Don't forget, radical Islam is extremely RIGHT-wing

[Uncensored2008]

At least try to refute what he posted.

Blathering jibberish and insulting a persons parents is an utter failure.

What he posted is utter stupidity. The words of a troll seeking to smear the hated opposition.

What he posted bears no resemblance to reality - the scumbag bastardized terms in an effort to defame those he hates.

Let's look at some Conservative principles, and tie them back to Islam, shall we?

The Free Market fosters creativity and inventiveness.

Hmmm, Islam has a net of zero market based economies...

The Welfare State must be dissolved

Hmmm, payments to all citizens in Islamic states such as the UAW, Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia are common...

Americans have the right to keep the fruit of his own labors.

Ohhh, uhhh - not QUITE an Islamic value...

Conservative Principles

You see, the troll shoveled out bullshit for the purpose of demagoguery...

 

[GoneBezerk]

I understand you're bitter that you got discharged for trying to rape other men on the ship, but the Tea Party isn't behind your dishonorable discharge.

The nut in Tuscon has been proven to be a left-wing anarchist, like you. Maybe he can be your new boyfriend.

People like me kill the Taliban, try to chew on that one, asswipe.

Nope, sorry.......the teabagger and the Taliban mentality is pretty much the same.

Wanna talk about "second amendment solutions"? How about that congress woman who got shot after the Wasilla Chihuahua turned Momma Gerbil (Palin) put a cross hairs over her district?

The only difference between teabaggers and the Taliban is that the Taliban has already fired shots and killed people. Teabaggers are still contemplating it.

But............the way they approach the world with their idealologies is pretty much the same.

 

[Dot Com]

Really?

Got any evidence to support the tea party is in any way violent??

The fucking leftist communists are basically calling for violent revolution everyday.....

Real liberals are getting fed up with the leftist progressive socialist bullshit.... Your baseless lies aren't effective anymore.

You're all nothing more than a bunch of liars and dirty hippie babies..

More stupid fucking lies from the left.

God but you shit suckers are stupid.

The winners for the 'flamer of the day' award

 

[California Girl]

I'm disappointed that Mani appears to have lost his unique ability to flame, and now resorts to cheap shit.

Sad.

 

[manifold]

I'm disappointed that Mani appears to have lost his unique ability to flame, and now resorts to cheap shit.

Sad.

It warms my heart to know that you care.

 

[frazzledgear]

Your ignorance about the fundamental differences between right-wing and left-wing ideology duly noted.

Who benefits by the left's insistence that both right and left wing extremism is....totalitarianism? Who REALLY benefits from that lie?

What determines left and right wing is NOT what people want to DO with power. THAT is just another lie by the left, particularly liberals. Not everyone who is on the left are modern liberals but it is liberals lying about it, insisting anyone BUT liberals is actually right wing. WRONG. The ONLY thing that determines whether someone or some group is left or right wing -is the government model they desire. That's it buddy. THAT is what makes the difference between left and right wing. Not what they want the power for, not what they want to do, not what they want to accomplish, not any "noble" sounding goals or ideals.

Leftwing extremism is the totalitarian state with a large, powerful government with near total control of the individual.

Now if you want to insist the opposite of the totalitarian state is another totalitarian state -I'd LOVE to hear the rationale behind that dumb ass thinking honey! Went a public school, did you? Your teacher should have told you this -but last I checked two identical things cannot be "opposites". Its like claiming the opposite of "happy" is....."happy". Does that work for you too?

The opposite of the totalitarian state and large powerful government with near total control of the individual -is not another totalitarian state. It is ANARCHY -no government at all and therefore no institutionalized control of the individual at all.

One of those is leftwing extremism and the other is right wing extremism. Can you figure out which is on the far right and far left all by yourself or do you need more help with that?

