Which one r u?

[Johnywolf]

Extreme right: people who are nazis and nazi-like Example: Hitler
Far right: people who are haters, but in a moderate way Example: Bush
Moderate right: people who are not that much haters , but are very religious ones. However they do support some freedoms Example: Mc Cain?
Moderate left: close to moderate right, but a little more liberal
Far left: People who are more liberal, but still with some limits Examples: Atheists, hippies
Extreme left: People who are very extreme. They talk of total freedom and at thou same time want to suppress it. Examples: commies

Those are my definitions of extreme right to extreme left. Feel free to correct mi if I missed something. Just be honest and say which political category do you fall in.
I am a moderate left! There iare some things with republcans that I do agree in ( would not say which because I will be bashed by extreme leftists, lol) but most stuff I agree with democrats, because I believe in U.S. constitution and peoples rights and this party seems to support it!

[jobycom]

1. Bush should be in the same category as Hitler

I can't draw up any picture of Hitler that differs from Bush on anything other than number of dead so far. Bush has nukes, he could make Hitler look pleasant before it's all over with, if we don't impeach him now.

And I've met conservative atheists.

I'm somewhere between moderate and far left. Probably left-leaning moderate when it comes to issues like trade and corporations, far left when it comes to taxation and social programs, and extreme left when it comes to equality and rights. I have no interest in suppressing anyone's rights unless that person or group is squashing someone else's.

[Johnywolf]

2. I do not support Bush too

I know he is corrupt and is against human rights, but Hitler is still falls one category above that. Hitler spoke out against whom he did not like in some extreme way. The thing that Hitler and Bush have in common are their imperialistic ideas and although Bush wants to suppress human rights, he does not do it in extreme ways Hitler did!

[Richard Steele]

3. "he does not do it in extreme ways Hitler did"

Give him time, HITLER needed more than 5 years...


Welcome to DU, Johnnywolf!

[jobycom]

4. Just a difference in presentation

Hitler's arguments for locking up Jews, the mentally retarded, the infirm, gays, etc., fell into two categories: One, the nation had to do it to remain safe, and two, it was for their own good. The sign over Auschwitz read "Freedom through works." Hitler didn't run around screaming "I hate Jews let's kill them all"--at least not at first. He seduced the German people into believing it was a necessary evil, so they would look the other way. I imagine there were people in Germany protesting Hitler, and Hitler's supporters were saying "Come on, you can't honestly compare Adolf to Napoleon (insert favorite bloody dictator)! You just hate Germany!"

The only differences between Hitler and Bush have come from their nations. Germany was in the depths of the Great Depression when Hitler came to power, and their government had been replaced so frequently that the German people did not feel any stability in government and the rule of law. They desperately wanted a leader to force order onto them. Bush came to power at the peak of American civilization, when our cult of government was at its mythic strongest. We do not want a leader to force order on us, because our order is supplied by the Constitution, and by our history.

Thus, the difference between Hitler and Bush is simply how they have to sell themselves to our people, and what the people will let them get away with.

Other than that, they are the same petty, stupid, corporate-controlled, religious and nationalist bully with no regard for law or human life. Give Bush time, and he'll drop a couple of nukes, and we'll barely remember Hitler.

Check out this link. It's long, and angry, but good.

http://www.amics21.com/911/fasano.html

[immoderate]

5. Your system is simplistic.

For instance, although they represented "opposite" political systems, there was much similarity between Hitler and Stalin. They were both totalitarian, allowed no dissent, killed their opponents (and everybody else) employed slave labor.

You don't differentiate social, economic, and authority threads in politics. And religion (or lack of it) isn't necessarily left or right. While religion is currently thought of as right wing territory, the civil rights movement, and the anti-war movement had heavy roots in religious groups. Similarly, some staunch conservative libertarians are ardent separationists.

Me? I'm a socialist-libertarian, but I don't think showing you a label will suffice for understanding.

--IMM

[jobycom]

7. Hitler and Stalin

Hitler and Stalin are frequently contrasted are conservative and liberal, but that's not accurate, or rather, we are calling Stalin liberal when the actions we detest him for were not liberal. Hitler's fascism promoted corporate control of private lives, as well as the subjegation of individuals to the greater good--or in his case, to the government, which supposedly looked out for the greater good. So Hitler was conservative in ideology. He also brutally suppressed the rights of individuals to achieve his vision, and thus his methods of governing were conservative, as well.

Stalin believed in labor over capital and property, and that's a basically liberal principle, but the method Stalin used to bring about his vision was brutal, and elevated the greater good--again, in his mind, represented by the government-over the rights of individuals. So his method of governance was conservative, even if the ideals he was striving for were liberal.

Stalin's a good argument against those who believe the end justifies the mean. There is no end, the only important thing is the means to an end that will never be reached.

