Pennypacker, Bush and Hitler were both fixtures of the far right

I'm going to argue with you on this because you're using generalities that I consider inaccurate.

What it is you mean exactly when you say 'far right'? Strictly speaking, Adolf Hitler was a socialist. Socialism is not a 'far right' political philosophy. Hitler wanted to nationalize everything, put the government in charge, and cradle-to-grave German citizens with massive government health care, work programs, and so forth. From my perspective, this degree of socialism is a fixture of the far LEFT rather than the far right. From that perspective, Obama has far more in common politically with Hitler than Bush.

In the popular vernacular, 'far right' is used as a kind of catch-all term to describe hate groups. This means people like the KKK, Nazis, racists, anti-semites, gay bashers, skinheads, Christian cult 'compounds'... The list goes on. But generally speaking when a person says 'far right' they are talking about some sort of radical, fringe kook group that is demonstrably just way out there doing really wierd stuff.

But that's not how a neolib uses the term. When neolibs use the term 'far right', they use it as a slur to describe any and all groups that they politically disagree with. Pro-life, NRA, free-market, Christians, traditional marriage, small government... These are all perfectly normal, acceptable, every-day political and personal lifestyles that that the neoliberal left-wing maliciously smears guilt association using the term "far right".

So when you say "Bush and Hitler were both fixtures of the far right", I'm going to disagree with you. Bush may be a fixture of persons who want personal accountability, hold a pro-life opinion, and other aspects of what I would call a 'conservative' point of view (though - alas - he didn't follow through with small government). But he certainly is NOT a fixture of the "far right" kook fringe. That's nothing more than neoliberal whitewash. Bush never once advocated racism, violence towards others based on skin color, gay bashing, or anything of the sort.

>> ^mauz15:
Another site you can get the course is:
http://academicearth.org/courses/introduction-to-political-philosophy

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=yalecourses&view=playlists
They also have a philosophy of Death course.


For sharing those links with me you are henchforth bookmarked as a GOD AMONG MEN by me! All hail the Mighty Mauz (pun very much intended)!

Another site you can get the course is:
http://academicearth.org/courses/introduction-to-political-philosophy
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=yalecourses&view=playlists
They also have a philosophy of Death course.

>> ^dag:
^Much smarter than Beck, and certainly a milder flavour of douche.


And KO doesn't knowingly lie to his viewers in order to make them fear their government, arm themselves, and start assassinating people from the opposing party, or with a different political philosophy.

I have a hard time watching KO, but to equate him with Beck is out there.

liberal

ADJECTIVE:

1a. broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
b. having political or social views favoring reform and progress
c. tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
d. a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

>> ^imstellar28:

I think that's an interesting idea, but how is that different from just taking the current left-right definition (all about the size of government) and making it a 3rd axis?

Why can't that axis really be decomposed into a vector of the social and economic axes?

Positive values on the social axis call for more government involvement, and less on the economic. Perhaps they should just flip the x-axis around, and say positive values correlate to more government involvement (though that would destroy the natural left-right order it has now).

Adding the 3rd axis leads to weird combinations; is it really possible to be economicly collectivist, socially conservative, and politically libertarian?

It seems like you're just trying to superimpose your view of the left-right axis onto the system. In fairness, I think that's because you generally view your positions on economic and social issues as being derived from your political philosophy, whereas I generally feel like my political philosophy is derived from my views on economic and social issues.

The chart is more about measuring the kinds of concrete goals you have for the way society should work, than about the means you think it will take to get society there. Maybe it's a weakness in the system's ability to discern political party sympathies, but people in the 4th quadrant are pretty much all going to self-identify as libertarian or "independent". At least, in the US.

Cool! Now my entire political philosophy can be easily explained by four numbers!

^(I clearly offended you, and I'm sorry. There is no question that you are a smart, thoughtful and well intentioned guy. I don't think you are dull, meaningless, trite, etc. I've just had similar conversations with you many times and expressed some exasperation in a lame way. Sorry.)

As far as I know, jingoism isn't limited to country, and can be used as a term to describe any party or faction. Whether it's correct usage or not, I'm guessing you understand my meaning. Only the anarchists can truly claim the brand of liberty and freedom you speak of.

