Question For The Conservatives

[owebo]

On the contrary, pumpkin, you are the one who knows nothing about the political spectrum. You simply repeat what you are told from your right wing blowhards like a good little know-nothing muppet.

Study these two graphs for a while, and stop being so stupid.

The Political Compass

Stein and Sanders are the only 2 candidates who would qualify as real liberals. Everyone else is pretty right of center.

Those those graphs are pure propaganda bullshit.....

And SYTFE has no fucking clue why....

Would love to hear you explain how they're "propaganda."

This should be good....hold on, let me make some popcorn...

I was correct....you have no fucking clue....

Just as I thought. You've got nothing. Just your hilarious little graph that you cribbed from some loons blog (probably your own blog.) Go head little man, try. I know you can do it! Show us all how smart you are!!

We have your propaganda.....it demonstrates you're an idiot just fine.....

 

[Norman]

Does Trump represent true conservative ideology?

Conservative republicans started our national park system, the epa, nasa and built our highway system. I'd say fuck no...The neo-liberterians aren't conservative in the historical sense, just anti-government and dumber then shit.

Yet they can separate then from than...


And have an actually productive employment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....let's remember....all six
Nazism

Upper right quadrant.

Communism

Middle left quadrant.

Socialism

Lower middle quadrant.

Fascism

Upper middle quadrant.

Progressivism

About halfway down on the lower left quadrant.

Liberalism

Any area in lower left quadrant.

...aim for exactly the same outcomes for society.

You haven't got the slightest clue about how the world works.

Interesting that the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the Democrat Party, are almost identical.

Interesting that you seem to just make shit up as you please. The Democrat party is a slight right of center party, and this is mostly due to the fact that American politics in general is actually quite right of center. What Americans often say is "liberal" would be seen as right of center in most other parts of the world.

I recognize that Liberals rarely read any books that don't involve coloring....

...but this one is dispositive (better look that up):

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately)."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Which governments behave in that manner? The six I named earlier.


Please...be very careful.....if this is the first time you've tried to think you could wind up with an aneurysm!


And....clean up your language. The vulgarity gives away your understanding that you've lost the argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does Trump represent true conservative ideology?

Conservative republicans started our national park system, the epa, nasa and built our highway system. I'd say fuck no...The neo-liberterians aren't conservative in the historical sense, just anti-government and dumber then shit.

Yet they can separate then from than...


And have an actually productive employment.

"Yet they can separate then from than..."

Excellent, Normie


You know the old saying...when you get death threats from conservatives, at least they're spelled correctly.

 

[SYTFE]

So....let's remember....all six
Nazism

Upper right quadrant.

Communism

Middle left quadrant.

Socialism

Lower middle quadrant.

Fascism

Upper middle quadrant.

Progressivism

About halfway down on the lower left quadrant.

Liberalism

Any area in lower left quadrant.

...aim for exactly the same outcomes for society.

You haven't got the slightest clue about how the world works.

Interesting that the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the Democrat Party, are almost identical.

Interesting that you seem to just make shit up as you please. The Democrat party is a slight right of center party, and this is mostly due to the fact that American politics in general is actually quite right of center. What Americans often say is "liberal" would be seen as right of center in most other parts of the world.

I recognize that Liberals rarely read any books that don't involve coloring....

...but this one is dispositive (better look that up):

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately)."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Which governments behave in that manner? The six I named earlier.


Please...be very careful.....if this is the first time you've tried to think you could wind up with an aneurysm!


And....clean up your language. The vulgarity give away your understanding that you've lost the argument.

You really need help. Maybe medication, too.

The left--right spectrum isn't accurate enough. I realize understanding another axis in the political spectrum is going to require some intense mental activity on your part, but wow...do you need it. There is no excuse for your aggressive ignorance.

------------------

Left<------------->Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.

The Political Compass

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....let's remember....all six
Nazism

Upper right quadrant.

Communism

Middle left quadrant.

Socialism

Lower middle quadrant.

Fascism

Upper middle quadrant.

Progressivism

About halfway down on the lower left quadrant.

Liberalism

Any area in lower left quadrant.

...aim for exactly the same outcomes for society.

You haven't got the slightest clue about how the world works.

Interesting that the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the Democrat Party, are almost identical.

Interesting that you seem to just make shit up as you please. The Democrat party is a slight right of center party, and this is mostly due to the fact that American politics in general is actually quite right of center. What Americans often say is "liberal" would be seen as right of center in most other parts of the world.

I recognize that Liberals rarely read any books that don't involve coloring....