The left is deliberately trying to deceive people into believing there is no need to even debate about the model of government we might want and the only debate left is about who wields all that state power and who gets to control all that massive power only THEY are seeking. They NEED to deceive people into believing that all sides are seeking the same kind of large, powerful government and its only about who will control all that massive power -because THAT is a debate the left believes it can win. They know good and damn well they can't win the REAL debate about the model of government we actually want! So they LIE in order to pretend the only debate here is who wields all that power because they need everyone to believe everyone is seeking the identical model of government. Then after changing the nature of the debate to their phony ass one, they insist because their reasons for wanting that power for themselves is just so...NOBLE, it (and their unmentioned intention of growing an even more massive, powerful government) should be them. While LYING and insisting their opponents are trying to turn the nation into Nazi-land or something. See how that works out so NICELY for liberals if they can avoid the real debate about the best model of government for this country? But THAT is the real debate here, not what liberals want to do with all that power -just the fact they SEEK a system and model of government that is huge, powerful and has ever increasing control over the individual. Make your REAL choice about the model of government you want -one closer to totalitarianism and great control of the individual -or one right of center with greater individual freedoms. MAKE YOUR CHOICE and defend it -but don't lie about what is REALLY at stake with it!

The real debate is about the model of government we want -and that debate MUST always take place over and over again and not get sidetracked with the lies of the left that everyone actually wants the very same model of large, powerful, centralized government with ever increasing control over the individual -and the only debate to resolve is who controls all that massive power. Only the left wants that model of government of a large, powerful, centralized government. Whether the leftists who seek it are communists or dictators or Nazis or neoNazis or Taliban or Chavez or Saddam Hussein or Stalin or Pol Pot. They ALL agree on the model of government right off the bat. Their only real disagreement is WHO controls all that power. THAT doesn't make any of them right wing -but insisting it does is done for the benefit of one of them over the others -when in fact ALL these groups want to see that same kind of big, powerful government imposed on us all. None of those squabbles makes a damn one of them "right wing" -they are ALL left wing, they ALL want that same powerful, massive government with near total control of the individual.

To claim an American conservative -someone who believes in a totally different model of government from liberals, one that is small, weaker, decentralized - has anything in common with the Taliban that actually wants that same model of government ALL leftists want of huge, powerful with near total control of the individual - is just another fucking LIE of liberals. Liberals and the Taliban just disagree about which of them should be sitting at the top wielding all that control and power over the individual. That sure as hell doesn't make the Taliban "right wing", much less comparable to an American conservative!

 

[Political Junky]

Let's see how much anger this particular obvious troll post drums up.

Troll value notwithstanding, it's a statement of academic fact.

If so, the post the facts backing up the statement, clearly it's an academic fact you say, go ahead and post the facts then, show the affiliations and what not. Please do.

Fundamentalism in Islam:

Fundamentalist Islam is simply the conservative wing of Islam, just as fundamentalist Christianity is the conservative wing of Christianity.

The term Fundamentalism in Christianity and Islam

 

[frazzledgear]

I'm disappointed that Mani appears to have lost his unique ability to flame, and now resorts to cheap shit.

Sad.

He is also another hit-and-run asshole -I've put him on ignore as well. I have no problem debating people, even heated debate. But the bullshit hit-and-runs people like manifold and jbeukema engage in is not acceptable. I have no respect for morons like that.

 

[Toro]

Also, did you know that National Socialism was a Nazi ideology, and now the progressive left in this country support national socialism? The takeover of industry "GM, Banking system" and all that fun stuff. So I guess it's safe to say that the left allign themselves more with the Nazi party then they do with American morals and values. Apparently so being that Obama wishes to fundamentally change America.

Much of the financial system was taken over by the Bush administration.

 

[Toro]

Radical Islam is conservative in the way Christianity was conservative in the 1600s.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I understand you're bitter that you got discharged for trying to rape other men on the ship, but the Tea Party isn't behind your dishonorable discharge.

The nut in Tuscon has been proven to be a left-wing anarchist, like you. Maybe he can be your new boyfriend.