"but in the US we require freedom and liberty" This also comes off a bit platitud-y to me. As if Europe lives in chains while we carry the torch for truth and justice. Freedom and liberty are complex concepts that can be applied in infinite ways. One man's liberty is another man's slavery. Having healthcare gives you freedom from sickness. A shortened work week gives you freedom to spend time with the people you love. Social Security gives elders the freedom to not die of starvation, alone in an alley. My point is that we can apply these terms to a broad range of political philosophies, and that trying to pin it on your own lapel is a hollow exercise.

>> ^blankfist:
The free market didn't do this to the economy, my sweet prince. We've been over this a million times. It wasn't lack of regulation but rather government intervention in the market that helped to lead to this terrible economic disaster.

Which government intervention? You repeat these talking points as if they're self-evident, yet you've failed to explain how a crisis in the private banking industry was foisted upon them by government regulations. If there's a regulation out there that said "you must leverage yourselves well past your asset level", I've not seen you or any other market fundamentalist quote it.

That's not to say I agree with rougy's overall point of "what else could we do?" as the defense of stimulus.

imstellar's right that the debate should be waged using real data points from history even with the understanding that there's never going to be a perfect fit to our current situation out there to be found.

I'm trying to track down rigorous studies of past examples, but most of what I'm finding is talking about theory and the current program, not past programs. The rest of what I'm finding are sweeping generalizations about the Great Depression, or the 1980's deflation in Japan. Economists who're in favor of stimulus say that the New Deal worked, and that Japan's attempts at stimulus failed because they didn't invest in projects with real long-term value. Opponents of the current program emphasize Japan's problems as disproof of fiscal stimulus, and then say that WWII, not the New Deal ended the Great Depression (without mentioning that WWII was also fiscal stimulus).

In other words, it seems to be something that people are just divided on political ideology, and the economics is used to justify the economists' political philosophy.

Which is icky.

>> ^BruceStreet:
in fact ... prosecuting the war ... liberal Westerners ... accurate paradigm ... progressive, liberal democracy of Israel ... she ... is liberating 1.4 million hostages from the grip of 5,000 Hamas terrorist thugs...fighting the Iranian proxy at its door step ... the good guys ... idiotic dictators attack Israel ... she responds ... theologically inspired pathetic political philosophy ... dangerously seasoned with immature fantasies of glory... drink the feel good “kool-aid” of sympathy for pre-middle ages, totalitarian, apocalyptic, oppressive regimes ... liberal Western media who aid and abet our enemy ... pathological manipulation ... using many very benevolent means to alleviate the suffering ... prosecuting a humanitarian method of warfare.

Nothing to add, just felt like quoting some of this uber-dramatic freshman chiché soup.

Israel is in fact prosecuting the war in Gaza in a humanitarian way

Most liberal Westerners lack a more accurate paradigm in which to view the events in the Middle East. The modern, progressive, liberal democracy of Israel is not seeking to punish poor Arabs. Rather she is liberating 1.4 million hostages from the grip of 5,000 Hamas terrorist thugs.

Israel is fighting the Iranian proxy at its door step that also threatens the entire Middle East, Europe and North America as well. There are still more “battle grounds” in this war where the results are also tragic. But they were tragic for the good guys such as Mumbai, New York’s twin towers and Darfur, Sudan.

When idiotic dictators attack Israel, eventually she responds. The terrorist who rule Gaza invited disaster upon themselves and their captive, hostage, citizens. Their theologically inspired pathetic political philosophy is simply anti-Semitic and dangerously seasoned with immature fantasies of glory.

We in the West drink the feel good “kool-aid” of sympathy for pre-middle ages, totalitarian, apocalyptic, oppressive regimes. The drink is served by a willing liberal Western media who aid and abet our enemy in their pathological manipulation of the news.

Our challenge is to appreciate that Israel is in fact using many very benevolent means to alleviate the suffering that is going on in Gaza. Everyone knows a quicker, more efficient but unspeakable way to stop the Hamas regime. W.W. II ended with these methods.

But Israel is prosecuting a humanitarian method of warfare. The human cost of a few hundred or a few thousand deaths out of 1,400,000 Hamas hostages is the price Hamas is paying rather than simply stopping firing rockets across the border on to 1,000,0000 Arab and Jewish citizens in South Israel.