...but this one is dispositive (better look that up):

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately)."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Which governments behave in that manner? The six I named earlier.


Please...be very careful.....if this is the first time you've tried to think you could wind up with an aneurysm!


And....clean up your language. The vulgarity give away your understanding that you've lost the argument.

You really need help. Maybe medication, too.

The left--right spectrum isn't accurate enough. I realize understanding another axis in the political spectrum is going to require some intense mental activity on your part, but wow...do you need it. There is no excuse for your aggressive ignorance.

------------------

Left<------------->Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.

The Political Compass

And here is your problem...or, at least, one of them.

When Liberals hear 'studies say" or 'experts report' they click their heels and nod furiously.

Hence, the title 'lock-step Liberal.'

Unlike conservatives, who question,and look for holes in an argument. It's why conservatives eat Liberal's lunch in debate.

Case in point.
I produced a little quiz which proves that the shameful six are really highly similar, and far from American in values or attitudes.


Even simpler....as you are....is this: the Founders, classical liberals, and conservatives are the only ones to endorse individualism, limited constitutional government, and free markets.






Don't be so afraid to buck the herd......as it stands now, you'd be out of your depth in a parking-lot puddle.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....let's remember....all six
Nazism

Upper right quadrant.

Communism

Middle left quadrant.

Socialism

Lower middle quadrant.

Fascism

Upper middle quadrant.

Progressivism

About halfway down on the lower left quadrant.

Liberalism

Any area in lower left quadrant.

...aim for exactly the same outcomes for society.

You haven't got the slightest clue about how the world works.

Interesting that the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the Democrat Party, are almost identical.

Interesting that you seem to just make shit up as you please. The Democrat party is a slight right of center party, and this is mostly due to the fact that American politics in general is actually quite right of center. What Americans often say is "liberal" would be seen as right of center in most other parts of the world.

I recognize that Liberals rarely read any books that don't involve coloring....

...but this one is dispositive (better look that up):

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately)."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Which governments behave in that manner? The six I named earlier.


Please...be very careful.....if this is the first time you've tried to think you could wind up with an aneurysm!


And....clean up your language. The vulgarity give away your understanding that you've lost the argument.

You really need help. Maybe medication, too.

The left--right spectrum isn't accurate enough. I realize understanding another axis in the political spectrum is going to require some intense mental activity on your part, but wow...do you need it. There is no excuse for your aggressive ignorance.

------------------

Left<------------->Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.

The Political Compass

Oh....and to show how wrong your post/quote is......, "...on the far right...."
....there is no "far right" in this country.

You're shocked...because you simply trust your Liberal academicians.
But...I'm never wrong.

Let's prove it.

1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important when dealing with Leftists, Liberals.....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.)



Any objection so far?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 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.....


3. 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 menant:
" 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 ever considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.


If you cannot......I'm correct again.

 

[SYTFE]

So....let's remember....all six
Nazism

Upper right quadrant.

Communism

Middle left quadrant.

Socialism

Lower middle quadrant.

Fascism

Upper middle quadrant.

Progressivism

About halfway down on the lower left quadrant.

Liberalism

Any area in lower left quadrant.

...aim for exactly the same outcomes for society.

You haven't got the slightest clue about how the world works.

Interesting that the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the Democrat Party, are almost identical.

Interesting that you seem to just make shit up as you please. The Democrat party is a slight right of center party, and this is mostly due to the fact that American politics in general is actually quite right of center. What Americans often say is "liberal" would be seen as right of center in most other parts of the world.

I recognize that Liberals rarely read any books that don't involve coloring....

...but this one is dispositive (better look that up):

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately)."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Which governments behave in that manner? The six I named earlier.


Please...be very careful.....if this is the first time you've tried to think you could wind up with an aneurysm!


And....clean up your language. The vulgarity give away your understanding that you've lost the argument.

You really need help. Maybe medication, too.

The left--right spectrum isn't accurate enough. I realize understanding another axis in the political spectrum is going to require some intense mental activity on your part, but wow...do you need it. There is no excuse for your aggressive ignorance.

------------------

Left<------------->Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.

The Political Compass

Oh....and to show how wrong your post/quote is......, "...on the far right...."
....there is no "far right" in this country.

Yes, there is. The alt-right, though relatively small, represent the "far right" on both the social axis as well as the economic axis.

You're shocked...because you simply trust your Liberal academicians.
But...I'm never wrong.

You are always wrong. The creators of politicalcompass.org are quite libertarian. Their own political stance is irrelevant at any rate, as they've only come up with a Likert Scale using 2 axis.

