Do you believe there is a leftist bias

[Guest Some Guy]

But I really don't think they were trying to link American Conservatives with Communists. They often used words like "old-guard" and stuff like that.

The usuage of the word is misleading, whether intentional or not it is. "Communist" is just as easy to say as "Conservative" and is much more truthful.

[Guest JMA]

I'll have to agree with Tyler, American conservitism has some similarities to fascism. First, they believe the so-called "moral fiber" of a commuity should be "protected." Not to mention that a lot of them are Bible-thumpers who want America to based around their religion, which would be a theocracy. SG, did you just use the word "pinko"? Sounds like something Joe McCarthy would say.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'd like to preface this post with a word from Some Guy.

 

But I just blame liberals for everything, so what do i know?

 

Obviously, not too much.

 

Almost all of the news programs use the new color distintions, I think Fox News still uses the old one.

 

Prove it, and prove how this is even remotely relevent to anything.

 

If they did why can I so seldom get a straight answer or the truth out of them.

 

Just like we so seldomly get a straight answer on where those damned chemical weapons are.

 

See your own lies about taxes in the Bush thread adn thenm your admission of lying and then you going right back to lying after you had been defeated in a debate.

 

Bullshit.

 

EXAGGERATION DOES NOT EQUAL A LOSS, YOU IDIOT.

 

Oh em gee, I exaggerated and said all rich guys get off scot-free. Oh em gee, I retracted it because you took it literally.

 

TYL0R LOST DE DEBATE!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!

 

Uh, no.

 

Quite frankly, everyone and their God-damned mother knows rich people don't pay a quarter of the taxes the system tells them they technically should. They hide money overseas, and engage in other previously documented methods of asset concealment. Your best response to that was "Well, they pay more, so they should evade more."

 

Dur, great logic there!

 

I've never lost a debate to you, and I probably never will. Don't flatter yourself by giving yourself a victory when I conceded exaggeration; my point was, and still is, valid.

 

hat aspects of a police state would that be? Banning smoking without a vote?

 

No, but how about the establishment of TIA, which makes a huge fucking database on every American citizen, including surveillance information, wiretapping, internet usage, books you checked out from the library, purchases... the list goes on. This database will be available to... well, pretty much everyone. Gee, sounds like... a police state!

 

Funny how you ignored the whole point about TIA. CONCESSION, ANYONE?

 

Virtually locking people in their houses because of a snow storm and fining the shit out of anyone who dared drive (See the "Snowed in" thread)?

 

Wow, this one really registered on the "who gives a fuck?" meter. Explain how this relates to liberalism, you damned Rob Johnstone-esque topic changer.

 

Instead of quelling dissent by assinated the people the Dems assasinate their character (see Gingrich, Newt. Ashcroft, John. Bush, George W. etc...).

 

See Clinton, William Jefferson. Reno, Janet. Gore, Albert.

 

Jesus, I wasn't aware that attacking idiots like Ashcroft was a crime, though. Better stop, eh?

 

Ugh.

 

The huge taxes that the Dems want to levy on the producers of this country is very similar to those I've read Karl Marx blather about

 

This is beside the point, but gee... perhaps the fact that these people can afford this weighs into it. The whole idea of modern liberalism is that social goods should be created through programs and whatnot, and this needs funds... from where? Hey, the taxpayers look like a good source. Why not tax the people that can afford it? Hell, we give them enough loopholes around it.

 

Wow, so Karl Marx had a similar point. Gee, this one registers on that "who gives a fuck" meter again.

 

using those taxes to keep the poor at a level where they'll always need "Big Mother" The Democratic party and ensuring their power

 

Just like the Republicans keep Big Business at their teat.

 

Sounds similar to Communist dictators stealing their people's money and using it to keep them down and the leaders in power. Sounds similar to Saddam Hussien too.

 

Not even remotely close.

 

How is taxing your fucking citizens a show of "STEALING"? I thought you were a conservative, not a libertarian.

 

Ugh.

 

I take it back, you're just as bad as Rob.

[Guest LooseCannon]

But I really don't think they were trying to link American Conservatives with Communists.  They often used words like "old-guard" and stuff like that.

