Conservative. Liberal. Democrat. Republican. Left Wing. Right Wing.

[PoliticalChic]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

Assuming that the question applies to Americans, then 'neutral' would be the values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders.

Based on that, the Right is 'neutral,' or centrist.....and, while there is a Far Left that has seized control of the major political party.....

....there is no Far Right in this country.

If you doubt that......try to come up with any values, attitudes and beliefs propounded by the Right that run counter to those of the Founders.


There are numerous views, desires and attitudes of the Left, that are far, far from those of this nation.

There is a far right. It starts with white supremacists and neo-nazis. The so-called Freedom Caucus is far right. Instead of finding conservative ways of helping people they tell people who are struggling to drop dead.

1. .....try to come up with any values, attitudes and beliefs propounded by the Right that run counter to those of the Founders.

You didn't because there are none.
But I can provide lots of Far Left examples that you support.


2. Nazis are Leftists...not on the Right.
"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?"

Socialists.....just like Liberals.
Both are Leftists.




3. How about you try again:
There is no "far right" in this country.
To be 'far,' it must be at a distance to the center: American traditions, values, and history represent that center.

There are so very many ways to prove same.....
Let's take as an example, traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage..
....which is the radical position?
Hence, Far Left

Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always meant:
" a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children" Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY


How about 'traditional family'?
"A traditional family is a family structure that consists of a man, woman and one or more of their biological or adopted children. In most traditional families, the man and woman are husband and wife." Traditional Family: Definition & Concept | Study.com




So....as far as the concept of marriage and family, where do we find the radical position?
The Left.
Hence, 'Far Left.'
So far, far from the center, that they cannot point to a single philosopher, sage, or religious leader throughout history who has endorsed homosexual marriage.




If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

The trouble is that the conservative movement has been corrupted by Trump. I proudly voted for Ronald Reagan yet Reagan would be called a liberal by Trump conservatives. Trump conservatives have talked about controlling the news media. That is a violation of the First Amendment. A bump stock was used to kill or injure hundreds in Las Vegas. Yet Republicans refuse to ban devices like these. Banning them is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Nazis were socialists but it was far more than that. They were also authoritarians. Trump never mentions the word freedom and the so-called Freedom Caucus should be re-named Freedom for those who are well off Caucus. Immigration agents have been becoming increasingly authoritarian by ignoring the need for search warrants. Trump pardoned Arpaio who violated the 4th Amendment rights of Americans. He has also suggested that it is okay for cops to rough up their prisoners. Hitler did have some success. He did succeed in pulling Germany out of a depression.

Roy Moore has said that Muslims should not be allowed to hold office and gays should be jailed. Whatever you think of gay marriage, that position is extreme. Yet he could be a US Senator. This guy should have gotten 5% of the vote not over 50%.

The fact is that there are mainstream conservatives who are not far right. However they are in a minority and have been eclipsed by the far right. It is represented by hate over policy.

I've challenged you earlier to find any values, attitudes or traditions embrace by the Right that were not consistent with those of the founders.

You've failed that challenge.

No worry....none of your Leftists have been able to find any way to fulfill that challenge.


Let me provide one more proof of my thesis....that there is no Far Right.....only a Far Left that mirrors folks like Trotsky and Stalin:

Democrat icon and dictator-wannabe, Franklin Roosevelt actually shredded the Constitution.....can't be more Far Left than that.

Franklin Roosevelt threw the United States Constitution under the bus, and used the public fisc for all sorts of endeavors not authorized in Article 1, section 8.

A radical and Progressive position.

He was the ultimate "Far Leftist."


Under Franklin Roosevelt the federal government was transformed from one of limited & enumerated powers only to the Frankensteinian monster it is today. ....the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, ...
Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; ...

Radical to the utmost....hence Far Left.



Under Roosevelt's NRA, most manufacturing industries were suddenly forced into government-mandated cartels. Codes that regulated prices and terms of sale briefly transformed much of the American economy into a fascist-style arrangement,
"... into a fascist-style arrangement,..."
"A New Jersey tailor named Jacob Maged was arrested and sent to jail for the “crime” of pressing a suit of clothes for 35 cents rather than the NRA-inspired “Tailor’s Code” of 40 cents."
No surprise here: FDR's New Deal was a copy of Mussolini's economic program.

Could anything short of setting up concentration camps for our citizens, be more radical???

Oh...wait....
....he did authorize concentration camps,didn't he.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

Centrist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

Assuming that the question applies to Americans, then 'neutral' would be the values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders.

Based on that, the Right is 'neutral,' or centrist.....and, while there is a Far Left that has seized control of the major political party.....