People like me kill the Taliban, try to chew on that one, asswipe.

Nope, sorry.......the teabagger and the Taliban mentality is pretty much the same.

Wanna talk about "second amendment solutions"? How about that congress woman who got shot after the Wasilla Chihuahua turned Momma Gerbil (Palin) put a cross hairs over her district?

The only difference between teabaggers and the Taliban is that the Taliban has already fired shots and killed people. Teabaggers are still contemplating it.

But............the way they approach the world with their idealologies is pretty much the same.

People like you try to kill the Taliban? How many war zones have you been in over there? Me? I've been in 4, and nope, my DD214 states that I have an RE-2 reenlistment code, which means that I'm retired. I served 20 years.

Matter of fact, until 2012, I'm still a member of the Reserves.

How much service did you give this country?

 

[Foxfyre]

Don't forget that politically speaking, radical Islam (e.g. the Taliban), is an extremely right-wing ideology.

Just another fact for your consideration.

Hmmm. Perhaps a bit if you use European definitions for left and right. In the American sociopolitical vernacular though, we are almost 180 degrees opposite of most of Europe in our defintiions. And the Right is generally associated with Conservativism here and the Left is associated with liberalism/progressiveism.

Modern American Conservatives are mostly the classical liberals of the 18th Century or hold the following values:

(Some phrases borrowed from Wiki)

Modern American Conservatism - Rightwing - Classical liberalism is a doctrine stressing:

• Individual freedom
• Free markets
• Limited government

It includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

The qualification "classical liberalism" distinguishes it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of American liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.

Doesn't sound like the Taliban to me.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Don't forget that politically speaking, radical Islam (e.g. the Taliban), is an extremely right-wing ideology.

Just another fact for your consideration.

Hmmm. Perhaps a bit if you use European definitions for left and right. In the American sociopolitical vernacular though, we are almost 180 degrees opposite of most of Europe in our defintiions. And the Right is generally associated with Conservativism here and the Left is associated with liberalism/progressiveism.

Modern American Conservatives are mostly the classical liberals of the 18th Century or hold the following values:

(Some phrases borrowed from Wiki)

Modern American Conservatism - Rightwing - Classical liberalism is a doctrine stressing:

• Individual freedom
• Free markets
• Limited government

It includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

The qualification "classical liberalism" distinguishes it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of American liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.

Doesn't sound like the Taliban to me.

Really?

In politics, Right, right-wing and rightist are generally used to describe support for preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies.[1][2][3][4][5] The terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, referring to seating arrangements in parliament; those who sat on the right supported preserving the institutions of the Ancien Régime (the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church).[6][7][8][9] Use of the term "Right" became more prominent after the second restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 with the Ultra-royalists.[10]

Stephen Fisher writes in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics that in liberal democracies the term has been defined as opposition to socialism or social democracy, and that right-wing parties have included the philosophies of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalism. He says "extreme right parties (have included) elements of racism and fascism" and "In surveys, self-placement on a left-right scale is associated with attitudes on economic policy, especially redistribution and privatization/nationalization and (particularly in Catholic countries) religiosity."[11]

Right-wing politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, it started in the 2008 election when the GOP was pissed about Obama running and decided to start lumping him together with all the scary terms (socialist, Nazi, fascist, etc.), which in turn, dumbed down the audience (GOP voters), who never took the time to actually find out what the words really meant.

Fascists by the way, are right wingers. Look it up on Dictionary.com if you don't believe me.

And......FWIW........it's an American dictionary.

 

[TheBrain]

Don't forget that politically speaking, radical Islam (e.g. the Taliban), is an extremely right-wing ideology.

Just another fact for your consideration.

Hmmm. Perhaps a bit if you use European definitions for left and right. In the American sociopolitical vernacular though, we are almost 180 degrees opposite of most of Europe in our defintiions. And the Right is generally associated with Conservativism here and the Left is associated with liberalism/progressiveism.

