgy," but study after study has shown that, at least in the US, liberals are statistically more intellengent than conservatives. Here's one:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...wed-storylevel

The conclusion of the study is that "their brains may work differently". The only interpretations I'm seeing that one is "smarter" than the other are from the predictable players who've co-authored other such widely debunked studies as "rebellious siblings". A study of 34 college students (26 "liberals" and 8 "conservatives". Apparently conservatives decided on the highly scientific sampling.) in a test which is simply measuring knee-jerk reactions (hitting a key on a keyboard) to visual stimuli? The "conservatives" made 44 errors, the "liberals" made 33? Seriously? Yeah. As you might have guessed, some problems with the study;
One critique
Another critique

Why is it the one to tout the intellectual superiority of liberals is invariably, the least qualified to do so?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Nope. I genuinely believe that lefties are pretty damn stupid.

Here's a quick example: Most "intelligent" lefties seem to believe (and this is the reason they vote that way) that a leftist government will bring them more freedom - when history has shown time and time again that this simply isn't the case. All left-wing policies require government oppression in one form or another.

It's even worse than this. Too often, they can't qualify their logic from one issue to the next. In one breath they'll rail on the evils of the military industrial complex, privacy invasion, deceit, corruption, incompetence, wasteful spending, etc... and in the next breath they're suggesting we give them our health care, carbon credit, and because they've been such good stewards of their fiscal responsibilities; even more of our tax dollar.

Super-geniuses the whole lot of 'em.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

I genuinely believe that if most lefties were intelligent enough to realise what effects their utopian policies cause when put into practice in real life, they'd pretty much all start voting libertarian.

And here is the rub. All political ideologies have this problem. For every example of a leftist “utopia” gone horribly wrong, a corollary right-wing utopia can be cited that suffered from equally catastrophic results. It’s true in the extremes as well as the more mainstream cases. Many liberals were outraged at Clinton’s welfare reforms and the widening of the gap between the wealthy and the poor and an equal number of conservatives are outraged at the out of control public spending and erosion of civil liberties under Bush. The real world and global politics are messy and there are always unintended consequences.

I in many ways agree with libertarian ideals, but am cynical enough to believe a libertarian utopia would be as successful as the rest. Right now the Republican platform seems to be anchored on pandering to the reactionary religious right-wing of the party and the promise of lower taxes. The former does not fit with libertarian ideals and the second, while appealing on its face, falls apart as my own self-interest comes into it. I am willing to pay higher taxes if, in the end, I end up with more money in my pocket. I think the long term effects of “staying the course” with Bush’s policies will mean a further weakening of the economy and, regardless of how much I pay in taxes, I will be less well off. I know I’m not living in the US, but a good bit of my money is.

It’s like moving to the UK. I am paying substantially more in taxes as a percentage than I would have back home. But I’m earning so much more that it’s worth it.

Finally, I don’t think there ever will be, at least on a large scale, even an attempt at a libertarian utopia. For one, there is too little incentive for those in power, whatever their political persuasion, to cede power to the individual.

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

And who, exactly, are these studies usually conducted by?

Liberal's of course. Conservatives have a go at them every now and again but always end up abandoning the enterprise once WWE smackdown comes on.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The conclusion of the study is that "their brains may work differently".

I actually came up with a theory for this the other day.

As you will be aware, there's a branch of spectrum disorder which deals with sensory integration - that is, how well the five senses are adjusted to the outside world. People who are "off" in their sense calibration are said to have Sensory Integration Disorder - either their senses are hyposensitive or hypersensitive. I have a form of this myself - hypersensitive hearing.

I believe that everyone is somewhere along the hypo-hyper line in the way that their senses function - most people are not on the centre-line, meaning that there's really no such thing as "normal".

Now, it seems to correlate that conservatives are on the "hyper" side of this line, while liberals are on the "hypo" side - since liberals always tend to seek out new stimulation via change and conservatives don't.

This is a new theory and that's about as far as I've gotten. But it seems to hold true for now - and does, in fact, indicate that libs' and conservatives' brains may be different.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why is it the one to tout the intellectual superiority of liberals is invariably, the least qualified to do so?

Damn, I never thought about it like that. I AM an idiot! Thanks for pointing that out!