Rescuing hostages as I present here is dangerous and imperfect. But given the astoundingly stupid regime in Gaza aerial bombing and troop saturation is the better way.

I hesitantly dub this the best political philosophy video I've yet seen.

Must. Watch. More.

*promote

>> ^HenningKO:
Holy crap, y'all. My dad just got laid off yesterday from his medium-size tech company. After 20 years! This is something I never thought would happen.
I'm sure most people feel the way I do: that they'd like to see Wall Street, brokers, and banks regulated so the assholes that did this can't get rich again, but they DON'T want to see every big company that comes pleading to the gov't to be bailed out.
Is that somewhere between schools?


Shh, you're interjecting reality into this great clash of economic theory.

FYI, what you're describing isn't so much an economic school of thought, as much as a political philosophy. One that calls for us to try to shape our society so things like that don't cause you a tremendous amount of suffering.

Lots of these guys think that's a horrible, horrible thing that makes things worse. I think they're nuts, but I'm pretty sure the feeling is mutual.

In the meantime, I hope things work out well for you, and hope your dad can find another job without too much trouble.

Maybe it's high time for IT workers to unionize.

I'm going to go ahead and make an exhaustive list of suggestions in the order they are now:
*teens - (oh sh*t, hormones)
*parody - A Bit of Parody
*horrorshow - All Night Horrorshow

*timeshift - Altered Time
*animation - Animation
*military - Army, Navy And The Air Force
*art - Arts
*downunder - Australia, NZ and Oceania
*actionpack -Ball-Flexin'
*books - Books: Printed Glory
*bravo - Bravo! Classical music and more
*british - British Invasion

*comedy - Comedy
*cute - Cute
*canada - Canadian World Domination
*catsanddogs - Cats and Dogs + others
*cinema - Cinema
*commercial - Commercial Sift
*cult - CultSift

*dark - Dark
*documentaries - Documentary Channel
*worldaffairs - Domestic Policy & Foreign Affairs
*drugs - Drugs

*election08 - Election 2008
*geek - Everything geek
*eia - Evolution In Action

*femme - FemmeSift
*asia - From Asia with Love

*gay - Gay
*waronterror - Global War on Terror
*cooking - Good Eats
*grindhouse - Grindhouse Cinema

*happy - Happy
*hiphop - Hip Hop Culture
*howto - How To Do Anything, Anywhere, Anytime
*sexuality - Human Sexuality
*humanitarian - Humanitarian Sift

*islam - Islamica

*jazz - Jazz & Blues

*kids - Kid Sift

*latenight - Late Night
*livemusic - Live Music
*love - Love and relationships

*music - Music
*woohoo - Matt Groening & Friends Appreciation
*brain - Mind and Brain

*obscure - Obscure
*lies - One Nation Under Truthiness

*politics - Politics
*philosophy - Philosophical Society

*religion - Religion... It's the Opium of the People
*rocknroll - Rock & Roll

*scifi - Sci-Fi Fandom
*science - Science
*schortfilms - Short Films
*timeshift - Spanning Time
*sports - Sports Sift
*standup - Standup Comedy
*eco - Sustainability

*terrible - Terrible! Who gave thatt a green light?
*engineering - The agony and the ecstacy of engineering
*spacy - The Clouds and Beyond
*future - The Future
*meme - The internet's best hits
*nature - The Serenity of Nature video collection
*travel - Travel

*videogames - Video (game) Sift
*vintage - VideoSift's Archive of Vintage Classics
*viral - Viral Ads

*wtf - What the F*ck Just Happened?
*fear - What you FEAR most!
*news - What's Fit to Sift
*wheels - Wheels Channel
*wildwestshow - Wild West Show
*wings - Wings!

*1sttube - 1stTube: the best clips of television

*mystery - 221b Baker Street

*80s - 80s High School Reunion

That episode was definitely one of their best ever. The random laser blast was great.

Oh and socialism does not stand for what you were looking for, nice shot and fail.

The Nazis' may have had the word "socialism" or "socialist" attributed to the party name, but under every other rule they are fascist. McCain/Obama have more of a middle of the road or slight socialist stance. But for comedy sakes McCain/Palin fit in much closer to fascism, especially socially.

Merriam-Webster:

Socialism:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Fascism:

1 often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control