The usuage of the word is misleading, whether intentional or not it is. "Communist" is just as easy to say as "Conservative" and is much more truthful.

There are some good arguments for the existence of a liberal bias, but this whole calling communists conservative and switching the democrats color from red to blue argument is kind of dumb.

[Guest Some Guy]

But I really don't think they were trying to link American Conservatives with Communists.  They often used words like "old-guard" and stuff like that.

The usuage of the word is misleading, whether intentional or not it is. "Communist" is just as easy to say as "Conservative" and is much more truthful.

There are some good arguments for the existence of a liberal bias, but this whole calling communists conservative and switching the democrats color from red to blue argument is kind of dumb.

I'll concede the red/blue thing as a stretch but the conservative/Commie thing is not.

 

Dreamer, using "Pinko" is not McCarthy-esque, it's just a derogatory term for evil people.

[Guest Some Guy]

 

But I just blame liberals for everything, so what do i know?

 

 

Obviously, not too much.

 

When the fuck have I ever balmed Liberals for everything or anythiong that isn't at least in part their fault?

 

If they did why can I so seldom get a straight answer or the truth out of them.

 

 

Just like we so seldomly get a straight answer on where those damned chemical weapons are.

 

I think Powell and Bush have made their case pretty clearly about Saddam and his weapons. Finding weapons that are most likely very well hidden is not easy.

 

"What should do instead of using force to get rid of Saddam?"

 

Typical liberal answer

 

"Let the inspections work."

 

"Ok, how long should we wait and what should we do when if/when they find something?"

 

"Uhhhhhh........ WAR IS BAD!!!!!!! Innocent people will die!!!!!!!!"

 

"Aren't innocent people dying now under Saddam's dicatorship?"?

 

"Uhhhhhh...... WAR IS BAD!!!! BUSH JUST WANTS OIL!!!!!!!!!"

 

 

Bullshit.

 

EXAGGERATION DOES NOT EQUAL A LOSS, YOU IDIOT.

 

Oh em gee, I exaggerated and said all rich guys get off scot-free. Oh em gee, I retracted it because you took it literally.

 

TYL0R LOST DE DEBATE!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!

 

You did lose, you made no point. You exagerated greatly in order to further your false belief and then came up with tax evation as an excuse.

 

Quite frankly, everyone and their God-damned mother knows rich people don't pay a quarter of the taxes the system tells them they technically should. They hide money overseas, and engage in other previously documented methods of asset concealment. Your best response to that was "Well, they pay more, so they should evade more."

 

Dur, great logic there!

 

That's horseshit. Some rich people cheat on their taxes, just as poor people cheat on their's. The fact remains that rich people pay far and away the most taxes in this country. you can not argue against that. It is true. Some people cheat on their taxes, ok, so what?

 

I also never said that people "should evade more." I said that they are taxed too much and it is understandable that they do evade. I don't promote it, it is just the way it is.

 

No, but how about the establishment of TIA, which makes a huge fucking database on every American citizen, including surveillance information, wiretapping, internet usage, books you checked out from the library, purchases... the list goes on. This database will be available to... well, pretty much everyone. Gee, sounds like... a police state!

 

Funny how you ignored the whole point about TIA. CONCESSION, ANYONE?

 

I didn't concede anything. I was not aware of what "TIA" is. But if it is what you sya it is then the whole thing was started by FDR when he had everyone issued a Social Security number and I don't agree with this policy anyway so their you go.

 

Wow, this one really registered on the "who gives a fuck?" meter. Explain how this relates to liberalism, you damned Rob Johnstone-esque topic changer.

 

Did you read the thread? If so you read me explain what a Liberal Mike Dukakis did (banned driving for a week, banned private snow plowing, forced businesses to pay their employees who couldn't work because he wouldn't let them drive causing the employers to not only lose revenue becaus they couldn't run their businees but also to pay for work that wasn't done) during the "Blizard of '78" here in Boston and what Republican Mitt Romney did (said "if you have to drive be careful, but I suggest you don't). There is the relavaznce. Totalitarianism vs. freedom.