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

I actually came up with a theory for this the other day...

Now, it seems to correlate that conservatives are on the "hyper" side of this line, while liberals are on the "hypo" side - since liberals always tend to seek out new stimulation via change and conservatives don't.

Interesting theory, but I'm not sure it squares with evidence. There is a natural progression towards hyposensitivity with age. If your theory was correct, we should see poeple becoming more liberal as they age, while we know, gnerally, the reverse is true.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Interesting theory, but I'm not sure it squares with evidence. There is a natural progression towards hyposensitivity with age. If your theory was correct, we should see poeple becoming more liberal as they age, while we know, gnerally, the reverse is true.

The theory is mainly about how much information is absorbed by the individual. Those who're hyposensitive will not be receiving as much information as those who're hypersensitive - because the information isn't "loud enough" for them. And, of course, advancing age in any individual means more retained information and experience.

The theory assumes that the general nature of the individual matches his sense calibration. Back in 1997 I was thinking "the Labour Party are idiots" because the information about this was extremely "loud" to me - I was hypersensitive to it. But to most people the information wasn't loud enough, so we ended up with Blair. Now that the information is becoming excessively loud to everyone, most people seem to be waking up to the fact that the Labour Party are, in fact, idiots. The only people who're not woken up to this plain fact are those who're completely dulled and hyposensitive to the information hitting them on a daily basis.

Maybe someday I'll look into this theory a little more and write it all down. For now it's just the results of a standard bath-time "eureka!" moment.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Finally, I don’t think there ever will be, at least on a large scale, even an attempt at a libertarian utopia. For one, there is too little incentive for those in power, whatever their political persuasion, to cede power to the individual.

I hear ya.
It's all a bit that we allowed ourselves to get into this situation with our so-called "democracies", isn't it?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

The theory is mainly about how much information is absorbed by the individual. Those who're hyposensitive will not be receiving as much information as those who're hypersensitive - because the information isn't "loud enough" for them. And, of course, advancing age in any individual means more retained information and experience.

Maybe someday I'll look into this theory a little more and write it all down. For now it's just the results of a standard bath-time "eureka!" moment.

Ok, you lost me. I'm not sure if you are not explaining it very well or I'm just being dense- maybe I'm not as liberal as I thought.

Are you saying that the progression towards hyposensitivity that comes from age is counteracted by more retained information and experience? Therefore, although one's brain becomes more wired for liberal thought by age, experience causes them to become more conservative?

Most of the older people in my life seem to have an almost sub-conscious tendency towards conservative thought that is not necessarily expressed once engaged in thoughtful conversation. I do agree, however, that there seems to be something to the notion that liberals and conservatives think in fundamentally different ways. While I posted the above study about liberals being smarter than conservatives more than a little disingenuously to counter your knee-jerk “liberals are stupid” comment, there is an irrefutable tendency towards those in academia, science and the arts to have more (politically) liberal bent. There must be a reason for it.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I'm not sure if you are not explaining it very well

This is probably the case.

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Are you saying that the progression towards hyposensitivity that comes from age is counteracted by more retained information and experience? Therefore, although one's brain becomes more wired for liberal thought by age, experience causes them to become more conservative?

In a nutshell, yes.
I don't believe that people become more conservative as they grow older - simply more centrist. Of course, to someone who's spent their early years on the left, it'll look like they're getting more conservative.

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Most of the older people in my life seem to have an almost sub-conscious tendency towards conservative thought that is not necessarily expressed once engaged in thoughtful conversation.

See above. Centrist, not conservative.

Originally Posted by Paco500 

there is an irrefutable tendency towards those in academia, science and the arts to have more (politically) liberal bent. There must be a reason for it.

Yep. Lack of exposure to the real world. Essentially, lack of real-world information penetrating into their brains* and thus modifying their lofty utopia ideals.

(* and I'm not being agressive with that turn of phrase. I actually do mean "penetrating into their brains", since sensory dysfunction is not a fault of the sense organs themselves but rather a fault of the sense-to-brain interface. )

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

This is probably the case.
In a nutshell, yes.
I don't believe that people become more conservative as they grow older - simply more centrist. Of course, to someone who's spent their early years on the left, it'll look like they're getting more conservative.