Let's prove it.

You couldn't prove anything if your life depended on it.

1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important when dealing with Leftists, Liberals.....let's define terms.

The alt-right is the "far right." Your lame point is debunked.

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.

Wrong. Center is determined by a meeting point at the axis, not based on the "traditions and values" of a country, which is subjective anyway.

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."

Again, the values and history [sic] of America do not define the "center" of the political spectrum.

"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.)

No disagreement there.

2. 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.

No, they don't. You don't get to define the center based on your own political biases. You have a very clear and obvious agenda in defining the center in such terms. You are quite transparent, no matter how much you try to disguise your agenda with long winded posts with judicious use of the return button.

The alt-right represents the far right. Trump's positions represent the far right.

3. 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.

It is a socially left position, yes. It would fall on the left hand side on the social axis.

Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always menant:
" 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.

lol, you are astonishingly ignorant of ancient Greece, aren't you? Even Plato engaged in homosexual relationships. This was quite common in those times, as well as in ancient Rome.

If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or ever considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

Far right positions include the complete exclusion of entire races from entering the USA, for starters. (See: Trump suggesting a complete and total ban of Muslims entering the USA.)

Hard core racism is the exclusive domain of the far right. The alt-right embodies this racism against Jews, Blacks and Mexicans.

Genocide is a socially far right position.

Aggressive imperialism is very far right.

I would argue that the death penalty is far right.

If you cannot......I'm correct again.

You've never been correct about anything in your entire life. Hilarious that you have no problem believing that a "far left" could exist, but can't fathom the opposite of that existing? lol, what planet are you from anyway? What a weirdo.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh wow, what a truth teller, that Donald! It's almost as if he's some kind of oracle! I think I just might vote for him now! He's soooOOoOoOOoOo politically incorrect!! Because that's what we need! We don't need real leadership, we need someone to tell us that Mexicans are criminals and rapists, and that Muslims are a "real problem" in this country!

Fucking IDIOTS. Trump supporters are the dumbest people in existence.

It's exactly what we need. We need for somebody to tell it like it is instead of sugar coating it like Hillary telling us how the US needs illegals. How wonderful these people are. How Islam is a religion of peace. Avoiding the term islamic extremists or islamic terrorism.

One of the reasons Trump became so popular is because he does discuss politics like the people at your local bar, your coworkers at work, maybe even family gatherings if you have some people in your family that actually understand what this nation was founded on. Now I understand how liberals hate the truth, but there are some of us that are actually attracted to truth.

 

[Freewill]

Does Trump represent true conservative ideology?

Who cares he is not Hillary. The left said that the Republicans needed to nominate a more liberal candidate, well that is what you got in Trump. But of course the left was lying.

 

[Freewill]

So....let's remember....all six
Nazism

Upper right quadrant.

Communism

Middle left quadrant.

Socialism

Lower middle quadrant.

Fascism

Upper middle quadrant.

Progressivism

About halfway down on the lower left quadrant.

Liberalism

Any area in lower left quadrant.

...aim for exactly the same outcomes for society.

You haven't got the slightest clue about how the world works.

Interesting that the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the Democrat Party, are almost identical.

Interesting that you seem to just make shit up as you please. The Democrat party is a slight right of center party, and this is mostly due to the fact that American politics in general is actually quite right of center. What Americans often say is "liberal" would be seen as right of center in most other parts of the world.

I recognize that Liberals rarely read any books that don't involve coloring....

...but this one is dispositive (better look that up):

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately)."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Which governments behave in that manner? The six I named earlier.


Please...be very careful.....if this is the first time you've tried to think you could wind up with an aneurysm!


And....clean up your language. The vulgarity give away your understanding that you've lost the argument.

You really need help. Maybe medication, too.

The left--right spectrum isn't accurate enough. I realize understanding another axis in the political spectrum is going to require some intense mental activity on your part, but wow...do you need it. There is no excuse for your aggressive ignorance.

------------------

Left<------------->Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.

The Political Compass

Oh....and to show how wrong your post/quote is......, "...on the far right...."
....there is no "far right" in this country.

Yes, there is. The alt-right, though relatively small, represent the "far right" on both the social axis as well as the economic axis.

You're shocked...because you simply trust your Liberal academicians.
But...I'm never wrong.

You are always wrong. The creators of politicalcompass.org are quite libertarian. Their own political stance is irrelevant at any rate, as they've only come up with a Likert Scale using 2 axis.

Let's prove it.

You couldn't prove anything if your life depended on it.

