Is the Left - Right Paradigm Obsolete?

[Darkwind]

Its actually going to be a sad thing to see your eyes opened for you.

Good luck with that.

Indeed. Newbies always refuse to see shock and awe around here...and pretend to tell seasoned veterans how to conduct themselves. IN for a rude awakening he is...

Yes you're a seasoned veteran. Or maybe you've just been on this same forum for too long? There are other avenues of debate. I have no necessity to bow to your expertise at typing.

I'd rather you throw counterpoints to anything I said rather than prattle on about how much of a seasoned veteran of the message board you are. Is it the practice of the members of this forum to shrug off anyone with good points as newbies?

Open my eyes then and show me how great at debating you are while stuck in your modicum forced on you by the programming of the parties everyone here so fervently defends.

Next time read the letters in red you highlight. DEBATE forum. Don't waste my time with you holier than thou god complex king of the message board attitude.

Like I said. Pretty sad.

Perhaps if you show a bit of talent to think critically and reason out the point of the words highlighted in red?

Maybe I'll just spell it out for you as I don't have any more time to spend here tonight.

Everyone comes here with the intent to debate. What they soon discover is that this is NOT A DEBATE forum.

Don't believe Me?

Spend an hour reading current and past threads and replies. Maybe you'll get it then.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Rabbi actually asks a good question (what was that noise ... wow, that many of you fell of your chairs?). What do posters mean when they call someone a Lefty or a Right Winger?

It seems, in my biased opinion, that many who claim the mantle of Conservative call anyone they disagree with either a RINO or a Lefty; both are used as pejoratives and I suspect those who use these terms have no clue what they really mean.

Likewise, calling someone a right winger is also a pejorative and used as broadly to label all neo-conservatives and social conservatives as well as most Libertarians as one and the same.

Neither are accurate nor do they describe every member of each set.

 

[Flopper]

Indeed. Newbies always refuse to see shock and awe around here...and pretend to tell seasoned veterans how to conduct themselves. IN for a rude awakening he is...

Yes you're a seasoned veteran. Or maybe you've just been on this same forum for too long? There are other avenues of debate. I have no necessity to bow to your expertise at typing.

I'd rather you throw counterpoints to anything I said rather than prattle on about how much of a seasoned veteran of the message board you are. Is it the practice of the members of this forum to shrug off anyone with good points as newbies?

Open my eyes then and show me how great at debating you are while stuck in your modicum forced on you by the programming of the parties everyone here so fervently defends.

Next time read the letters in red you highlight. DEBATE forum. Don't waste my time with you holier than thou god complex king of the message board attitude.

Like I said. Pretty sad.

Perhaps if you show a bit of talent to think critically and reason out the point of the words highlighted in red?

Maybe I'll just spell it out for you as I don't have any more time to spend here tonight.

Everyone comes here with the intent to debate. What they soon discover is that this is NOT A DEBATE forum.

Don't believe Me?

Spend an hour reading current and past threads and replies. Maybe you'll get it then.

I don't know what you call the discussions on USMB but certainly I wouldn't call them debates.

 

[Contumacious]

Here we have a chance to see where our middle ground is, please use it to the best of our abilities.

So we don't want Liberty - we need to be partially enslaved, right?

What is the middle ground between being alive or dead, a coma?

.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Yes you're a seasoned veteran. Or maybe you've just been on this same forum for too long? There are other avenues of debate. I have no necessity to bow to your expertise at typing.

I'd rather you throw counterpoints to anything I said rather than prattle on about how much of a seasoned veteran of the message board you are. Is it the practice of the members of this forum to shrug off anyone with good points as newbies?

Open my eyes then and show me how great at debating you are while stuck in your modicum forced on you by the programming of the parties everyone here so fervently defends.

Next time read the letters in red you highlight. DEBATE forum. Don't waste my time with you holier than thou god complex king of the message board attitude.

Like I said. Pretty sad.

Perhaps if you show a bit of talent to think critically and reason out the point of the words highlighted in red?

Maybe I'll just spell it out for you as I don't have any more time to spend here tonight.

Everyone comes here with the intent to debate. What they soon discover is that this is NOT A DEBATE forum.