But that does not describe me or my situation. I grew up in a very conservative home with a very conservative world view. I have grown more liberal (perhaps centrist) with age and experience- those older people in my life have always been conservative to my knowledge, but seem have to become much more dogmatic and reactionary with age.

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Yep. Lack of exposure to the real world. Essentially, lack of real-world information penetrating into their brains* and thus modifying their lofty utopia ideals.

(* and I'm not being agressive with that turn of phrase. I actually do mean "penetrating into their brains", since sensory dysfunction is not a fault of the sense organs themselves but rather a fault of the sense-to-brain interface. )

So wait- are you arguing nurture rather than nature now? Consistency man! And I should emphasize that I was not implying that liberals are more intelligent which is why they go into those fields, rather I think there is some consistency of thought between liberals and academics, artists and other Ivory Tower types. Likewise, most people I know in the military, law enforcement and finance tend to be conservative. While there is no doubt as people spend time in any of these fields there is an inclination to drift more towards the stereotypical world view, I think certain types of people are drawn to these fields in the first place.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

But that does not describe me or my situation. I grew up in a very conservative home with a very conservative world view. I have grown more liberal (perhaps centrist) with age and experience- those older people in my life have always been conservative to my knowledge, but seem have to become much more dogmatic and reactionary with age.

Well, I'll have to think on that. Like I said, the theory is just a "bored of thinking about whether Kim Kardashian's ass has its own gravitational pull and need to think of something else" bath-time moment.

Originally Posted by Paco500 

So wait- are you arguing nurture rather than nature now?

Nature, with nurture on top. It stands to reason that those of a certain nature are going to be inclined to be drawn to situations where their nature is accepted/emphasised and thus the nature becomes reinforced with nurture.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

links please?
You are talking about someone high profile correct? Its not like your loser best friend who spat that out while you two were taking pulls off a bottle of courvoisier?

Why aren't you ridiculing Kerrigan? His references were to personal friends and people on the board?

Hypocrisy abounds.

[Arkham_c]

I'm in a unique situation this election. In the past, I've generally voted Republican in presidential races. My views are for the most part along the lines of Libertarianism, but I've become painfully aware of the harsh reality that we have a two-party system, and not voting for one or the other means you're wasting your vote.

But in this election, the two candidates are the two I'd hoped for. McCain is a moderate. I know people who are really upset that he's the Republican candidate because he is moderate. He's been trying to make himself more appealing by taking more conservative positions, but in the end, he's a practical guy with practical ideas.

Obama is also an unconventional candidate. I think that even though the GOP wants to portray him as a super-liberal senator, it's not really sticking because it doesn't resonate with any truth. He's in favor of some degree of gun rights. He voted for that friggin' FISA. He's also a practical guy.

I think that I'm leaning toward Obama right now, but honestly, I think either candidate will be fine. I certainly didn't feel that way in the last two elections. I can't imagine why anyone would want to take the helm of the presidency right now, with two wars, a recession, a massive deficit, a weak dollar, and reduced civil liberties all facing the nation at once. I know I wouldn't, but then again, a great crisis requires a great leader. Let's hope one of these guys proves to be the leader we need.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Nope. I genuinely believe that lefties are pretty damn stupid.

Here's a quick example: Most "intelligent" lefties seem to believe (and this is the reason they vote that way) that a leftist government will bring them more freedom - when history has shown time and time again that this simply isn't the case. All left-wing policies require government oppression in one form or another.
When the leftist government gets into power and starts acting like a leftist government, those supposedly intelligent people who voted them in almost always start bleating something like "now they're in power they're acting like fascists!". Observe how the hardcore lefties accuse NuLabour of acting like the Tories. Observe the same thing about a year after Lula was voted in in Brazil. Happens all the time.
And it's not the leftie governments acting more like right-wingers - it's simply down to the fact that lefties don't seem to understand that their own politics always bring oppression, not freedom.
So the lefties, not realising it's their own policies which cause this oppression, try to free themselves by voting for someone even more left-wing. Which then causes even more problems because they're even more left-wing so bring even more oppression.

I genuinely believe that if most lefties were intelligent enough to realise what effects their utopian policies cause when put into practice in real life, they'd pretty much all start voting libertarian.