Modern American Conservatives are mostly the classical liberals of the 18th Century or hold the following values:

(Some phrases borrowed from Wiki)

Modern American Conservatism - Rightwing - Classical liberalism is a doctrine stressing:

• Individual freedom
• Free markets
• Limited government

It includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

The qualification "classical liberalism" distinguishes it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of American liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.

Doesn't sound like the Taliban to me.

Really?

In politics, Right, right-wing and rightist are generally used to describe support for preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies.[1][2][3][4][5] The terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, referring to seating arrangements in parliament; those who sat on the right supported preserving the institutions of the Ancien Régime (the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church).[6][7][8][9] Use of the term "Right" became more prominent after the second restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 with the Ultra-royalists.[10]

Stephen Fisher writes in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics that in liberal democracies the term has been defined as opposition to socialism or social democracy, and that right-wing parties have included the philosophies of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalism. He says "extreme right parties (have included) elements of racism and fascism" and "In surveys, self-placement on a left-right scale is associated with attitudes on economic policy, especially redistribution and privatization/nationalization and (particularly in Catholic countries) religiosity."[11]

Right-wing politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, it started in the 2008 election when the GOP was pissed about Obama running and decided to start lumping him together with all the scary terms (socialist, Nazi, fascist, etc.), which in turn, dumbed down the audience (GOP voters), who never took the time to actually find out what the words really meant.

Fascists by the way, are right wingers. Look it up on Dictionary.com if you don't believe me.

And......FWIW........it's an American dictionary.

Actually most political experts agree that fascism is both and neither left and right. It's a cobbled together political stance that borrows heavily from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I understand you're bitter that you got discharged for trying to rape other men on the ship, but the Tea Party isn't behind your dishonorable discharge.

The nut in Tuscon has been proven to be a left-wing anarchist, like you. Maybe he can be your new boyfriend.

People like me kill the Taliban, try to chew on that one, asswipe.

Nope, sorry.......the teabagger and the Taliban mentality is pretty much the same.

Wanna talk about "second amendment solutions"? How about that congress woman who got shot after the Wasilla Chihuahua turned Momma Gerbil (Palin) put a cross hairs over her district?

The only difference between teabaggers and the Taliban is that the Taliban has already fired shots and killed people. Teabaggers are still contemplating it.

But............the way they approach the world with their idealologies is pretty much the same.

Negged for being a fucking pussy

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hmmm. Perhaps a bit if you use European definitions for left and right. In the American sociopolitical vernacular though, we are almost 180 degrees opposite of most of Europe in our defintiions. And the Right is generally associated with Conservativism here and the Left is associated with liberalism/progressiveism.

Modern American Conservatives are mostly the classical liberals of the 18th Century or hold the following values:

(Some phrases borrowed from Wiki)

Modern American Conservatism - Rightwing - Classical liberalism is a doctrine stressing:

• Individual freedom
• Free markets
• Limited government

It includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

The qualification "classical liberalism" distinguishes it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of American liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.

Doesn't sound like the Taliban to me.

Really?

In politics, Right, right-wing and rightist are generally used to describe support for preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies.[1][2][3][4][5] The terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, referring to seating arrangements in parliament; those who sat on the right supported preserving the institutions of the Ancien Régime (the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church).[6][7][8][9] Use of the term "Right" became more prominent after the second restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 with the Ultra-royalists.[10]

Stephen Fisher writes in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics that in liberal democracies the term has been defined as opposition to socialism or social democracy, and that right-wing parties have included the philosophies of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalism. He says "extreme right parties (have included) elements of racism and fascism" and "In surveys, self-placement on a left-right scale is associated with attitudes on economic policy, especially redistribution and privatization/nationalization and (particularly in Catholic countries) religiosity."[11]

Right-wing politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, it started in the 2008 election when the GOP was pissed about Obama running and decided to start lumping him together with all the scary terms (socialist, Nazi, fascist, etc.), which in turn, dumbed down the audience (GOP voters), who never took the time to actually find out what the words really meant.