Don't believe Me?

Spend an hour reading current and past threads and replies. Maybe you'll get it then.

I don't know what you call the discussions on USMB but certainly I wouldn't call them debates.

Well with attitudes like yours I can see why there is a lack of real debate. Why bother posting on this if all you want to do is piss and moan do that with your friends. Or is that not possible because you can't speak your mind in a personal setting?

Anonymity: the power to spout bullshit with no fear of repercussion. Go continue your pattern of senseless behavior thinking you're superior.

 

[Dot Com]

the career politicians yuck it up behind the scenes as they know few incumbents get beat. They only fight in public to give the illusion that it matters which of the two corrupt parties happen to be in power at any given time.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Here we have a chance to see where our middle ground is, please use it to the best of our abilities.

So we don't want Liberty - we need to be partially enslaved, right?

What is the middle ground between being alive or dead, a coma?

.

What is liberty without security? Conversely, what is security without liberty?

 

[Pogo]

Like I said. Pretty sad.

Perhaps if you show a bit of talent to think critically and reason out the point of the words highlighted in red?

Maybe I'll just spell it out for you as I don't have any more time to spend here tonight.

Everyone comes here with the intent to debate. What they soon discover is that this is NOT A DEBATE forum.

Don't believe Me?

Spend an hour reading current and past threads and replies. Maybe you'll get it then.

I don't know what you call the discussions on USMB but certainly I wouldn't call them debates.

Well with attitudes like yours I can see why there is a lack of real debate. Why bother posting on this if all you want to do is piss and moan do that with your friends. Or is that not possible because you can't speak your mind in a personal setting?

Anonymity: the power to spout bullshit with no fear of repercussion. Go continue your pattern of senseless behavior thinking you're superior.

Put your self-rightous pants back on there, Rookie. Flopper and Darkwind know the ropes around here. And they're telling it like it is. Go practice your knowitall speech in front of a mirror somewhere and come back when a clue falls on your head.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think the left-right paradigm has become obsolete. The lines blur as one moves to the extreme edges of political activism. If you believe they remain instructive, please offer examples of the beliefs of those on the far right and far left.

You are asking if it is irrelevant when you use it to drive every decision you make?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Using terms such as the right, the left, liberal, conservative is an attempt to stereotype people by putting them in nice little boxes that we can understand, no grey areas, no ambiguity, and no doubts. Labels are used by people who are trying to divide people. However, a person can be a strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights, pro-choice, be completely neutral on gay marriage, support prayer in schools, and believe single payer health insurance is the best option.

Let me guess, when you made this post you were drunk.

Republicans will get their turn at government again, but not until the GOP suppresses the Tea Party. The American people want to see the end of the polarization in Washington that has paralyzed government and that will be impossible as long as Tea Party movement is a significant force in the GOP. People are simple afraid of the Tea Party. Their radical actions and proposals in regard to entitlement programs, immigration, civil rights, and shutting down government has turned the public against them. As long as the Tea Party waved the flag and spouted their rhetoric about a small less costly government, they had the public's ear but when they actually starting doing something, they lost the public. The American public may be conservative, but they aren't radical.

The most ridiculous thing about this thread is all the partisan hacks pretending that they aren't the problem.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think the left-right paradigm has become obsolete. The lines blur as one moves to the extreme edges of political activism. If you believe they remain instructive, please offer examples of the beliefs of those on the far right and far left.

The Political Compass

You can test yourself to see where you stand.

The chart isn't obsolete it is just that the Globalists are controlling the so called conservative-Republicans and the so called liberal-Democrats. Both parties are authoritarian in nature it is just they fight over what kind of authoritarianism and how best to use it for Globalist purposes.

26 Tenets of the New World Order:

1) Men are inclined to evil rather than good.

2) Preach Liberalism.

3) Use ideals of freedom to bring about class wars.

4) Any and all means necessary should be used to reach their goals as they are justified.

5) Believe their rights lie in force.

6) The power of their resources must remain invisible until the very moment that they have gained the strength so that no group or force can undermine it.