 

See Clinton, William Jefferson. Reno, Janet. Gore, Albert.

 

Jesus, I wasn't aware that attacking idiots like Ashcroft was a crime, though. Better stop, eh?

 

Clinton brought that on himself, maybe not as much as he got but he did do all that he was accused of. Reno got it bad because she's ugly, that wasn't fair, and I don't think Gore got shit on too much. The Internet thing is really all I can think of as a big slander campaign and he got a raw deal with that because he did recognize the internet and speak about it in the Senate when virtually no one else knew what it was. Happy?

 

I don't reallt agree with Ashcroft but I don't run around calling him an idiot, because he has done nothing that would indicate to me that he is stupid. His policies are often wrong but that doesn't make him stupid. I don't call call too many liberals stupid, most of them aren't, they're misguided.

 

This is beside the point, but gee... perhaps the fact that these people can afford this weighs into it. The whole idea of modern liberalism is that social goods should be created through programs and whatnot, and this needs funds... from where? Hey, the taxpayers look like a good source. Why not tax the people that can afford it? Hell, we give them enough loopholes around it.

 

Wow, so Karl Marx had a similar point. Gee, this one registers on that "who gives a fuck" meter again.

 

What gives you the right to say who can and who can't afford to be taxed heavily? Who made you God of of everyone's finacial matters? The problem is that you want to tax the hell out of these people and give them nothing in return. Robin Hood shit.

 

I take it back, you're just as bad as Rob.

 

In what fucking way? You and I are very similar in our debating style, you're just to the left of Lenin and I'm not. We've gone pretty much tit for tat and now I;'m Rob Stone. Why? Because I dare disagree with the all mighty E-Fed guy? God forbid someone disagree with you!!!!!!! Better start flaming to descredit them before they beat me in another debate.

[Guest Dangerous A]

While reading SG and Tyler go at it, I do have to say that SG being Rob Johnstone-esque is not a correct assessment at all. SG is backing up arguments as is Tyler. If SG really is the new Rob Johnstone, then Tyler is just a leftist version of Rob Johnstone.

[Guest Some Guy]

That's my assessment. Thanks DA.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I think Powell and Bush have made their case pretty clearly about Saddam and his weapons. Finding weapons that are most likely very well hidden is not easy.

 

"What should do instead of using force to get rid of Saddam?"

 

Typical liberal answer

 

"Let the inspections work."

 

"Ok, how long should we wait and what should we do when if/when they find something?"

 

"Uhhhhhh........ WAR IS BAD!!!!!!! Innocent people will die!!!!!!!!"

 

"Aren't innocent people dying now under Saddam's dicatorship?"?

 

"Uhhhhhh...... WAR IS BAD!!!! BUSH JUST WANTS OIL!!!!!!!!!"

 

The only case they've made is that "They know where they are based on intelligence" and that's all anyone needs to know.

 

Great info, guys. We appreciate that.

 

Also, I have very distinct and developed reasons for not wanting to go to war, and making generalized, retarded comments about "WHAT ALL DEM LIBRALS SAY!!!!" proves absolutely nothing and just shows you to be an unreasonable child.

 

You did lose, you made no point. You exagerated greatly in order to further your false belief and then came up with tax evation as an excuse.

 

"Came up with tax evasion"? I'm sorry, you really got me there. I completely made up the fact that people cheat on their taxes. Yep, that's me.

 

An original exaggeration is taken back, then the actual point (rich people pay relatively dick in taxes... emphasis on RELATIVELY), which is easily supported by everyone with half a brain, is made. My "concession" is seen as loss? Right. Excellent logic.

 

That's horseshit. Some rich people cheat on their taxes, just as poor people cheat on their's. The fact remains that rich people pay far and away the most taxes in this country. you can not argue against that. It is true. Some people cheat on their taxes, ok, so what?

 

I also never said that people "should evade more." I said that they are taxed too much and it is understandable that they do evade. I don't promote it, it is just the way it is.