....there is no Far Right in this country.

If you doubt that......try to come up with any values, attitudes and beliefs propounded by the Right that run counter to those of the Founders.


There are numerous views, desires and attitudes of the Left, that are far, far from those of this nation.

There is a far right. It starts with white supremacists and neo-nazis. The so-called Freedom Caucus is far right. Instead of finding conservative ways of helping people they tell people who are struggling to drop dead.

1. .....try to come up with any values, attitudes and beliefs propounded by the Right that run counter to those of the Founders.

You didn't because there are none.
But I can provide lots of Far Left examples that you support.


2. Nazis are Leftists...not on the Right.
"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?"

Socialists.....just like Liberals.
Both are Leftists.




3. How about you try again:
There is no "far right" in this country.
To be 'far,' it must be at a distance to the center: American traditions, values, and history represent that center.

There are so very many ways to prove same.....
Let's take as an example, traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage..
....which is the radical position?
Hence, Far Left

Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always meant:
" a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children" Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY


How about 'traditional family'?
"A traditional family is a family structure that consists of a man, woman and one or more of their biological or adopted children. In most traditional families, the man and woman are husband and wife." Traditional Family: Definition & Concept | Study.com




So....as far as the concept of marriage and family, where do we find the radical position?
The Left.
Hence, 'Far Left.'
So far, far from the center, that they cannot point to a single philosopher, sage, or religious leader throughout history who has endorsed homosexual marriage.




If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

The trouble is that the conservative movement has been corrupted by Trump. I proudly voted for Ronald Reagan yet Reagan would be called a liberal by Trump conservatives. Trump conservatives have talked about controlling the news media. That is a violation of the First Amendment. A bump stock was used to kill or injure hundreds in Las Vegas. Yet Republicans refuse to ban devices like these. Banning them is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Nazis were socialists but it was far more than that. They were also authoritarians. Trump never mentions the word freedom and the so-called Freedom Caucus should be re-named Freedom for those who are well off Caucus. Immigration agents have been becoming increasingly authoritarian by ignoring the need for search warrants. Trump pardoned Arpaio who violated the 4th Amendment rights of Americans. He has also suggested that it is okay for cops to rough up their prisoners. Hitler did have some success. He did succeed in pulling Germany out of a depression.

Roy Moore has said that Muslims should not be allowed to hold office and gays should be jailed. Whatever you think of gay marriage, that position is extreme. Yet he could be a US Senator. This guy should have gotten 5% of the vote not over 50%.

The fact is that there are mainstream conservatives who are not far right. However they are in a minority and have been eclipsed by the far right. It is represented by hate over policy.

A word about 'freedom.'



"Trump never mentions the word freedom..."
Let's check:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


" Donald Trump: As President, I’ll Reverse the Law That Prevents Churches from Endorsing Candidates
Trump said near the end of his speech that he would rescind the IRS rule preventing churches from endorsing candidates.

That takes you and it makes you less powerful than a man or woman walking up and down the street. You actually have less power.”

And yet if you look at it, I was talking to someone, we probably have 250 million, maybe even more, in terms of people, so we have more Christians… than we have men or women in our country and we don’t have a lobby because they’re afraid to have a lobby because they don’t want to lose their tax status.

So I am going to work like hell to get rid of that prohibition and we’re going to have the strongest Christian lobby and it’s going to happen. This took place during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson and it has had a terrible chilling effect."
Donald Trump: As President, I’ll Reverse the Law That Prevents Churches from Endorsing Candidates



Here's a question you won't be able to answer, either:
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

That's the question: how can you support this restriction on free speech by your side?


You might want to pick up a copy of this:

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

The Political Compass

It's a fairly long test, so I think the results are accurate.

I did the Political Compass test in June it was posted in another thread, below are my results, I think it's accurate, I have always been on the Authoritarian Right, I also agree with those who comment that I'm the most Right-Wing member of this forum.

Also I'm pro-Capitalism and anti-Socialism/Communism so I think the Economic section is accurate also.

View attachment 156995

Yikes! Just a few squares from Hitler. Go figure.

 

[MPS777]

There is no Far Right in this county.....only Far Left.

Applicably speaking, yes. I agree.

In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism. Hence, my previous thought here. And therein lies the chore at hand.

"In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism."


Really....?

I say my exposition is not simply my opinion....As I have asked earlier, can you find any Rightwing values or attitudes not consistent with those of America's Founders?



The Left, on the other hand, eschews said values, traditions and attitudes,and substitutes those of Hegel, Marx and Rousseau.