1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important when dealing with Leftists, Liberals.....let's define terms.

The alt-right is the "far right." Your lame point is debunked.

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.

Wrong. Center is determined by a meeting point at the axis, not based on the "traditions and values" of a country, which is subjective anyway.

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."

Again, the values and history [sic] of America do not define the "center" of the political spectrum.

"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.)

No disagreement there.

2. 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.

No, they don't. You don't get to define the center based on your own political biases. You have a very clear and obvious agenda in defining the center in such terms. You are quite transparent, no matter how much you try to disguise your agenda with long winded posts with judicious use of the return button.

The alt-right represents the far right. Trump's positions represent the far right.

3. 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.

It is a socially left position, yes. It would fall on the left hand side on the social axis.

Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always menant:
" 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.

lol, you are astonishingly ignorant of ancient Greece, aren't you? Even Plato engaged in homosexual relationships. This was quite common in those times, as well as in ancient Rome.

If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or ever considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

Far right positions include the complete exclusion of entire races from entering the USA, for starters. (See: Trump suggesting a complete and total ban of Muslims entering the USA.)

Hard core racism is the exclusive domain of the far right. The alt-right embodies this racism against Jews, Blacks and Mexicans.

Genocide is a socially far right position.

Aggressive imperialism is very far right.

I would argue that the death penalty is far right.

If you cannot......I'm correct again.

You've never been correct about anything in your entire life. Hilarious that you have no problem believing that a "far left" could exist, but can't fathom the opposite of that existing? lol, what planet are you from anyway? What a weirdo.

This Alt-right invention from the left is hilarious BS. It is like someone going out target shooting and putting out a hundred targets, they are bound to hit one. So the left keeps inventing people they can pretend to blame for things and people they can spew their hate upon.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He never claimed to be a Socialist. He only claimed to be a "Socialist Democrat."

Oh, now there's a big difference. Like the difference between a liberal and a progressive.

Yeah, he threw in the word "Democrat" because Socialist alone is too much government sounding. To my knowledge, he invited the term because up until he ran, I never heard of a Socialist Democrat.

The man never had a steady paycheck until he was in his 40's, and even then, his entire living was working for government. The man spent his honeymoon in the USSR for crying out loud. Most people choose the most romantic setting because your honeymoon is something you remember for the rest of your life.

But he's just a Democrat Socialist.

 

[presonorek]

So....let's remember....all six
Nazism

Upper right quadrant.

Communism

Middle left quadrant.

Socialism

Lower middle quadrant.

Fascism

Upper middle quadrant.

Progressivism

About halfway down on the lower left quadrant.

Liberalism

Any area in lower left quadrant.

...aim for exactly the same outcomes for society.

You haven't got the slightest clue about how the world works.

Interesting that the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the Democrat Party, are almost identical.

Interesting that you seem to just make shit up as you please. The Democrat party is a slight right of center party, and this is mostly due to the fact that American politics in general is actually quite right of center. What Americans often say is "liberal" would be seen as right of center in most other parts of the world.

I recognize that Liberals rarely read any books that don't involve coloring....

...but this one is dispositive (better look that up):

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately)."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Which governments behave in that manner? The six I named earlier.


Please...be very careful.....if this is the first time you've tried to think you could wind up with an aneurysm!


And....clean up your language. The vulgarity give away your understanding that you've lost the argument.

You really need help. Maybe medication, too.

The left--right spectrum isn't accurate enough. I realize understanding another axis in the political spectrum is going to require some intense mental activity on your part, but wow...do you need it. There is no excuse for your aggressive ignorance.

------------------

Left<------------->Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.

The Political Compass

And here is your problem...or, at least, one of them.

When Liberals hear 'studies say" or 'experts report' they click their heels and nod furiously.

Hence, the title 'lock-step Liberal.'

Unlike conservatives, who question,and look for holes in an argument. It's why conservatives eat Liberal's lunch in debate.

Case in point.
I produced a little quiz which proves that the shameful six are really highly similar, and far from American in values or attitudes.


Even simpler....as you are....is this: the Founders, classical liberals, and conservatives are the only ones to endorse individualism, limited constitutional government, and free markets.






Don't be so afraid to buck the herd......as it stands now, you'd be out of your depth in a parking-lot puddle.

I know that the guy in that picture is dead but he probably died sooner than he had to die. Don't buck the herd. That's idiotic. You aren't superman. You'll die alone and forgotten. The winners will be the winners. The losers will be the losers. Nobody needs your help. Here is a question to prove my point: What is this man's name?

