Nonfactor on September 18, 2007 at 1:39 PM

click

urbancenturion on September 18, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Again, I think you are confusing things. We are not talking about nations, we are talking about political theories. In communism, religion has no role, it is disavowed by the state, driven underground. Of course, you may find exceptions in any case, no government is pure to its political theory, but you must understand the fundamental differences between a fascist dictatorship and a communist dictatorship as they apply to conservative values. Conservative values are not instrinsic in communist dictatorships. Don’t get hung up and what the Russians may have done or not done. Look only at the theory.

aengus on September 18, 2007 at 9:00 AM

Not if this poll has anything to say about it.

Someone mentioned classic liberalism. Classic liberalism is no longer a valid political category since western society is already based on classic liberal ideals. Liberals today fall into one of two categories: Either they are leftists, or they are libertarians.

jihadwatcher on September 18, 2007 at 10:55 AM

Sorry, buddy, Classical Liberalism does still apply and you’re not going to get away with such a blatant either or fallacy.

This comment shows that the writer understands that his prejudices are: 1) Prejudices 2) His own 3) Not the only ones 4) Not necessarily the right ones

This to me is subtle confirmation of the hypothesis of the article.

Now ask yourself, how often have you heard a lib say something like that? Here’s how a lib says the same thing:
Anyway, I like the article because it speaks the truth.

A study measures liberal and conservative attitudes on key issues. It actually is, um, accurate, if rather obvious. And the researcher, get this, does not try to just interpret the results to claim (baby-voice) “We’we bettew.” Extreme liberals, Dr. …

But this could also be argue about the fascists. You don’t really think Hitler really cared about Christianity, do you?

urbancenturion on September 18, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Ask Diedrich Boenhoffer.

Try this link.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

jihadwatcher on September 18, 2007 at 11:01 AM

cute, fun; but grossly oversimplistic

btw, the commies in Russia still had the Russian orthodox church; and you missed my point that the Chinese may not have what we would call a formal religion, but the effect is the same in that they attempt to maintain a moral framework for their society. Whether it is Confucian in nature, or legal, or whatever, and whatever is the purpose, they do embrace some sense of morality. Prostitution is not legal, narcotics are verbotten, homosexuality is frowned upon, etc. These are moral issues, whether they come from the Judeo-Christian ethos, or from Chinese tradition.

If communists don’t regard morality, then why are the Chinese so uptight about it? I must beg to differ. They don’t care about it in truth, but they certainly use it in two ways: to keep people in line, and to maintain some semblance of (pseudo?)intellectual credibility in the intellectual arena.

But this could also be argue about the fascists. You don’t really think Hitler really cared about Christianity, do you?

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

This is the Neil Boortz link

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/quiz.php

So a leftist is concerned about the group. At its core, leftism is socialism. Socialist view is that the society takes precedence over the individual. We see this with socialized health care, taxes, big government, etc.. That is leftism, not liberalism.

Liberalism today is often expressed as libertarianism. Small government, low taxes, no socialized health care, or anything of the sort. However, a libertarian also does not impose any duty on the individual to do anything for a society. A true libertarian opposes all government, and is suspicious of all government. A libertarian traditionally opposes foreign wars and drafts, for example. A conservative would not. Another example would be legalization of drugs which would normally be favored by libertarians, but not conservatives. Another example would be laws concerning sex for consenting adults. A libertarians says No Way, a conservative says Way. The Waco wackos were an ultimate example of libertarians. Libertarians do not see themselves as part of any greater group, so clearly not conservatives. A libertarian and a conservative are far apart on the political spectrum. This is also the source for many arguments on Hotair.

A conservative may or may not believe in small government, but he believes in a collective cause of a society. Unlike a leftist, however, a conservative eschews socialist ideas in favor of capitalist ideals. Take conservatism further, as I do, and you enter into fascism.

Which brings up a question. What is the difference between Hitler and Stalin? Were they both fascists since they both ran police states with themselves as supreme ruler? Stalin ran a police state, but one with communist principles. Hitler ran a police state but one with capitalist principles. Both capitalist and communist principles deal not only with economics but with social structure. So while they both were dictators, they both were not conservative. Stalin had no interest in social morals or any respect for class structure. Christianity was driven underground. The Nazis, however, did believe in establishing their own moral code of behavior, including that which oversaw the art world. Some art was deemed degenerate art, a classification so needed today, yet surprisingly, it was still on display. Christianity was maintained. Class structure was also maintained. So they were social conservative authoritarians whereas the communists were simply classless, atheist authoritarians.