Let's go right for the head of the Far Left....Obama

The Obama administration is easily proven to be Far Left: he advanced, to a seat on the Supreme Court, a radical who does not believe in free speech, the first amendment.

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."



In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."



Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?



Any want to deny that free speech is at the center of American tradition???
Anyone?



So....as far as the concept of free speech in America, where do we find the radical position?
On the Left.
Hence, far left.



....see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

Your entire political philosophy is merely based on your opinion. You’ve simply declared ‘Rightwing values’ to be “the values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders”, and then challenged people to find any ‘Rightwing values’ not consistent with those of America’s founders. A pointless challenge, like if I challenged someone to find a true believing christian that isn’t a true believing christian.

But let’s examine the values and beliefs of “the founders” a bit shall we? Many founders believed “all men are created equal”, and believed it literally, meaning women were not included and thus could be denied the right to vote. So someone who does believe that women should have the right to vote can be said to have deviated from the values and beliefs of “the founders”. And you say that anyone who deviates from “the values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders” is “the Left”, so is everyone who believes that women should have the right to vote a left winger? I could repeat this exercise on the issue of slavery and white supremacy, and the result would be the same.

If we were to follow “the values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders” verbatim today, women still wouldn’t be guaranteed the right to vote, slavery would still be legal, etc. So what you’ve apparently done is look at the mass of (often contradictory) “values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders”, cherry pick the ones they like, ignore the ones they don’t, and applied your own personal priority and importance ratings on each. Well there’s almost an infinite number of combinations and results you (or anyone) could attain using this strategy. The ones that you cherry picked are the ones that are most important to you and thus merely your opinion. So you’ve subjectively chosen what the right/center of the political universe is based on your opinion, and thus your labeling of every other given political philosophy as leftist is also a product of your opinion.

And I’m still trying to figure out where libertarians fall on your left/right scale. They believe in liberty, the founders believe in liberty; however they aren’t one in the same are they. The founders believed in legislating morality. Sticking the state's nose into people people’s business to find “fault” before granting divorce. Passing blasphemy laws, sodomy laws, fornication laws. That’s authoritarianism. Many believe that the further you follow authoritarianism “right”, the more authoritarian the philosophy is. So would an extreme “rightist” not be the same as an extreme authoritarian?

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no Far Right in this county.....only Far Left.

Applicably speaking, yes. I agree.

In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism. Hence, my previous thought here. And therein lies the chore at hand.

"In today's political/social arena, however, people tend to tailor their own ism."


Really....?

I say my exposition is not simply my opinion....As I have asked earlier, can you find any Rightwing values or attitudes not consistent with those of America's Founders?



The Left, on the other hand, eschews said values, traditions and attitudes,and substitutes those of Hegel, Marx and Rousseau.

Let's go right for the head of the Far Left....Obama

The Obama administration is easily proven to be Far Left: he advanced, to a seat on the Supreme Court, a radical who does not believe in free speech, the first amendment.

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."



In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."



Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?



Any want to deny that free speech is at the center of American tradition???
Anyone?



So....as far as the concept of free speech in America, where do we find the radical position?
On the Left.
Hence, far left.



....see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

Your entire political philosophy is merely based on your opinion. You’ve simply declared ‘Rightwing values’ to be “the values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders”, and then challenged people to find any ‘Rightwing values’ not consistent with those of America’s founders. A pointless challenge, like if I challenged someone to find a true believing christian that isn’t a true believing christian.

But let’s examine the values and beliefs of “the founders” a bit shall we? Many founders believed “all men are created equal”, and believed it literally, meaning women were not included and thus could be denied the right to vote. So someone who does believe that women should have the right to vote can be said to have deviated from the values and beliefs of “the founders”. And you say that anyone who deviates from “the values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders” is “the Left”, so is everyone who believes that women should have the right to vote a left winger? I could repeat this exercise on the issue of slavery and white supremacy, and the result would be the same.

If we were to follow “the values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders” verbatim today, women still wouldn’t be guaranteed the right to vote, slavery would still be legal, etc. So what you’ve apparently done is look at the mass of (often contradictory) “values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders”, cherry pick the ones they like, ignore the ones they don’t, and applied your own personal priority and importance ratings on each. Well there’s almost an infinite number of combinations and results you (or anyone) could attain using this strategy. The ones that you cherry picked are the ones that are most important to you and thus merely your opinion. So you’ve subjectively chosen what the right/center of the political universe is based on your opinion, and thus your labeling of every other given political philosophy as leftist is also a product of your opinion.