7) Advocates a mob psychology to obtain control of the masses

8 ) Promotes the use of alcohol, drugs, moral corruption, and all forms of vice to systematically corrupt the youth of the nation.

9) Seize citizens’ private property by any means necessary.

10) The use of slogans such as equity, liberty, and fraternity are used on the masses as psychological warfare.

11) War should be directed so that the nations on both sides are placed further in debt and peace conferences are designed so that neither combatant retain territory rights.

12) Members must use their wealth to have candidates chosen to public office who would be obedient to their demands, and would be used as pawns in the game by the men behind the scenes. The advisors will have been bred, reared, and trained from childhood to rule the affairs of the world.

13) Control the press, and hence most of the information the public receives.

14) Agents and provocateurs will come forward after creating traumatic situations, and appear to be the saviors of the masses, when they are actually interested in just the opposite, the reduction of the population.

15) Create industrial depression and financial panic, unemployment, hunger, shortage of food, use these events to control the masses and mobs, and use them to wipe out those who stand in the way.

16) Infiltrate Freemasonry which is to be used to conceal and further objectives.

17) Expound the value of systematic deception, use high sounding slogans and phrases, advocate lavish sounding promises to the masses even though they can’t be kept.

18) The art of street fighting is necessary to bring the population into subjection.

19) Use agents as provocateurs and advisers behind the scenes, and after wars use secret diplomacy talks to gain control.

20) Establish huge monopolies towards world government control.

21) Use high taxes and unfair competition to bring about economic ruin by controlling raw materials, organized agitation among the workers, and subsidizing competitors.

22) Build up armaments with police and soldiers who can protect and further the New World Order's interests.

23) Members and leaders of the one world government will be appointed by the director of the New World Order.

24) Infiltrate into all classes and levels of society and government for the purpose of teaching the youth in the schools theories and principles known to be false.

25) Create and use national and international laws to destroy civilization.

26) Use estrogens & femicals to drive males gay and the female population insane thereby insuring the destruction of the family, hence more governmental dependency.

See both parties engage in the same agenda and go to the same Bilderberg meetings.

That's why I back the Constitution Party.

Constitution Party > Home

We don't take orders from Bilderberg or any other Globalist.

And this post ^^^ is why I believe the left - right paradigm has become obsolete, see how the lines have blurred at the edge of political activism.

If that post explains why you believe that, why the fuck did someone else have to make it? Are you so stupid you can't even spout whackadoodle conspiracy nonsense that is all over the internet?

The left/right split is simplistic. No one fits into a two dimensional spectrum, and it was never meant to be used to define people. Yet, idiots, most of them like you, insisted that it was legitimate because it made it simple for them to pretend they had all the answers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You need to pervert the meaning of "right-wing" to write an OP like that

Or totally clueless. Which is the case here.
Far right=Sarah Palin
Far left=Shelia Lee Jackson.

See, they're the same!

This is why I find you and CrusaderFrank to be ridiculous. Neither of you have the ability to analyze more than two data points at a time, and with two you draw a conclusion.

They both have exhibited an ability to analyze twice as many data points as you, does that make you smart?

 

[Pogo]

To the topic at hand... I like this view

Yes, indeed.

They both want a dictatorship.

Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state."

.... a lot better than this one:

The Left wants the government to run their lives cradle to grave, while the right wants to have individual freedom to make our own choices.

OK, the second one is absurd, I know. But somebody posted it. Elsewhere in another thread at another time one of our less illuminated posters kept trying to insist that the question of left or right depended on the size of government (apparently somewhere between Medium and Extra Large there was a sort of equator )

Not that simple of course. Both the left and the right want their power; they just want different things for it. Left wants social structure; right wants economy structure. Left bases itself in the masses; right in the elite. Both are antagonistic to Liberalism, which doesn't want power at all, or at least wants it abstractly diffused to a populist center.