Anarchists are a unique bunch, diametrically opposed to fascists, they eschew the notion of a collective good. In most ways, very similar to libertarians in their view of religion and personal freedom, but unlike libertarians, they despise class structure, personal wealth, or personal hygiene.

Someone mentioned classic liberalism. Classic liberalism is no longer a valid political category since western society is already based on classic liberal ideals. Liberals today fall into one of two categories: Either they are leftists, or they are libertarians. But those two are not diametrically opposed just as Ron Paul is not directly opposite the Truthers. They are closer than you think.

What I did not mention were statists, since they have no real political leanings, other than a belief in big government.

For a better view of the political spectrum, and where you may stand, and it may surprise you, Neil Boortz (a libertarian, not a conservative) has this convenient quiz that places you on the political spectrum.

Liberals, on the other hand, see contemporary art as protecting equality by assailing the establishment, especially if the art is by oppressed groups.

That’s right, art to promote a cause, or make a silly statement, it doesn’t have to be appealing to look at or take any talent to create, I understand completely now why I didn’t do well in art school!

They found that people who identified themselves as liberals attached great weight to the two moral systems protective of individuals — those of not harming others and of doing as you would be done by.

So you’d think they’d tend to be more courteous and well-spoken and polite, right? That hasn’t been my experience, nor that of anyone who compares, say, the comments here and at HuffPo.

But liberals assigned much less importance to the three moral systems that protect the group, those of loyalty, respect for authority and purity.

Well…I’m not so sure about those three, I think they just have their own definitions of them. Look at Hamsher’s recent eviscerating of Ms Edwards for speaking a heartfelt but politically inconvenient opinion. That’s only the latest example of leftists acting as vigorous policeman of an enforced Marxist-type loyalty and purity in their community. I’ve seen it often in groups of liberals, too, usually expressed in a sugar-over-steel “of course, no one at THIS table would ever vote for those nasty Republicans” sort of tone. As for “respect for authority,” how many will blaspheme against Noam Chomsky or Al Gore?

I guess nobody here understands Classic Liberalism and Aristotelian Republicanism. A poll like this in it’s basest sense isn’t a surprise.

I just assumed everyone understood that modern American liberalism no longer resembles Classical Liberalism in any meaningful way.

urbancenturion on September 18, 2007 at 12:29 AM

Based on my own empirical and unscientific observations over the last nearly half-century, I believe the difference between a leftist and a liberal is this;

While both hate and despise our society, and would like nothing better than to destroy it so they could “build anew” on the ruins (with themselves in charge), the typical leftist has no problem with getting his hands dirty. The bomb-throwers of SDS, the Weather Underground, Baader-Meihof, the Red Brigades, and the Renko Sekigun of the 1960s and ’70s were genuine leftists- they intended to remake the world according to the Gospel of Marx by any means necessary. I personally believe that they also enjoyed violence for its own sake, which puts them roughly on the intellectual level of a hyped-up street punk. (Or maybe the Hell’s Angels.)

Their modern descendants and disciples are on display every day, wherever International ANSWER and their ilk are protesting.

The typical liberal, by comparison, has an “image” to maintain. Not only do they want to keep their hands clean, but they also want the appearance of saintliness. (Sure sign that you’re dealing with a true liberal- count how many times they say that whatever they want to do is “for the children”.) As such, they will never, ever take “direct action” against those they genuinely hate, deep down inside.

To them, it’s much more satisfying to attain a position of power and influence, and then use the full weight of government to punish those they deem less “enlightened” than themselves. And when the inevitable blowback occurs, they can always blame someone else. (Ranging from incompetent subordinates to those never-to-be-sufficiently-damned non-”progressives”, who are always sabotaging them.)

In short, like Ed Asner as the chief heavy in “El Dorado” (1967), as The Duke said to him from the back of his horse,

“You never carry a gun yourself. You always hire it done.”

Fortunately for liberals, there are always leftists around to do their dirty work. So they can maintain their self-defined aura of saintliness, and perfection.

cheers

eon

OJ should be the quote of the day.

The G rated versions of these quotes were on O’Reilly, Gibson, Brian Williams, CBS, CNN.

You can show the unexpurgated version here because everyone here ia an adult or very mature for their biological age and so everyone can see how foul his mouth is.

Unfortunately, liberals also tend to be pretty stupid and they don’t seem to understand that empathy does not always yield an accurate picture of someone else’s actual feelings, and almost never works cross-culturally. But this is why liberals insist on dealing with everyone in the world as if they were a westerner – which has led to many of our problems and is currently opening us up to more risk than we should be carrying.