And I’m still trying to figure out where libertarians fall on your left/right scale. They believe in liberty, the founders believe in liberty; however they aren’t one in the same are they. The founders believed in legislating morality. Sticking the state's nose into people people’s business to find “fault” before granting divorce. Passing blasphemy laws, sodomy laws, fornication laws. That’s authoritarianism. Many believe that the further you follow authoritarianism “right”, the more authoritarian the philosophy is. So would an extreme “rightist” not be the same as an extreme authoritarian?

"Your entire political philosophy is merely based on your opinion. You’ve simply declared ‘Rightwing values’ to be “the values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders”, and then challenged people to find any ‘Rightwing values’ not consistent with those of America’s founders."

And your post is an attempt to explain why you've failed miserably.

My claim was for any to find attitudes, values and traditions of the Right not consistent with those of the Founders.

None of you can.

QED.....while there is no Far Right, there certainly is a Far Left, whose values and attitudes are consistent with Marx, Hegel and Rousseau.

 

[ThatDude30]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

The Political Compass

Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69

 

[Mac1958]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

The Political Compass

Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69

?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

It's an internet forum after all.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Well, I agree with the death penalty,
I agree with most people being able to own guns
I agree with having a large powerful military
I agree with the reality that kids are better off in two parent homes
I agree with a strong private sector!

But, yet the republican party has gone so far to the right these days I am seen as a hard core leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney.

when you mirror your good buddy dean matt and try to talk like him,then yea you will be considered far left....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Lefties love to pin labels on people. You can be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative if you think you need a label or you can be a social conservative and a fiscal liberal.

Lefties love to pin labels on people.
so do righties.....

 

[ThatDude30]

I really cant believe that anybody could be strictly one sided. Agreeing and believing every single thing that each group does is unbelievable. I was reading the list of beliefs for republican, and I was like, "ok, that's cool, ok, I can agree with that" then the next one was like how is that even on the list, it doesn't even make sense to the others on the list.
I just cant see any one person can actually believe and agree with a every single political groups believes, philosophy, ideologies, and whatever else?
I agree with things from every group and disagree with things from every group.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Ancaps are far right. Then again, some ancaps are far left, too. They're all sorts of scwewy. It's an oxymoron anyway.

There is no Far Right in this county.....only Far Left.

bullshit.....they both exist and are dragging this country down with their tit for tat bullshit....

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ancaps are far right. Then again, some ancaps are far left, too. They're all sorts of scwewy. It's an oxymoron anyway.

There is no Far Right in this county.....only Far Left.

bullshit.....they both exist and are dragging this country down with their tit for tat bullshit....

No. Not in scope. That's actually why I used the example that I did. They're just socialists who think they're not. People are easily confused. They do it to themselves. And, of course, there are those who take advantage of their shortcomings. I'd just mentioned that in one of the anti-free market threads.

Anyway. Whuheva. Proceed...

 

[Natural Citizen]

I really cant believe that anybody could be strictly one sided. Agreeing and believing every single thing that each group does is unbelievable. I was reading the list of beliefs for republican, and I was like, "ok, that's cool, ok, I can agree with that" then the next one was like how is that even on the list, it doesn't even make sense to the others on the list.
I just cant see any one person can actually believe and agree with a every single political groups believes, philosophy, ideologies, and whatever else?
I agree with things from every group and disagree with things from every group.

It is not necessary that everyone agrees about everything. It is only necessary that everyone agrees that we should be free.

 

[MarcATL]

Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?

Assuming that the question applies to Americans, then 'neutral' would be the values, attitudes and beliefs of the Founders.

Based on that, the Right is 'neutral,' or centrist.....and, while there is a Far Left that has seized control of the major political party.....

....there is no Far Right in this country.

If you doubt that......try to come up with any values, attitudes and beliefs propounded by the Right that run counter to those of the Founders.


There are numerous views, desires and attitudes of the Left, that are far, far from those of this nation.

Why assume that the question applies only to Americans? American politics have never existed in a vacuum. American people have always been exposed to and incorporated ideas that arose in different places, and in different times. More than that, the founders had some diametrically opposing “values, attitudes and beliefs”. Some founders believed in white supremacy, others did not. In a later post you would say that:
>>>”To be 'far,' it must be at a distance to the center: American traditions, values, and history represent that center.”
Really.. American history represents the “center” also? Does that mean the conquest of other people’s lands represent the “center”? Does that mean chattel slavery represents the “center”? Or a collectivist could point out to the fact that public education, public assistance to the poor, and publicly funded infrastructure have always existed in America and are thus American traditions; with subjective interpretation, the “center” could represent whatever you want it to be. So then when you say “Right is 'neutral,' or centrist”, you’re both revealing how those terms are completely subjective, and how you’re completely certain of your subjective interpretation: the “right” IS the center. I suppose that’s a bit like an apple IS a banana.