 

You make it sound like it's a diminuative figure. In actuality, anyone who can afford a damned accountant can "cheat on their taxes". It's common practice, and you know it but you're not willing to concede it for the sake of argument. This is why you're no better than Rob.

 

Did you read the thread? If so you read me explain what a Liberal Mike Dukakis did (banned driving for a week, banned private snow plowing, forced businesses to pay their employees who couldn't work because he wouldn't let them drive causing the employers to not only lose revenue becaus they couldn't run their businees but also to pay for work that wasn't done) during the "Blizard of '78" here in Boston and what Republican Mitt Romney did (said "if you have to drive be careful, but I suggest you don't). There is the relavaznce. Totalitarianism vs. freedom.

 

No, I didn't read the thread, and I still am hard pressed to find how one Michael Dukakis' decision weighs in as a condemnation of liberalism as a whole.

 

Clinton brought that on himself, maybe not as much as he got but he did do all that he was accused of. Reno got it bad because she's ugly, that wasn't fair, and I don't think Gore got shit on too much. The Internet thing is really all I can think of as a big slander campaign and he got a raw deal with that because he did recognize the internet and speak about it in the Senate when virtually no one else knew what it was. Happy?

 

I don't reallt agree with Ashcroft but I don't run around calling him an idiot, because he has done nothing that would indicate to me that he is stupid. His policies are often wrong but that doesn't make him stupid. I don't call call too many liberals stupid, most of them aren't, they're misguided.

 

What an excellent example of a double standard.

 

You say Clinton deserved it, but Ashcroft and company didn't? It's a stupid, moot point. I'm not even sure why you made the point in the first place; people get slandered regardless of their political ideologies.

 

What gives you the right to say who can and who can't afford to be taxed heavily? Who made you God of of everyone's finacial matters? The problem is that you want to tax the hell out of these people and give them nothing in return. Robin Hood shit.

 

What the hell are YOU talking about? Of course they get something in return; they get use of services such as social security (which many rich people abuse as it is), PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN, DEFENSE, and other necessary programs which are paid for primarily through tax dollars. Don't play like they get nothing, they get plenty. Just because unemployment and HUD are added onto it doesn't mean that they're being completely shafted.

 

Also, as we've already established, they're not being taxed up the wazoo; they pay a slightly higher percentage than poorer people... BEFORE deductions and other such loopholes, which often levels the playing field quite a bit.

 

In what fucking way?

 

In that you throw out "facts", assuming they are the complete truth, and expect everyone to accept them as such.

 

In that you refuse to admit when you've obviously been defeated.

 

In that you bring up stupid, insignificant points and pursue them.

 

you're just to the left of Lenin and I'm not

 

Cut the bullshit ad hominem attacks. I'm no more liberal than anyone else on this board; I simply speak out for my beliefs.

 

We've gone pretty much tit for tat and now I;'m Rob Stone. Why? Because I dare disagree with the all mighty E-Fed guy?

 

No, because you do it so poorly.

 

All-mighty e-fed guy? Hahahaha. Cute.

 

Better start flaming to descredit them before they beat me in another debate.

 

You're doing more flaming than me.

 

Although, you'll probably accuse me of FLAME-BAITING now, like you and your friends enjoy doing behind my back.

[Guest Some Guy]

The only case they've made is that "They know where they are based on intelligence" and that's all anyone needs to know.

 

Great info, guys. We appreciate that.

 

Also, I have very distinct and developed reasons for not wanting to go to war, and making generalized, retarded comments about "WHAT ALL DEM LIBRALS SAY!!!!" proves absolutely nothing and just shows you to be an unreasonable child.

I said "typical liberal responce." Are you a typical liberal?

 

I'm now an unreasonable child. What ever you say.

 

"Came up with tax evasion"? I'm sorry, you really got me there. I completely made up the fact that people cheat on their taxes. Yep, that's me.

 

An original exaggeration is taken back, then the actual point (rich people pay relatively dick in taxes... emphasis on RELATIVELY), which is easily supported by everyone with half a brain, is made. My "concession" is seen as loss? Right. Excellent logic.