And who, exactly, are these studies usually conducted by?

You're not sounding too intelligent there yourself. "Lefties in power act like Fascists!"

But, wait, Fascists are on the...right? My god, maybe abuse of power has nothing to do with this simplistic political spectrum at all! Maybe it's just human nature!

Heavens-to-Betsy, what must this revelation be doing to your crude little world view? Probably not much, since it was based on self-serving delusions to begin with and those sorts of ideologies tend to be highly resistant to good sense.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The conclusion of the study is that "their brains may work differently". The only interpretations I'm seeing that one is "smarter" than the other are from the predictable players who've co-authored other such widely debunked studies as "rebellious siblings". A study of 34 college students (26 "liberals" and 8 "conservatives". Apparently conservatives decided on the highly scientific sampling.) in a test which is simply measuring knee-jerk reactions (hitting a key on a keyboard) to visual stimuli? The "conservatives" made 44 errors, the "liberals" made 33? Seriously? Yeah. As you might have guessed, some problems with the study;
One critique
Another critique

Why is it the one to tout the intellectual superiority of liberals is invariably, the least qualified to do so?

There have been a number of studies in the US that indicate that when it comes to American demographics, liberals tend to be better educated. That, though, is a far cry from "more intelligent."

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

There have been a number of studies in the US that indicate that when it comes to American demographics, liberals tend to be better educated. That, though, is a far cry from "more intelligent."

I know it's not politically correct to say so, but it's not that far a cry. People are drawn to what they do well. Just as that while not everyone that regularly participates in sport is naturally athletic, certainly the majority are. More intelligent people are more likely to excel at school and therefore voluntarily continue their education. Obviously this is a trend and not a hard and fast rule; lots of intelligent people never attended or dropped out of school and there are masses of well educated dolts. But to say there is no correlation is not being intellectually honest.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You're not sounding too intelligent there yourself. "Lefties in power act like Fascists!"

But, wait, Fascists are on the...right?

Fascists are on the left. Always have been. Always will be.
You're illustrating the aforementioned leftist delusion perfectly.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Heavens-to-Betsy, what must this revelation be doing to your crude little world view?

It's making my "crude little world view" more productive, thanks.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Probably not much, since it was based on self-serving delusions to begin with and those sorts of ideologies tend to be highly resistant to good sense.

You assume that this was based on "self-serving delusions". Show me your evidence that I didn't start from a neutral viewpoint.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

links please?
You are talking about someone high profile correct? Its not like your loser best friend who spat that out while you two were taking pulls off a bottle of courvoisier?

Stephen Baldwin On Fox News: If Obama Wins, I'll Leave The Country

[Uncle Doof]

Let's just have it once and for all.

All western righties should move to the US and have it large with McCain.
All western lefties should move to Europe and have it large with Obama.
All western independents should move to South American and have it large with Ron Paul.

Job done. How long will it take everyone to pack their bags?

[BRussell]

This thread is going exactly as it was intended.

[Arkham_c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Fascists are on the left. Always have been. Always will be. You're illustrating the aforementioned leftist delusion perfectly.

Just for the sake of pedantry, fascism is not on the left. Classically it was portrayed on the right, opposite of socialism on the left. Newer thoughts suggest that it's more of a "hard center". Here's a quote from Lameopedia:

The place of fascism in the political spectrum remains highly debated. In practice, fascism opposed communism and classic liberalism but also socialism and capitalism. Many scholars accept fascism as a search for a Third Way among these fields.

Fascism is what results when right-wing conservatism goes horribly wrong. You can see tinges of fascism in the Bush presidency, with every aid claiming executive privilege, with things like the "Patriot Act", with FISA. Almost no government aspires to fascism -- it's a symptom of government trying to gain or maintain power through nefarious and often immoral means.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Arkham_c 

Just for the sake of pedantry, fascism is not on the left. Classically it was portrayed on the right, opposite of socialism on the left. Newer thoughts suggest that it's more of a "hard center".

The only reason most people don't think it's on the left are because the people telling them that it's not on the left are on the left themselves and they don't want their side of the fence associated with the evils of fascism.

"Hard centre"? Load of crap by people who realise that it's on the left but don't want to admit it... "Doof is correct, fascism isn't far right at all, where can we put it so the left isn't tarnished? Ahh yes, the hard centre!".