How would your view account for a libertarian who believes that drugs and prostitution should be completely legal, but also believes in free market capitalism; and a communist that believes that prostitution and recreational drugs should be outlawed? Or we could compare that libertarian to a religious conservative who believes in capitalism, but also believes that prostitution and recreational drugs should be outlawed. The libertarian could lay claim to the American tradition of liberty, while the religious conservative could lay claim to the American tradition of placing government enforced restrictions on drugs and prostitution. Since you’re using a subjective (and apparently one-dimensional) scale, they could both just label the other as “left” or “right”. I think you’ve just invented a scale that puts you at the center, so that you can label everyone else as wrong.

Your fight against “homosexual marriage” I think is a good example of why believers in the supremacy of “tradition” so often lose. There are 1138 statutory provisions that confer special rights and privileges upon “married” people. Marriage is a philosophical construct in the same way as religion is. As long as no one is being harmed the state should butt out. The state can’t be granting special rights and privileges to people who practice “traditional marriage” any more than it can be granting special rights and privileges to people who practice christianity; “equal protection of the laws” as the 14th amendment says. I won’t bother looking to past religious leaders because I know that religious people often hold irrational beliefs. I place priority on logic. People also tried to say the practice of slavery should remain because it was traditional, and that women shouldn’t vote because that was the tradition.

POWERFUL!!!

*one-man standing ovation*

Sent from my SM-J710F using Tapatalk

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ancaps are far right. Then again, some ancaps are far left, too. They're all sorts of scwewy. It's an oxymoron anyway.

There is no Far Right in this county.....only Far Left.

bullshit.....they both exist and are dragging this country down with their tit for tat bullshit....

By your language, it seems I hit a nerve, Harry.

Simple enough for you to prove your point and disprove mine....if you can:

There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important when dealing with hot topics that run counter to popular belief....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.

To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.


The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."



"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)


So far, I've given these examples of traditionally American positions...the 'center' against which to compare the positions.

Radical positions as opposed to traditional ones identify "Far" Left



1. ... traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage.. Which one is radical?

2. Another of those positions under regular discussion is 'prayer' in the public arena....Congress opens each year with prayer. Opposing prayer is radical....religiosity is traditional in America.

3. Is 'free speech' embraced by one side, and opposed by the other? You betcha! Obama's Supreme Court nominee says it would be be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

Starting to see a pattern?

4. While we were founded on the biblical idea that all men are created equal,
LBJ advanced a two-class nation based on skin color.
....this radical view was advanced: affirmative action. Hence, Democrats....the Far Left.

5. Here's one more radical position by the Left....fighting to elect a sexual pervert and admitted liar and disbarred lawyer to the White House: Bill Clinton
Relative to American traditions, values, and history ...championing a man of such low character is a radical position.
Hence, Far Left..


6. Franklin Roosevelt threw the United States Constitution under the bus, and used the public fisc for all sorts of endeavors not authorized in Article 1, section 8.

A radical and Progressive position.

He was the ultimate "Far Leftist."

7. Under Franklin Roosevlet the federal government was transformed from one of limited & enumerated powers only to the Frankensteinian monster it is today. ....the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, ...
Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; ...

Radical to the utmost....hence Far Left.



And several times, I've presented this challenge: If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.



Still waiting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I really cant believe that anybody could be strictly one sided. Agreeing and believing every single thing that each group does is unbelievable. I was reading the list of beliefs for republican, and I was like, "ok, that's cool, ok, I can agree with that" then the next one was like how is that even on the list, it doesn't even make sense to the others on the list.
I just cant see any one person can actually believe and agree with a every single political groups believes, philosophy, ideologies, and whatever else?
I agree with things from every group and disagree with things from every group.

It is not necessary that everyone agrees about everything. It is only necessary that everyone agrees that we should be free.

I believe that this applies to your post...see what you think:

In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states:
“ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”

 

[PoliticalChic]

I really cant believe that anybody could be strictly one sided. Agreeing and believing every single thing that each group does is unbelievable. I was reading the list of beliefs for republican, and I was like, "ok, that's cool, ok, I can agree with that" then the next one was like how is that even on the list, it doesn't even make sense to the others on the list.
I just cant see any one person can actually believe and agree with a every single political groups believes, philosophy, ideologies, and whatever else?
I agree with things from every group and disagree with things from every group.

"I really cant believe that anybody could be strictly one sided. Agreeing and believing every single thing that each group does is unbelievable. "

Hence, airing out perspectives on the message board.