Fascists by the way, are right wingers. Look it up on Dictionary.com if you don't believe me.

And......FWIW........it's an American dictionary.

Actually most political experts agree that fascism is both and neither left and right. It's a cobbled together political stance that borrows heavily from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

Wrong.

fascism (ˈfæʃɪzəm)

— n
1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3. prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

[C20: from Italian fascismo , from fascio political group, from Latin fascis bundle; see fasces ]

Fascism | Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Helps to know how to use a dictionary on occasion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again the terms 'left' and 'right' and 'conservative' and 'liberal' are defined very differently in the USA than they are in Europe. if you're going to use the Oxford Dictionary, that has to be taken into account.

If you don't agree that Conservative = 'right' and Liberalism = "Left" in the USA, then this argument is moot. I am going on the belief that most Americans do see it that way.

Again modern American Conservatism is very similar to classical liberalism. I adapted my definition (abbreviated in my post in this thread) based on a number of sources. Look up "Classical Liberalism" in Wikipedia as it is a pretty good one. It by no means is the only source looking at it in exactly the same way though:

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit. Today we cannot call this philosophy liberalism because the term has been appropriated by the democratic totalitarians. In an attempt to recover this philosophy for our own time, we give it a new name, classical liberalism.
An American Classical Liberalism - - Mises Institute

2.1 Classical Liberalism
Liberal political theory, then, fractures over the conception of liberty. But a more important division concerns the place of private property and the market order. For classical liberals — sometimes called the ‘old’ liberalism — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free.
Liberalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So again, I say that using American definitions, radical Islam/the Taliban, that does not recognize nor respect unalienable rights and definitely believes in authority having control over the people is a more 'left' ideology than 'right.

 

[konradv]

Again the terms 'left' and 'right' and 'conservative' and 'liberal' are defined very differently in the USA than they are in Europe. if you're going to use the Oxford Dictionary, that has to be taken into account.

If you don't agree that Conservative = 'right' and Liberalism = "Left" in the USA, then this argument is moot. I am going on the belief that most Americans do see it that way.

Again modern American Conservatism is very similar to classical liberalism. I adapted my definition (abbreviated in my post in this thread) based on a number of sources. Look up "Classical Liberalism" in Wikipedia as it is a pretty good one. It by no means is the only source looking at it in exactly the same way though:

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit. Today we cannot call this philosophy liberalism because the term has been appropriated by the democratic totalitarians. In an attempt to recover this philosophy for our own time, we give it a new name, classical liberalism.
An American Classical Liberalism - - Mises Institute

2.1 Classical Liberalism
Liberal political theory, then, fractures over the conception of liberty. But a more important division concerns the place of private property and the market order. For classical liberals — sometimes called the ‘old’ liberalism — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free.
Liberalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So again, I say that using American definitions, radical Islam/the Taliban, that does not recognize nor respect unalienable rights and definitely believes in authority having control over the people is a more 'left' ideology than 'right.

That's only true, if you don't believe totalititarianism could come from either side. I think your just making a post based on your personal bias.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again the terms 'left' and 'right' and 'conservative' and 'liberal' are defined very differently in the USA than they are in Europe. if you're going to use the Oxford Dictionary, that has to be taken into account.

If you don't agree that Conservative = 'right' and Liberalism = "Left" in the USA, then this argument is moot. I am going on the belief that most Americans do see it that way.

