Politicians who support Breivik

[Lord Zentei]

You'd fit right in on the American left, depending on your notion of "fiscal discipline."

Yes, I know. I think I commented at one point before my lengthy absence that I was a moderate right-winger in Europe, which would make me a moderate Democrat in the US. Or perhaps it's just plain Democrat nowadays with the further shift of the political spectrum we've seen of recent (fucking Obama).

One point where I probably differ with many on the left is on the issue of "multiculturalism", or at least the implications of it. I am aware that this statement can be seen in a bad light, especially with recent events. So, to clarify: I have no qualms about diversity. I am concerned about the prospect of self-segregating communities that feel alienated from one another. I am also aware that this can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially with xenophobia growing louder - the blame lies with the majority as well as minorities. However, my position is that a healthy society requires amongst many other things, a uniform code of laws and compatible courts systems, and equal justice with no incentives for alienation between groups. Non-segregated education systems and and an absence of religious based laws, etc. are desirable also.

For examples: on one extreme, the emergence of Sharia courts in the UK. I don't approve of the idea that there are parallel court systems in one country, especially if they're keyed to cultural/religious groups (and yes, I know Sharia courts also judge civil cases as well as cases with non-Muslims; the point stands regardless). On the other extreme, there is the non-citizenship of many immigrants in France, even after multiple generations, leading to toxic tensions between ethnic and religious groups. If they don't want to extend citizenship to multi-generational residents, then they have no business pretending to be a society that allows immigration in the first place.

[Simon_Jester]

This really isn't an issue in the US; the closest that anything comes to it is illegal immigrants from Latin America. Where basically, the dispute is between those who want to round them up and boot them out of the country, argument being that they shouldn't be here (illegal, remember?)... and those who want to extend public services to their children and otherwise try to integrate them, argument being that this is better than making them a permanent underclass.

If you ask me, the hidden factor in all this is that the US has had strict immigration quotas on legal immigration for quite some time, most recently under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965These quotas weren't so tight fifty years ago, but today they basically limit legal immigration to the US to about 0.1% of the American population annually. As a result there's a huge demand for low-skilled and unskilled labor willing to work at harder conditions than the average modern American, which drives the whole illegal immigration issue in the first place.

[Teebs]

For examples: on one extreme, the emergence of Sharia courts in the UK. I don't approve of the idea that there are parallel court systems in one country, especially if they're keyed to cultural/religious groups (and yes, I know Sharia courts also judge civil cases as well as cases with non-Muslims; the point stands regardless).

I get your general point but I think you're misunderstanding the fundamental basis of these courts. They are not courts in the sense that most people understand them. They are a form of legally binding arbitration. In other words they are based on the principle that any two people can agree to settle a dispute between the two of them by going to a third party and asking them to make a ruling. They require the agreement of all parties to participate and cannot violate national law. Most importantly, the only way you could get rid of them is by essentially banning people from agreeing to seek arbitration (only available for civil disputes obviously). This is very undesirable because arbitration is cheaper, faster and generally more amicable than court action.

[someone_else]

No I call their stance on issues such as abortion, stem cells and gay rights socially conservative.

It's a common misconception, Pope Ratzy (Roman Catholic Church) has lots of followers here (and in their target audience anyway), they cannot risk to go against his will.
It is just a Post-It to say "it's ok to vote for me if you are Catholic". It's unclear if they actually understand what the first two things are. Although they indeed enjoy being homophobes at large.

Perhaps saying pro-free market was the wrong way of putting it. My point was that their economic policy is fairly classic rightwing.

If for "rightwing" you mean like american rightwing, yes, more or less. But that's not really rightwing, that's "more money for us, fuck you".

Lowering taxes, opposing state aid etc.

Bullshit and bullshit again. The one that wants to lower taxes is Berlusconi. Lega Nord wanted to secede and now wants some kind of federalization of Italy. Nature of the change unspecified again but they trumpet a lot about it.

They oppose state aid only on southern Italy (areas they don't control, and they call "terroni" the southern Italians, something as offensive as "nigger"), and scream like babies when aid is needed by the northern regions (areas that they control).

What they actually do is raising taxes and calling pointless stuff "federal" while fucking up everything, but that's a detail.

Surprise surprise rightwing parties engage in corrupt behaviour in Italy

It's common on the left as well (although they generally still have the dignity to resign when caught instead of calling it "political persecution" and counting on the fact their mandate will end well before the trial). It's an issue with politicians in general.

There's a much better argument to be made for Forza Italia's lack of ideology.

Btw, changed name some election ago. Now it is Popolo Delle Libertà or something equally idiotic like that. PDL for short.

However I think it is still a party of the centre-right in behaviour

If you think being right-wing is being like the US rightwing, yes, they are alike.

But actual right isn't that. True rightwing works for something it believes will better the nation (actual specifications may vary, i tend to agree with Zentei above).
These are basically chimps and clowns under the control of those with money, and work to make better only those they serve, and fuck the rest.

US rightwing still contains some that really believe in what they do (mostly nutters) but it's not much better overall.