If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
G.R. Patterson III wrote:
NPR recently interviewed a U.S. Army General (retired). IIRC, it was "Stormin' Norman". When asked about this incident, he said basically the same thing. He stated that, when he was younger, he had been prone to make rapid decisions, and they were almost always inferior to those he would have made had he thought about them for a while. I'm no fan of Bush, but I think this particular issue is a little silly. Isn't there some old story about an old airline pilot and a young examiner of some sort where an emergency is "caused" and the pilot's immediate step is to wind a watch, or some such? "I ain't never killed nobody winding a watch" was the punchline. - Andrew |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Peter
Gottlieb" wrote: Do I think we are better off than we were 4 years ago? No. Does the current administration seem to have a clear plan to improve things? No. Therefore, time for change. any change? or change for the better? -- Bob Noel Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal" oh yeah baby. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Ash Wyllie wrote:
Martin Hotze opined "Ash Wyllie" wrote: Weren't you the guys that with the Hungarians conquered a large chunk of Europe? we conquered half of the world. Anybody checked Bush's ancestry? Yes, he's just a son of a Bush. Ducking, Brian. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
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. Overall, using strictly an economic measure, Fascism was neither left nor right, but somewhere slightly right of center. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Overall, using strictly an economic measure, Fascism was neither left nor right, but somewhere slightly right of center. Irrelevant. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... Brian Burger wrote: They aren't mutually exclusive, the larger one (freedom of...) should automatically include the detailed one (freedom from...). Of course. The set of subsets of any set includes the empty set. 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. 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. This thread reminds of a joke over on a humor news group: Can you imagine what would have happened if Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie had children? Jackson is a Jehovah's Witness. Lisa Marie is an agnostic. Their kids would have gone around knocking on doors for no reason whatsoever. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
David CL Francis wrote:
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 In essence, they suggest using left - right strictly to describe the economic policies, and they superimpose a second dimension that measures the degree of authoritarianism. Therefore, you can have authoritarian or libertarian governments at either extreme of the economic spectrum. The above web site also has an interesting test, where you can evaluate your own views to see how they would fit into their definition, and compare the result to many past and current political leaders. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
C J Campbell wrote:
If the dictionary says that Nazism, which promotes political change and which believes it promotes greater freedom and the well being of the common man is a right wing philosophy, then it contradicts itself. Nazism was the antithesis of what you describe above. It was very authoritarian, opposed to individual freedom in deference to the power of the state, and believe in forced suppression of any opposition. While it might have seemed that they promoted political change, they change they wanted was a return to more traditional morals, which was a conservative philosophy. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
C J Campbell wrote:
James Robinson wrote: C J Campbell wrote: If the dictionary says that Nazism, which promotes political change and which believes it promotes greater freedom and the well being of the common man is a right wing philosophy, then it contradicts itself. That's your definition of Nazism, not what it acutally was. http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index...-wing_politics "Nazis opposed individualism and laissez faire capitalism, vigorous opposition to international socialism was a founding and continuing tenet of Nazi fascism." Try these sources for why others label Fascism as right wing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing "... fascism is almost universally considered to be a part of "the right"." "Like other forms, it arose in antithesis to the agenda of leftists, Communists, and Socialists." http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html "Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties." "Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three." http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Right-wing "... fascism and communism share much in common, and this is to be expected since they are the most extreme forms of conservatism, fascism being of the right, and communism being of the left." 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. I provided links to them to show that Nazism is considered by most to be a right wing political philosophy. Some suggest it is slightly right of center, because of their economic policies and opposition to socialism, and others suggest far more to the right, considering their strong authoritarianism and political conservatism. Few suggest it is left of center. Your discomfort with the definitions is perhaps based on the fact that the single dimensional characteristic of "left" and "right" as a political description is simply inadequate to describe all the complexities of politics. You are free to make up your own, but until the mainstream accepts a diverging definition, then it is useless. The original definition of left-right was intended to separate those who wanted change, i.e. abolition of the French monarchy, from those who wanted to keep things as they were. The overtones of that definition still remain today with "liberal" and "conservative." Over time, the definitions evolved to include an economic description, where left described socialism, and right a more laisez faire economy. Others suggest the economic distinction is more an emphasis of person vs property. Today, this is probably the most important definition of left and right. Superimposed on this is how authoritarian the government is. Harking back to the original definition of left-right, many people connect authoritarianism with the right, since this was a tendency of monarchies. Further, pretty well every government that has had right leaning economic policies has been authoritarian to some extent or other. That said, there is no question that there have been very authoritarian left wing governments, Stalinism comes to mind as an example. Thus, the concept of how authoritarian or liberal a government tends to be is an entirely separate concept from the traditional definitions of left and right. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aluminum differences | Lou Parker | Home Built | 16 | August 25th 04 06:48 PM |
Differences between Garmin 295 and 196? | carlos | Owning | 17 | January 29th 04 08:55 PM |
differences in loc/dme and loc with dme appch at KRUT? | Richard Hertz | Instrument Flight Rules | 19 | January 25th 04 07:49 PM |
Differences in models of Foster500 loran | Ray Andraka | Owning | 1 | September 3rd 03 10:47 PM |
question: differences between epoxy layup and plaster | Morgans | Home Built | 3 | August 6th 03 04:46 AM |