 

After I dispelled your mith that about rich paying "no taxes" you jumped to tax evation as a new excuse to further your arguement. It's in the thread.

"relatively" didn't come into your opinion until I made my stand. You were perfectly content to spread lies until I disproved them. Rich people take deductions, evade, etc... but they still pay in absolute numbers and percentages way more in taxes. not "relatively dick." Anyone with half a brain would see that.

 

http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigur...ures.guest.html

 

There you go.

 

You make it sound like it's a diminuative figure. In actuality, anyone who can afford a damned accountant can "cheat on their taxes". It's common practice, and you know it but you're not willing to concede it for the sake of argument. This is why you're no better than Rob.

 

"Some people cheat on their taxes." That's what I said, I never dismissed it or refused to concede it. I know it happens. Your constant harping on something I've already admited and never demied is redundant and silly. Sounds like Rob to me.

 

No, I didn't read the thread, and I still am hard pressed to find how one Michael Dukakis' decision weighs in as a condemnation of liberalism as a whole.

 

Dukakis is a liberal democrat, it is a typical responce from that side of the fence. I assume you know who he is. He ran against Bush and got killed in the '88 election and was Mass Governor for 12 years total, he lost an election after the firest term and them won two more after. I'm just saying this because you said you weren't around for the fall of the Soviet Union which was 3 years later.

 

You say Clinton deserved it, but Ashcroft and company didn't? It's a stupid, moot point. I'm not even sure why you made the point in the first place; people get slandered regardless of their political ideologies.

 

What did Ashcroft do to deserve it? Clinton cheated, lied, obstructed justice, tried to destroy Monica's life, etc... I stood up for Democrats who were unfairly attacked as well and said I wasn't a big fan of Ashcroft's policies. What else do you want?

 

What the hell are YOU talking about? Of course they get something in return; they get use of services such as social security (which many rich people abuse as it is), PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN, DEFENSE, and other necessary programs which are paid for primarily through tax dollars. Don't play like they get nothing, they get plenty. Just because unemployment and HUD are added onto it doesn't mean that they're being completely shafted.

 

Also, as we've already established, they're not being taxed up the wazoo; they pay a slightly higher percentage than poorer people... BEFORE deductions and other such loopholes, which often levels the playing field quite a bit.

 

Sorry I was using your exageration style, my bad. They do indeed get all those things, although beyond defense and Edu there aren't too many necesary programs that they benifit from, ie the programs aren't necesesary. You seem to think that they shouldn't get Social Security, which is silly considering they paid for it. I don't really think there should be SS but that's neither here nor there.

 

They pay a much higher % before loophole and continue to pay much more after them. Lest we forget all the other income based taxes (property, death, dividends, etc...)

 

In that you throw out "facts", assuming they are the complete truth, and expect everyone to accept them as such.

 

In that you refuse to admit when you've obviously been defeated.

 

In that you bring up stupid, insignificant points and pursue them.

 

Pretty much the same way you do. What is not true about the rich paying more in taxes? You have not in any way, shape, or form been able to refute this. You have cited cheating and loopholes and that still doesn't cover the cover the spread.

 

Cut the bullshit ad hominem attacks. I'm no more liberal than anyone else on this board; I simply speak out for my beliefs.

 

I don't know, calling me a member of the religious right, insulting my inteligence (not my beliefs), and equating me to Rob Stone seem to be suffient provocation.

 

 

 

Although, you'll probably accuse me of FLAME-BAITING now, like you and your friends enjoy doing behind my back.

 

I assume you're talking about Smarktalk and I said nothjing there that I haven't said or wouldn't say here. I'm the only one who stuck up for Dreamer (Risk, Generation Never, etc...). I only stated my opinion that Rob got a raw deal, I've seem just as much flame baiting form you to Rob as I did from him to you.