[BRussell]

Everything that's bad is on the left by definition, Arkham. If it's universally considered to be on the right but turns out to be bad? You guessed it, on the left. If it starts out on the left and turns out well? It's on the right.

[Uncle Doof]

Make your own minds up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man...scist_Struggle

Politically, the Manifesto calls for:

- Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women;

- Proportional representation on a regional basis;

- Voting for women (which was opposed by most other European nations);

In labour and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:

- The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;

- A minimum wage;

- To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;

In finance, the Manifesto advocates:

- A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging a “partial expropriation” of concentrated wealth);

- The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;

So, Italian fascism supported the minimum wage, progressive taxation, unions.
Not exactly right-wing traits, are they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

7) We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

11) We demand the abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes.

13) We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14) We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15) We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

17) We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

18) We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

19) We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

21) The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

Again, not exactly right-wing traits, are they?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Make your own minds up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man...scist_Struggle



So, Italian fascism supported the minimum wage, progressive taxation, unions.
Not exactly right-wing traits, are they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program


Again, not exactly right-wing traits, are they?

You're looking for quibbles so that you can ignore the central facet of fascism: it is ultranationalistic.

Now, let's see, where can we find ultranationalistic tendencies in our political spectrum...hmmm, could it be the people who accuse others of not being patriotic enough?

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You're looking for quibbles so that you can ignore the central facet of fascism: it is ultranationalistic.

And that's the only real difference between fascism and socialism - fascism replaced the class struggle bit with nationalism. And socialism has recently replaced the class struggle bit with supranationalism.

It's all the same old crap, just packaged differently.

[lpkmckenna]

The terms left-wing and right-wing are meaningless words. It's pointless to argue whether fascists are left or right.

[Uncle Doof]

Oh...

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Now, let's see, where can we find ultranationalistic tendencies in our political spectrum...hmmm, could it be the people who accuse others of not being patriotic enough?

Funny that. The USA under the present administration sure doesn't look ultranationalistic. If it was, surely it'd be minding it's own business instead of poking its fat nose into other countries' affairs?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I know it's not politically correct to say so, but it's not that far a cry. People are drawn to what they do well. Just as that while not everyone that regularly participates in sport is naturally athletic, certainly the majority are. More intelligent people are more likely to excel at school and therefore voluntarily continue their education. Obviously this is a trend and not a hard and fast rule; lots of intelligent people never attended or dropped out of school and there are masses of well educated dolts. But to say there is no correlation is not being intellectually honest.

I think that's a far too narrow of view of what intelligence is, first of all. More importantly, though, your assertion ignores far too many other variables. Your logic could actually be used to justify the belief that blacks or Hispanics are not as intelligent as whites. Which members of a certain side of the political spectrum are sometimes known to argue. Those of us whose sympathies tend to lean in the other direction know, though, that to say something like that ignores a number of other variables that limit opportunities for various groups.

Another important variable here is urban and rural demographics. Rural populations are also much more likely to be conservative in this country, just as they are likely to be less educated. It's an important variable in all these figures and an important social divide in the United States that urban urbane folk tend to overlook.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Oh...



Funny that. The USA under the present administration sure doesn't look ultranationalistic. If it was, surely it'd be minding it's own business instead of poking its fat nose into other countries' affairs?

Um, do you not know what nationalism is? No wonder you're so lost.

Nationalism as an ideology is not about minding your own business. It's about domination.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The terms left-wing and right-wing are meaningless words. It's pointless to argue whether fascists are left or right.

And there's the other failover argument to prevent "the left" from being associated with fascism. Heard it before, I'll hear it again.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

And there's the other failover argument to prevent "the left" being associated with fascism. Heard it before, I'll hear it again.

You sure are earning your name today.

Listen a lot of arguments could be made about the inadequacy of the whole left-right spectrum when it comes to discussing fascism, but I've never heard of anyone with any sense arguing that it's leftist. What you see the last few years is some bizarre double-think revisionism from right-wing pundits trying to brand liberals as fascists, but it flies in the face of all sense as historical fascism and its literal definition are both anti-liberal.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Um, do you not know what nationalism is? No wonder you're so lost.