Again modern American Conservatism is very similar to classical liberalism. I adapted my definition (abbreviated in my post in this thread) based on a number of sources. Look up "Classical Liberalism" in Wikipedia as it is a pretty good one. It by no means is the only source looking at it in exactly the same way though:

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit. Today we cannot call this philosophy liberalism because the term has been appropriated by the democratic totalitarians. In an attempt to recover this philosophy for our own time, we give it a new name, classical liberalism.
An American Classical Liberalism - - Mises Institute

2.1 Classical Liberalism
Liberal political theory, then, fractures over the conception of liberty. But a more important division concerns the place of private property and the market order. For classical liberals — sometimes called the ‘old’ liberalism — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free.
Liberalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So again, I say that using American definitions, radical Islam/the Taliban, that does not recognize nor respect unalienable rights and definitely believes in authority having control over the people is a more 'left' ideology than 'right.

That's only true, if you don't believe totalititarianism could come from either side. I think your just making a post based on your personal bias.

It's true using the definitions as I use them because American conservatism rejects authoritarian government. In its extreme, it assigns no more power to government than is absolutely necessary to secure the unalienable rights of the people.

Boiled down to its most basic components, in America these days, those on the right are less likely to look to central government as the solution or benefactor and those on the left are more likely to look to central government as the solution or benefactor.

 

[frazzledgear]

Again the terms 'left' and 'right' and 'conservative' and 'liberal' are defined very differently in the USA than they are in Europe. if you're going to use the Oxford Dictionary, that has to be taken into account.

If you don't agree that Conservative = 'right' and Liberalism = "Left" in the USA, then this argument is moot. I am going on the belief that most Americans do see it that way.

Again modern American Conservatism is very similar to classical liberalism. I adapted my definition (abbreviated in my post in this thread) based on a number of sources. Look up "Classical Liberalism" in Wikipedia as it is a pretty good one. It by no means is the only source looking at it in exactly the same way though:

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit. Today we cannot call this philosophy liberalism because the term has been appropriated by the democratic totalitarians. In an attempt to recover this philosophy for our own time, we give it a new name, classical liberalism.
An American Classical Liberalism - - Mises Institute

2.1 Classical Liberalism
Liberal political theory, then, fractures over the conception of liberty. But a more important division concerns the place of private property and the market order. For classical liberals — sometimes called the ‘old’ liberalism — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free.
Liberalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So again, I say that using American definitions, radical Islam/the Taliban, that does not recognize nor respect unalienable rights and definitely believes in authority having control over the people is a more 'left' ideology than 'right.

That's only true, if you don't believe totalititarianism could come from either side. I think your just making a post based on your personal bias.

Come on, think about it. How could totalitarianism be the extreme of both the left and right? HUH? The left believes in big, powerful government. They believe whatever the problem -more and bigger government is the answer. Going further and further to the left would mean bigger and bigger and more powerful government along the way. Totalitarianism is the NATURAL and only LOGICAL outcome for going to the extreme in their beliefs. If you believe government can and should try to be everything to everyone -you are BEGGING for totalitarianism.

But those on the right believe in smaller, decentralized federal government with limited powers. Going further and further to the right would mean smaller, smaller and smaller government with ever fewer powers. Taken to the extreme that belief is ANARCHY. No government at all, no government power, no laws, not institutionalized power over anyone. Rightwing extremism is pure freedom of the individual, answering to no institution and no government.

We already know the problem with totalitarianism which is actually the most common state of man's existence throughout history. The problem with anarchy, no government at all, is that it creates a very real, very deep absence of institutionalized and organized power -a power vacuum which will not only be seen as weakness - but an invitation to those on the left who want power for themselves to try and grab it for themselves. But the only way to KEEP that power given a population that wants no government at all -is by sheer force. By imposing totalitarianism.

But that is still LEFTWINGERS who would be imposing the totalitarian state in that situation -and NOT those on the extreme right who still want no government at all. Those creating that totalitarian state are still leftwingers -always. It doesn't matter how it comes about -those who would impose a totalitarian state on his fellow man for ANY reason - are ALWAYS leftwing.