[UdoKier]

6. Atheism has nothing to do with left/right.

Right-wing heroine Ayn Rand was an atheist as was neocon role model Strauss.


Republicans are fascists. People who are what the American corporate media calls "centrists" are actually right-wingers. What US corporate media call "liberals" are actually centrists, and people who the media call "the far left" are just liberals.

You want to see proof? Just compare their positions to their counter parts in any other Western industrialized country. The US version is ALWAYS to the right.

[yowzayowzayowza]

8. Try this out:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[GeorgeGist]

9. None of the above

[GeorgeGist]

10. None of the above

[Warren DeMontague]

11. I'm an atheist hippie who thinks your breakdown is a tad simplistic.

The recommended political compass site does a pretty good job of re-arranging into a cartesan coordinate system issues and concepts which don't adhere to simple left/right dichotomies or fall neatly on a liberal/conservative line.

For instance, there are libertarian-minded people in both parties, along with those I would call "control freaks". However, as you may have noticed, the control freaks are on a rampage in the GOP. The so-called libertarians in the GOP (as well as what constitutes much of the "Libertarian" party, IMHO) seem exclusively interested in not paying taxes and securing as much freedom as possible- for corporations.

Right now, we have a system in this country where corporations have FAR MORE rights than individuals. Yet the word "freedom" is bandied about with no qualifiers as to which entity the freedom is supposed to apply to.

See, you can't look at certain concepts, like "freedom", without talking a little bit about the realities of the world we live in. Is "freedom" the freedom for Union Carbide to operate with no environmental oversight in a place like Bhopal? Or is "freedom" the freedom for a 85 year old granny with cancer to smoke a plant that relieves her chemo nausea without having to worry that the DEA is going to kick down her door?

Personally, I believe in liberty- for individuals- to the extent that one person's freedom doesn't impinge on the next person's. Yet I also do not think that is mutually exclusive with a certain amount of a collective societal compact, i.e. a social safety net or a degree of community responsibility above and beyond that which is provided by laws of supply, demand, and capitalism. Only the most hard-core anti-government people want to dig their own sewers and pave their own roads, for instance.
Likewise, I believe that health insurance, as one major current example, is not the sort of thing which should be left entirely to free market forces (as witnessed by the 45 million w/no health insurance in the US) and as such, I support a SPHC system. Which probably places me on the "left". I also believe in free enterprise, true level-playing field capitalism, and initiative- but I don't think it is contradictory for me to also believe in legitimate environmental regulation; because the 'freedom' to screw up the air and water we all share is an imposition on the rights of everyone else. I believe that corporations, by their size and potential impact on the collective welfare, should deserve a higher grade of regulatory oversight and bear a greater amount of collective responsibility than individuals- but if you look, that is precisely the opposite of the situation we have now.

As for my political compass readings: Economic Left/Right: -4.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97

[Swamp Rat]

12. Bush is OUR Hitler

Give him some more time because he's only just begun.

[Maine-ah]

13. I would go with just plain moderate.

I agree with some on the left and some on the right. Though during Bush's term I have agreed with the mostly left. From the beginning, he scared the shit out of me, and I just knew that he would be a disaster for this country, and to other countries as well.

[sweetheart]

14. I am a supporter of justice

In all spheres of life.

[BlueStateModerate]

15. I think it looks more like this

I read your post, but agreed that it was too simplistic. I drew up a little picture in Photoshop to show my thinking. None of the three extremes are perfect, so I feel that a delicate balance is the best thing to strive for.

I said "Freedom", "Equality", and "Security" for the three end goals, but obvisouly, it doesn't always turn out like that. I just wrote those as what the primary goal is.

[BlueStateModerate]

16. Also...

I think the party layout looks something like this, loosely of course.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. The problem with that graph is, it defines "freedom" solely in economic

terms. Is "freedom" only the freedom to not pay taxes? If so, then your diagram is right on. But aside from the fact that I think the GOP has moved way closer to the "Security Through Authoritarianism" side, I also think that your graph doesn't really factor in socially libertarian concepts. JMO.

[BlueStateModerate]

18. The idea in the graph...

is that equality can roughly equal freedom. If everyone is the same, then no one will be around to step on you (except the government, of course). Social issues, and I realize this is a stretch, I tried to incorporate in the "Authoritarian" wing. People feel more secure if everyone acts how they like. Therefore, authoritarian=security, and in the graph, I have Republicans more towards authoritarian.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. You should try the political compass:

Seemed to capture my positioning pretty well.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.html

[applegrove]

19. Far left - but a fiscal conservative (you pay and not pass on debt to your

kids).

[Puzzler]

21. I'd be...

... "Far Left", according to your definitions.


-P