We've all seen the left/right horizontal spectrum and then there was the horizontal-vertical model with Authoritarian on top and Libertarian on bottom along with left and right. None of these are really adequate. I like the way this guy puts it together -- it includes a breakdown of those charts and their shortcomings, as well as a very good history. A long read but within the question of this topic, well worth it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The two party system is long past obsolete. Labels are obsolete. Time to stop labeling people based off of political ideology.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Using terms such as the right, the left, liberal, conservative is an attempt to stereotype people by putting them in nice little boxes that we can understand, no grey areas, no ambiguity, and no doubts. Labels are used by people who are trying to divide people. However, a person can be a strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights, pro-choice, be completely neutral on gay marriage, support prayer in schools, and believe single payer health insurance is the best option.

True.

Unfortunately, however obsolete and inaccurate, we’re stuck with these political labels for reasons of rhetorical economy; and although they may not be appropriate with regard to a particular individual, they do exist as recognized and sanctioned political dogma that can be used as a general reference.

 

[Pogo]

For Christ's fucking sake Windbag, is it not possible to have any discussion around here at all without you oozing in and flaming everybody just to see your name in print?

Give it a fucking REST, dood.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Using terms such as the right, the left, liberal, conservative is an attempt to stereotype people by putting them in nice little boxes that we can understand, no grey areas, no ambiguity, and no doubts. Labels are used by people who are trying to divide people. However, a person can be a strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights, pro-choice, be completely neutral on gay marriage, support prayer in schools, and believe single payer health insurance is the best option.

True.

Unfortunately, however obsolete and inaccurate, we’re stuck with these political labels for reasons of rhetorical economy; and although they may not be appropriate with regard to a particular individual, they do exist as recognized and sanctioned political dogma that can be used as a general reference.

Only idiots are restricted by the people around them.

 

[Pogo]

Using terms such as the right, the left, liberal, conservative is an attempt to stereotype people by putting them in nice little boxes that we can understand, no grey areas, no ambiguity, and no doubts. Labels are used by people who are trying to divide people. However, a person can be a strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights, pro-choice, be completely neutral on gay marriage, support prayer in schools, and believe single payer health insurance is the best option.

True.

Unfortunately, however obsolete and inaccurate, we’re stuck with these political labels for reasons of rhetorical economy; and although they may not be appropriate with regard to a particular individual, they do exist as recognized and sanctioned political dogma that can be used as a general reference.

I would say labels are the crutch of the intellectually indolent, those who can't be bothered to listen to the person's points and would rather take the easy route of interviewing their own strawman. It's a dehumanizing process since it ignores everything that makes that POV unique.

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert A. Heinlein

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Using terms such as the right, the left, liberal, conservative is an attempt to stereotype people by putting them in nice little boxes that we can understand, no grey areas, no ambiguity, and no doubts. Labels are used by people who are trying to divide people. However, a person can be a strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights, pro-choice, be completely neutral on gay marriage, support prayer in schools, and believe single payer health insurance is the best option.

True.

Unfortunately, however obsolete and inaccurate, we’re stuck with these political labels for reasons of rhetorical economy; and although they may not be appropriate with regard to a particular individual, they do exist as recognized and sanctioned political dogma that can be used as a general reference.

I would say labels are the crutch of the intellectually indolent, those who can't be bothered to listen to the person's points and would rather take the easy route of interviewing their own strawman. It's a dehumanizing process since it ignores everything that makes that POV unique.

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

And the people that don't want to be controlled scare the crap out of you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Using terms such as the right, the left, liberal, conservative is an attempt to stereotype people by putting them in nice little boxes that we can understand, no grey areas, no ambiguity, and no doubts. Labels are used by people who are trying to divide people. However, a person can be a strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights, pro-choice, be completely neutral on gay marriage, support prayer in schools, and believe single payer health insurance is the best option.

True.

Unfortunately, however obsolete and inaccurate, we’re stuck with these political labels for reasons of rhetorical economy; and although they may not be appropriate with regard to a particular individual, they do exist as recognized and sanctioned political dogma that can be used as a general reference.

I would say labels are the crutch of the intellectually indolent, those who can't be bothered to listen to the person's points and would rather take the easy route of interviewing their own strawman. It's a dehumanizing process since it ignores everything that makes that POV unique.

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Exactly.

It is in essence a form of rhetorical warfare where the ‘enemy’ must be dehumanized to facilitate the attack.

Rather than attacking the person the idea should be challenged.