Leftwing extremism is the state slavery of the individual and rightwing extremism is pure freedom of the individual. Those ARE the extremes of both, the only natural and logical outcomes of both taken to their extremes and you can't get more extreme on either side than these. There IS no further right than no government at all and there IS no further left than totalitarianism! So believing totalitarianism is not only the outcome of extreme leftwing political ideology but the natural and logical outcome of extreme right wing political ideology as well -is like claiming if you take anti-slavery beliefs to the extreme, you actually support slavery after all. You have to be devoid of any critical thinking skills to buy that!

The problem is the left also likes to use "conservative" interchangeably with "right wing" to further muddy the waters -in order to pretend US conservatives actually have anything in common with Iranian hardliners for example -or Hitler, one of their favorites. But an American conservative who would then also be right wing -has nothing in common with an Iranian conservative who is LEFTWING. Again, it is the MODEL OF GOVERNMENT that determines whether someone is left or right, not WHY they want it. When calling someone a "conservative" it typically refers to them being conservative about deviating away from some SPECIFIC doctrine or document. Not the SAME document or doctrine! In the case of US conservatives -that document would be the Constitution. US conservatives believe we should adhere pretty closely to that document as written and any deviation from it should be conservative. But in the case of Iranians conservatives, that doctrine would their fundamental, strict interpretation of the Koran. But the fact their religious beliefs would require a large, powerful government with near total control of the individual does NOT make them right wing -but LEFTWING. They are Islamic conservative leftwingers -which means they believe a very conservative version of Islam and in the imposition of a huge, powerful government in order to impose near total control over individuals -and you just don't get any further from what a US conservative believes than that bullshit!

Let's try it this way since those who pretend they just can't grasp the difference still lie and insist Nazism is somehow "right wing". (And are then just repeating Stalin's stupid but very effective lie that Nazism is the opposite of communism which is actually impossible.) Consider Nazi Germany. Hitler was democratically elected. Germans FREELY chose him in an election everyone agrees was free and fair. So, after winning that election did Hitler FIRST make his nation even MORE FREE from government control, made government ever smaller and less powerful to the point it was briefly an anarchy with no government at all? In other words, did Hitler do away with government which would mean he had no power at all -and THEN he was somehow able to grab power back again in order to go even further to the "right" past that extreme of no government at all you claim exists as rightwing extremism too - and suddenly turned Germany with a total lack of government into a TOTALITARIAN state where people ended up with so little power that the state had such massive power it was able to round up and slaughter its OWN people? Hell no that isn't what happened! Hitler got elected and IMMEDIATELY went about dismantling all democratic institutions to make sure the people could never remove him from office again -his first acts were to make Germans LESS free, not more free. He made sure government had MORE control of the people, not less. He took a hard LEFT upon taking office. He deliberately turned Germany into a totalitarian state so HE could maintain HIS power of that totalitarian state and make sure the German people no longer had the ability to remove him from power.

Which is exactly what Hugo Chavez is doing as well! Chavez was also democratically elected -but then went about tearing down the democratic institutions that brought him to power, stripping rights and freedoms from his citizens too, changed their constitution, stacked government institutions with his own lackeys to rubber stamp whatever he wants -all so the people of his country cannot get rid of him either. In fact he wants government to declare him "President-for-life" which is would mean dictator for life -because hey, he is just that same kind of guy with the very same overinflated ego maniacal opinion of himself. Chavez DELIBERATELY used many of the identical steps Hitler took to grab ultimate power. The end result was two dictators controlling two totalitarian states.

But the fact Chavez is a communist admiring dictator and Hitler was a Nazi admiring dictator doesn't make either one of them "right wing" whatsoever. They both share the same fundamental political ideology in the first place and just used different excuses -oops, "reasons" for why they sought to impose a totalitarian state with them sitting at the top in control of all that power! Which makes them BOTH leftwing and just merely disagreeing about which one of them should be sitting at that top ruling over everyone! A pretty minor disagreement when discussing the proper size, power and role of government! What determines whether someone is right or leftwing is the model of government each seeks to create -not the justifications they give for it.

Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2011: The Authoritarian Challenge to Democracy