Nationalism as an ideology is not about minding your own business. It's about domination.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

Nationalism is a term referring to a doctrine[1] or political movement[2] which holds that a nation, usually defined in terms of ethnicity or culture, has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny

See? No mention of domination there - just something about a country wanting to be left alone to be its own country.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's even worse than this. Too often, they can't qualify their logic from one issue to the next. In one breath they'll rail on the evils of the military industrial complex, privacy invasion, deceit, corruption, incompetence, wasteful spending, etc... and in the next breath they're suggesting we give them our health care, carbon credit, and because they've been such good stewards of their fiscal responsibilities; even more of our tax dollar.

Super-geniuses the whole lot of 'em.

Whereas so many on the right use the words "freedom" and "liberty" and then proceed to have government tell us what is moral all while justifying extralegal violation of basic human rights.

If you ask me, this whole left-right spectrum is broken. It was too simplistic to begin with and it's only gotten worse as the political landscape has grown more complex. We should've listend to Washington.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism


See? No mention of domination there - just something about a country wanting to be left alone to be its own country.

Um, where do you get "left alone?"

Nationalism is *MY* nation first. Maybe if your knowledge of history extended beyond Wikipedia then you'd know what I meant. Do me a favor, go read some books and come back when you have the first inkling of what we're talking about here.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Listen a lot of arguments could be made about the inadequacy of the whole left-right spectrum when it comes to discussing fascism, but I've never heard of anyone with any sense arguing that it's leftist.

The founding documents of the two most famous forms of fascism are linked up there somewhere. Go and read them.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

What you see the last few years is some bizarre double-think revisionism from right-wing pundits trying to brand liberals as fascists

I don't listen to right-wing pundits. This is simply from my own observations.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

but it flies in the face of all sense as historical fascism and its literal definition are both anti-liberal.

Do you think that "historical fascism" would have gotten anywhere at all without the vote of the working class? Do you think that what was presented to the working class at that time was any different than what is being presented to you by your liberal parties today?

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Nationalism is *MY* nation first.

Indeed. But nationalists don't tend to deny other nations' rights to be their own nation. None of them want to dominate any others - they just want to be left alone.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Maybe if your knowledge of history extended beyond Wikipedia then you'd know what I meant. Do me a favor, go read some books and come back when you have the first inkling of what we're talking about here.

Oh yeah, that other leftie cliche... "You are unlearned moron!"

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Indeed. But nationalists don't tend to deny other nations' rights to be their own nation. None of them want to dominate any others - they just want to be left alone.

Oh yeah, that other leftie cliche... "You are unlearned moron!"

No, honestly, this is absurd. You sincerely don't understand Nationalism.

Nationalistic movements exist in one of two forms. They begin as an effort to define a nationalistic identity and amalgamate various territories under one nation-state. These movements, if successful, then graduate to domination of neighbors and other states for the greater glory of the mother state.

In Italy, nationalism led to the consolidation of a previously unheard of Italian state, which then sought military adventure abroad. In the United States, nationalism led to manifest destiny. In Nazi Germany, it led to the annexation of neighboring territory. I could go on and on and on.

Seriously, if you don't understand this, then you are "unlearned."

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

The founding documents of the two most famous forms of fascism are linked up there somewhere. Go and read them.



I don't listen to right-wing pundits. This is simply from my own observations.



Do you think that "historical fascism" would have gotten anywhere at all without the vote of the working class? Do you think that what was presented to the working class at that time was any different than what is being presented to you by your liberal parties today?

Let's take the classic example of fascism, the Nazi party in Germany. The Nazis galvanized public support from the working class in the same way the Republican party tries to today, by demonizing the left (it was communists for the Nazis) and by stoking nationalistic sentiment with appeals to traditional values (which you and your supporters have done in this very thread).

For the record, the liberalism I subscribe to is the big-L Liberalism and it is what leads me to be largely a Libertarian.

I just see clearly that most of the people on the right today are being manipulated through fear to support an agenda belonging to moneyed power structures in our society that have nothing to do with the values of liberty that should dominate our Liberal society.

To put it more colloquially: If you're not in that top 2% that now controls 50% of our wealth and you vote Republican, then you're getting played.