 

I'll quote myself from the site if you'd like.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Average tax rate (percentage): [4]

1986: 14.54......33.13......25.68......22.64......18.72......16.32

1987: 13.12......26.41......22.10......19.77......16.61......14.60

1988: 13.21......24.04......21.14......19.18......16.47......14.64

1989: 13.12......23.34......20.71......18.77......16.27......14.53

1990: 12.95......23.25......20.46......18.50......16.06......14.36

1991: 12.75......24.37......20.62......18.63......15.93......14.20

1992: 12.94......25.05......21.19......19.13......16.25......14.44

1993: 13.32......28.01......22.71......20.20......16.90......14.90

1994: 13.50......28.23......23.04......20.48......17.15......15.11

1995: 13.86......28.73......23.53......20.97......17.58......15.47

1996: 14.34......28.87......24.07......21.55......18.12......15.96

1997: 14.48......27.64......23.62......21.36......18.18......16.09

1998: 14.42......27.12......23.63......21.42......18.16......16.00

1999: 14.85......27.53......24.18......21.98......18.66......16.43

2000: 15.26......27.45......24.42......22.34......19.09......16.86

 

 

 

Even Rush couldn't spin it perfectly, eh?

[Guest Some Guy]

Where is the spin? They are IRS figures.

[Guest JMA]

While reading SG and Tyler go at it, I do have to say that SG being Rob Johnstone-esque is not a correct assessment at all. SG is backing up arguments as is Tyler. If SG really is the new Rob Johnstone, then Tyler is just a leftist version of Rob Johnstone.

There is no "other" Rob Johnstone. There is only one. There is no leftist version of him. His evil is all encompassing and is a vaccum for all things good. Now let's never speak of him again.

[Guest Some Guy]

Over react much?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

After I dispelled your mith that about rich paying "no taxes" you jumped to tax evation as a new excuse to further your arguement. It's in the thread.

"relatively" didn't come into your opinion until I made my stand. You were perfectly content to spread lies until I disproved them. Rich people take deductions, evade, etc... but they still pay in absolute numbers and percentages way more in taxes. not "relatively dick." Anyone with half a brain would see that.

 

As I've just shown, percentages are still in question. Absolute numbers are higher vis a vis their higher... well, income.

 

I've always said relatively, by the way, I just never emphasized it. I've also never denied that they account for the highest level of tax income. It's a law of percentages; 10% of 100,000 is still more than 30% of 10,000.

 

Dukakis is a liberal democrat, it is a typical responce from that side of the fence.

 

Typical? Find me an identical situation to the one you used as an example.

 

I assume you know who he is. He ran against Bush and got killed in the '88 election and was Mass Governor for 12 years total, he lost an election after the firest term and them won two more after. I'm just saying this because you said you weren't around for the fall of the Soviet Union which was 3 years later.

 

Yes, I know who he is.

 

I didn't say I wasn't around, I simply was too young to care about the news, yet alone pick up little stupid condescending anti-conservative comments at that point.

 

They pay a much higher % before loophole and continue to pay much more after them

 

Not according to Rush.

 

This is going around in circles again; I really tire from it.

 

So yeah, whatever, you win.

[Guest Some Guy]

I've always said relatively, by the way, I just never emphasized it. I've also never denied that they account for the highest level of tax income. It's a law of percentages; 10% of 100,000 is still more than 30% of 10,000.

Well, no you didn't. But whatever.

 

Typical? Find me an identical situation to the one you used as an example.

 

You want me to find an identical example of a Democrats reaction to a 2' snow storm in Mass in 1978. Ok.

 

It is a typical overreaction from the left. "We know what's best for you" Big Mother bullshit. God Forbid someone make their own decision, they might not make the right one. So we'll just lock them in their houses (figuratively speaking) and I'll sleep better tonight. Plsu they won't be driving around in those nasty cars. (Dukakis is very much pro-mass transit and anti-car and that was probably an unneccesarry remark).

 

I didn't say I wasn't around

 

Yes you did.

 

Why? I wasn't around to watch these wonderful comments being made, and therefore, cannot confirm or deny their existance. I don't think liberals can be blamed for several people's stupidity, but hell, you blame them for everything else, so why not?

 

There you go.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Around the television. Wow, great point. Want a cookie?

 

Don't flatter yourself, you're not arguing with a 12 year old.

