<p>Myself: Heinlein is AWESOME.</p>
<p>gambadent: I have hostile beliefs towards certain groups for a reason - this does not mean I won't listen to what they say. I am always up for my beliefs being challenged.</p>
<p>Yeah, I'm on of those "hostile groups". I have to agree with gambadent. One: because college is about about being affected by other groups, both good and bad and Two: neverborn's closed-mindedness ****es me off.</p>
<p>I must admit I've never seen an anti-war protest with posters of swastikas anywhere. Where on Earth are you getting this bizarre liberal=nazism parallel?! Characteristics of Nazism tend to be militarism, nationalism, anti-semitism, homophobia, discrimination against minorities-- sounds more to the Right than the Left to me!! Nazism was about hurting and killing minorities, whereas liberals in America are very much concerned with the opposite-- minorities are much more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. At least 80% of the Jews that I know are Democrats, including the Jews in my own family. There is a strong tradition of leftist ideals in Judaism-- historically they're very often leaders in the communist movements, socialist movements, etc. Hello, Zionism anyone? Kibbutzes? How much more Left can you get?? </p>
<p>I really cannot comprehend where you're getting that from-- I've grown up with my mom and her Jewish friends laughing and talking about the fact that all the Jews they know generally make more than average income and yet are still Democrats even though most richer people tend to be Republicans. My Mom's side of the family was always extremely liberal-- ALL of them, extended and all-- whereas my dad's side of the family, the Christian side, was much more conservative. </p>
<p>What, what, WHAT led you to believe that the people tearing down the Friends of Israel's posters were necessarily liberals? It might be one thing if you had some sort of reason for thinking that, but you've offered nothing of the sort! <a href="http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html</a> Maybe you should take a look at this. This really, really seems to be what you are doing.</p>
<p>EDIT: The point of this post is not to claim that all Jews are Democrats or liberals, or that people who draw swastikas are Republicans or conservatives. I think it's fairly safe to say that the people who draw swastikas are neo-nazis, which definitely does not fall into either political party. The point is that there's no reason you've given to think that it's liberals who defaced the posters.</p>
<p>Esquared: You have yet to make an argument, or are you ****ed at me for being closed minded towards "Sexually great?"</p>
<p>I do not think the people who draw swastikas are neo-Nazis. Pro-Palestinian activists often liken the state of Israel to Nazi Germany. Nowhere did I say that liberals were neo-Nazis. Liberals often call conservatives and supporters of Israel Nazis. </p>
<p>I attend anti-war protests to both record their disgusting behavior the press glosses over and to demonstrate against them. There is almost always a swastika somewhere. Whether someone has drawn a swastika on Bush/Cheney/Sharon's head, or changed a U.S. flag to have swastikas on it, or drawn a swastika in a Star of David - they're there. The protesters also upon any sort of opposition start calling others Nazis and fascists. </p>
<p>I would like to make it completely clear that I do not believe liberals are Nazis, and I apologize if that was what was inferred.</p>
<p>No, but nazi's would be considered liberal.</p>
<p>In any case, when liberal's use the term "Nazi" they're obviously using it metaphorically. Even if they do not know that they are, that's certainly how "nazi" calling came into play.</p>
<p>Comparing the United States to Nazi Germany.</p>
<p>I consider Nazis to the left on the left-right scale.</p>
<p>I know they're using it metaphorically, but I feel it's wrong to compare Bush, Sharon, Cheney, Kerry, Hillary, Clinton, whoever to the Nazis. Even vile men such as Arafat are not "Nazis." The Nazis engineered and systematically carried out the extermination of six million Jews. Other than idiotic neo-Nazis, there are exactly two people I'd be willing to MAYBE say that "Nazi" is an apt word for them. #1 is the leader of Iran, and #2 is the Palestinian that goes by "Hitler" that is now a national player in the government.</p>
<p>They use it because it gives shock value to the metaphor. They are trying to associate people like Bush or Cheney with a group of people the internationally community has decidely agreed is evil and would therefore prove their point of Bush or Cheney being ultimately wrong......like the Nazi's.</p>
<p>For the most part, I find it overused and feel they should be more creative.</p>
<p>P.S. Your Mother.</p>
<p>Nazis=fascists=far far right
having said that I see the scale as more circular than linear, so that Stalin and Hitler are next to eachother </p>
<p>...But I do agree with esquared that the nazi metaphore should be retired. It's the type of extremist, divisive rhetoric that I most dislike. </p>
<p>Large scale protests are often nasty- masses of people making baseless, vicious attacks very loudly. They're rarely effective, anyway. A friend of mine was attacked by pro-life protesters when she was 8 or 9 and it's only made her less sympathetic to their cause.</p>
<p>"P.S. Your Mother."</p>
<p>I'm going to have to second Esquared on this.</p>
<p>Yes, it's absolutely circular...</p>
<p>Both communism and nazism would be considered radical in this country and therefore liberal. Not American liberal....which isn't really liberal at all.</p>
<p>I don't think the left right square is good, I like the one that's two axes - one of social liberty and one of economic liberty.</p>
<p>Traditional left-right is authoritarian to libertarian - Hitler was very authoritarian, thus far to the left.</p>
<p>The definition of liberalism:
"Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which holds liberty as the primary political value.[1] Liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a free market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent. This form of government favors liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law, and an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over individual rights."</p>
<p>AND:
political spectrum: "This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with socialism and communism, ("the Left") on one end, and conservatism and Fascism ("the Right") on the other"</p>
<p>Definition of liberalism, lower case "l":</p>
<p>"a political orientation that favors progress and reform"</p>
<p>well aren't you succinct.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>In general, whether the government's policy on the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right). For example, the Nolan chart proposes this as one of its axes of distinction between left and right. State intervention does not necessarily imply redistribution of wealth, or egalitarian policies. However, some types of intervention such as most government intervention on behalf of business interests are more opposed by the left than the right.</p>
<ul>
<li>Preference for a larger and more interventionist government (left) versus a smaller government (right). However, this formulation would be disputed by many who, noting the existence of the authoritarian right, would place the general dichotomy between government passivity and government authority along an entirely separate political axis perpendicular to the left-right one. Other possible reasons for the second axis for this dichotomy include the libertarian socialists, anarchists, or the old right. Large and small here refer to policies and attitudes, although the number of government employees is often used as an indicator.</li>
<li>Whether the state should prioritise equality (left) or liberty (right). Two writers who characterise the distinction along these lines are Norberto Bobbio in Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction (ISBN 0226062465) and Danielle Allen [1]. Note, however, that both the left and the right tend to speak in favour of both equality and liberty - but they have different interpretations of each of the two terms. There have been many governments opposed to both liberty and equality, but which are nevertheless characterized as "left-wing" or "right-wing".</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
<p>Seems according to this, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao are all Left.</p>
<p>Classical liberalism isn't what people refer to when they call themselves liberals today in America. Classical liberalism as you define it would support individual rights, laissez-faire capitalism, and a minimalistic government. Ironically that is the philosophical base of the Republican Party - although today the religious right would make people forget that.</p>
<p>Myself: Both parties are crap :-./</p>
<p>left and right is all pretty skewed, nowadays. George Bush is impossible to pigeonhole.</p>