 

[Freewill]

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....let's remember....all six
Nazism

Upper right quadrant.

Communism

Middle left quadrant.

Socialism

Lower middle quadrant.

Fascism

Upper middle quadrant.

Progressivism

About halfway down on the lower left quadrant.

Liberalism

Any area in lower left quadrant.

...aim for exactly the same outcomes for society.

You haven't got the slightest clue about how the world works.

Interesting that the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the Democrat Party, are almost identical.

Interesting that you seem to just make shit up as you please. The Democrat party is a slight right of center party, and this is mostly due to the fact that American politics in general is actually quite right of center. What Americans often say is "liberal" would be seen as right of center in most other parts of the world.

I recognize that Liberals rarely read any books that don't involve coloring....

...but this one is dispositive (better look that up):

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately)."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Which governments behave in that manner? The six I named earlier.


Please...be very careful.....if this is the first time you've tried to think you could wind up with an aneurysm!


And....clean up your language. The vulgarity give away your understanding that you've lost the argument.

You really need help. Maybe medication, too.

The left--right spectrum isn't accurate enough. I realize understanding another axis in the political spectrum is going to require some intense mental activity on your part, but wow...do you need it. There is no excuse for your aggressive ignorance.

------------------

Left<------------->Right
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.

The Political Compass

Oh....and to show how wrong your post/quote is......, "...on the far right...."
....there is no "far right" in this country.

Yes, there is. The alt-right, though relatively small, represent the "far right" on both the social axis as well as the economic axis.

You're shocked...because you simply trust your Liberal academicians.
But...I'm never wrong.

You are always wrong. The creators of politicalcompass.org are quite libertarian. Their own political stance is irrelevant at any rate, as they've only come up with a Likert Scale using 2 axis.

Let's prove it.

You couldn't prove anything if your life depended on it.

1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important when dealing with Leftists, Liberals.....let's define terms.

The alt-right is the "far right." Your lame point is debunked.

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.

Wrong. Center is determined by a meeting point at the axis, not based on the "traditions and values" of a country, which is subjective anyway.

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."

Again, the values and history [sic] of America do not define the "center" of the political spectrum.

"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.)

No disagreement there.

2. 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.

No, they don't. You don't get to define the center based on your own political biases. You have a very clear and obvious agenda in defining the center in such terms. You are quite transparent, no matter how much you try to disguise your agenda with long winded posts with judicious use of the return button.

The alt-right represents the far right. Trump's positions represent the far right.

3. 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.

It is a socially left position, yes. It would fall on the left hand side on the social axis.

Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always menant:
" 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.

lol, you are astonishingly ignorant of ancient Greece, aren't you? Even Plato engaged in homosexual relationships. This was quite common in those times, as well as in ancient Rome.

If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or ever considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

Far right positions include the complete exclusion of entire races from entering the USA, for starters. (See: Trump suggesting a complete and total ban of Muslims entering the USA.)

Hard core racism is the exclusive domain of the far right. The alt-right embodies this racism against Jews, Blacks and Mexicans.

Genocide is a socially far right position.

Aggressive imperialism is very far right.

I would argue that the death penalty is far right.

If you cannot......I'm correct again.

You've never been correct about anything in your entire life. Hilarious that you have no problem believing that a "far left" could exist, but can't fathom the opposite of that existing? lol, what planet are you from anyway? What a weirdo.

"You don't get to define the center based on your own political biases. You have a very clear and obvious agenda in defining the center in such terms. You are quite transparent, no matter how much you try to disguise your agenda with long winded posts with judicious use of the return button."



Actually, I do....as my posts, unlike yours, are based on logic and education.

But...as you are begging for further remediation, and as I am in a generous mood.....


....one more example:

"WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday narrowly upheld the centuries-old tradition of offering prayers to open government meetings, even if the prayers are overwhelmingly Christian and citizens are encouraged to participate.
The 5-4 ruling, supported by the court's conservative justices and opposed by its liberals, was based in large part on the history of legislative prayer dating back to the Framers of the Constitution." Supreme Court upholds prayer at government meetings

See this? "... legislative prayer dating back to the Framers of the Constitution."
Clearly this is at the center of American tradition.

What could be more representative of American tradition, values and attitudes?



But.....Leftist lawless judges corrupt America:
"....Joe Kennedy, an assistant high-school–football coach in Bremerton, Wash., was suspended. His offense? Kneeling for a short on-field prayer after football games."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...here-praying-gets-man-suspended-his-job-david




So....as far as the concept of prayer in the public arena, where do we find the radical position?

Hence, far left.


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.