[Guest JMA]

Sigh. Sometimes I think debates are pointless. People (in general) hate critisism. Any shrink will tell you that. Thus, when challenged, people feel the need to justify themselves. But in this situation no one will budge in their viewpoints. You're not usually going to convince someone that you are right and they are wrong. It's just the way people are.

[Guest DrTom]

Since it seemed the recent run of posts centered (at elast at first) around a certain point, I'm going to weigh in on it. Maybe I'm late in getting here, but... ah, bite me.

 

Socialism is the extreme of the Left. Fascism is the extreme of the Right.

 

I'm going to presume we'll all agree on that.

 

There are some Liberals who are quite far to the left, and thus will remind people of Socialists. There are some Conservatives who are quite far to the right, and thus will remind people of Fascists. However, considering their respective parties have both movied toward the center in the past 16 years, it's rather unfair to equate liberalism to socialism or conservatism to fascism. Sure, there are some bad examples on both sides, but when you look at where most of the people fall, those comparisons just don't hold up.

[Guest JMA]

Since it seemed the recent run of posts centered (at elast at first) around a certain point, I'm going to weigh in on it. Maybe I'm late in getting here, but... ah, bite me.

 

Socialism is the extreme of the Left. Fascism is the extreme of the Right.

 

I'm going to presume we'll all agree on that.

 

There are some Liberals who are quite far to the left, and thus will remind people of Socialists. There are some Conservatives who are quite far to the right, and thus will remind people of Fascists. However, considering their respective parties have both movied toward the center in the past 16 years, it's rather unfair to equate liberalism to socialism or conservatism to fascism. Sure, there are some bad examples on both sides, but when you look at where most of the people fall, those comparisons just don't hold up.

I'll agree with that.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The right is equated with Fascism, which is 200x worse than communism. Hitler, Moussolini... etc. Lovely bedfellows.

Communism has people like Chairman Mao and Stalin. I'd say both facism and communism have had horrible leaders.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I see alot more similarities between fascism and communism, than I do with fascism and conservatism, and communism and liberalism.

 

In both fascist and communist states the gov't has controlled everything. Neither Conservatism and Liberalism want that.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Socialism is the extreme of the Left. Fascism is the extreme of the Right.

The two are of the same ilk so its hard to say that one is the extreme of another. A better comparison in political beliefs is neither right nor left but Authoritarian vs. Libertarian. You'll find that the Democrats and the Republicans (these days at least) fall in the dead center of the two. But when it comes right down to it, the left as we know it (as in, starting with Bill Clinton, and working your way to Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader and so one down the line) is closer to an Authoritarian position than the Republicans are. The right as we know it is a weaker version of the Authoritarian beliefs but only slightly more libertarian. Comparing Ralph Nader (one of the most popular Authoritarian leaning figures today) to the "right's" answer to that position would probably be Pat Buchanan. Both support strict government control, yet Pat is much tamer by comparison. He's a slightly stronger libertarian than he is autoritarian while Nader is a stronger authoritarian than he is libertarian.

There's a great political testing web site (the political compass I believe) that goes in depth with this. Apparently I'm a neo-liberal who is a libertarian with conservative values. I'll look around for the site and post the link when I find it.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

www.politicalcompass.org

[Guest JMA]

I can't really decide if I'm a Liberal or Libertarian. I'm sympathetic to both and agree with them on certain things. I think Liberals have the right social ideas but they can be kinda overreactionary and want to raise taxes a lot. Libertarians on the other hand believe in a more "every man for him/herself" type thing. I like this but I also like helping other people. I'm very torn.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Where'd you end up on the political compass?

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Libertarian Leftist here, two clicks to the economic left, and three clicks down on the Libertarian side.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Same.

 

-5.02 and -6.00

[Guest JMA]

Another Libertarian Leftist here.

 

-5.75 and -8.36 for me.

 

Although, I'm kind confused about simply "agreeing/disagreeing" and "strongly agreeing/disagreeing." Can anyone help me on this?

[Guest bob_barron]

Economic Left/Right: 2.75

Authoritarian/Libertarian: 0.77

 

I guess I'm authoritarian right. Anyone wanna explain it a bit more for me?