The political spectrum

[Oddball]

There is no difference between the far right and far left.

None of substance anyway...They take different routes to the same totalitarian destination.

 

[dblack]

no its not,, its describing our system as the founders designed it,,,,

show me a single example of repubes wanting to control anyones uterus??

and for the love of god dont bring up the false narrative of abortion,,\they are trying to protect the child inside the uterus,,,

OIC. The denial runaround. Have fun with that.

 

[progressive hunter]

OIC. The denial runaround. Have fun with that.

youre the one denying reality not me,,,

 

[dblack]

yes there is,,,

There are differences, to be sure. But both are equally shitty. That's the point.

 

[progressive hunter]

There are differences, to be sure. But both are equally shitty. That's the point.

yes dems and repubes are equally balls of shit,,,

but they are both leftwing,, neither is rightwing,,

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[dblack]

youre the one denying reality not me,,,

If you're going to pretend that banning abortion isn't controlling the uterus - then I'm not going to bother arguing with you. You're just denying what is obvious.

 

[progressive hunter]

If you're going to pretend that banning abortion isn't controlling the uterus - then I'm not going to bother arguing with you. You're just denying what is obvious.

its best you dont,,

abortion is about a human life not control of a womens body,,

now if they wanted to force birth control or hysterectomies' or any other controlling feature we can talk,,,

 

[dblack]

its best you dont,,

abortion is about a human life not control of a womens body,,

That's ridiculous. You might argue it's justified (statists always have their "reasons") but it is clearly state control of procreation. So, I'm not going to chase you around while you just deny it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

How can the right be authoritarian when they are for small govt? In what world does that make sense?

The Lazy Fairies of Laissez-Faire


The Rightists want a totalitarian private sector. Their agents pretending to be Leftists purposely create government tyranny to drive us into supporting corporate tyranny instead.

 

[Foxfyre]

I never said you did,, nor did I say governments shouldnt exist,,

I myself am a rational anarchist that knows no person or group of people have the wisdom or right to dictate how I live my life,, but because I am a rational person that understands that I am not the only mother fucker on the planet that a government is necessary and so I have accepted our constitutional republic as the governing rules,,

the problem youre having is you keep giving examples that have nothing to do with true anarchy,,

Define true anarchy.

other than your definition simply put its the absence of government/authority,,,

if a stronger person imposes their will on you they consider themselves the authority over you,, thats not anarchy,,

Exactly. Survival of the fittest. Not something I would ever want.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

None of their corporations are run by Democrats. The CEO's and VP's of the Fortune 500's are all Republicans my friends. Because Republicans bend over for corporations and rich people.

Democrats work with corporations. But we don't bend over. Not like Republicans do.

RIGHT: Democracy Is Mob Rule
LEFT: Democracy Is Tyranny of the Majority

Leftist control-freaks make the corporations bend over to follow the Progressive agenda of Affirmative Action, Green regulations, WOKE, and DEI.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think that's the main difference between the two 'sides' in this country, one ignores human nature to their peril, and the other knows that human nature will never allow the supposed utopia to come to fruition.

You pretty well nailed it. The left more often looks at the immediate effect and does not take into account, nor do many care, of the future consequences. For instance social security started out as an innocent 1% tax for the purpose of helping poor widows supplement their meager incomes. It was NEVER intended to be a living wage for anybody or to grow into an unmanageable, unsustainable monstrosity that would be not just a very limited welfare program but a huge welfare program. And millions depend on it now for their very livelihood however low income status that is.

Medicare was intended to be help for seniors who found themselves without healthcare after they retired from paying jobs. But because it was not targeted at the few who needed it, it has swelled into this huge, unmanageable, unsustainable dictatorial monstrosity that most seniors pretty much have to accept because it eliminated pretty much all alternatives. And it so changed the medical system in the USA that it is virtually unrecognizable to that we had before Medicare. And it drove up healthcare costs for everybody so very few can afford even a doctor's visit unless they have insurance now. Cost for my aunt to see her cardiologist just for a routine checkup without insurance? $700 plus whatever tests he orders. (He charges $1,000 if you do have insurance.)

And I could write a book on how the federal government has driven up college costs to be unaffordable for all but the uber rich.

Good intentions with unintended consequences.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's a SPECTRUM.

A Specious Spectrum, Designed to Unravel Embee Threads

 

[Oddball]

In effect yes. In theory no. Marx/Engles envisioned a selfless society in which each would receive according to his needs from each according to his ability, i.e. no private property, no private ambitions, but all working for the good of the whole and ensuring everyone had what they needed. What they left out of the equation was human nature that those who receive without working rarely have incentive to work and also those who work without reward are not likely to have incentive to keep voluntarily working. The result of course is either starvation or anarchy, i.e. survival of the strongest.

Bastiat concisely outlined this in "The Law".

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

 

[2aguy]

In effect yes. In theory no. Marx/Engles envisioned a selfless society in which each would receive according to his needs from each according to his ability, i.e. no private property, no private ambitions, but all working for the good of the whole and ensuring everyone had what they needed. What they left out of the equation was human nature that those who receive without working rarely have incentive to work and also those who work without reward are not likely to have incentive to keep voluntarily working. The result of course is either starvation or anarchy, i.e. survival of the strongest.

Don't forget the mass murder.....they always had that in mind....they had plans for the "racial trash......"

 

[2aguy]

Bastiat concisely outlined this in "The Law".

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

That is a great book......I have a copy on my Kindle......it should be taught in every school......

 

[Dadoalex]

They say a picture is worth 1000 words....to make this fit in our country today replace Radical with Dem and Reactionary with Repub.

This is a more accurate view of the "spectrum.
Once you get to extremism on either side the ideological differences differences all but disappear.

 

[Oddball]

Good intentions with unintended consequences.

After all their failures, and failures of the same nature no less, I'm convinced that there are no "unintended consequences"....They're features.

 

[2aguy]

This is a more accurate view of the "spectrum.
Once you get to extremism on either side the ideological differences differences all but disappear.

That is just stupid.........you go from maximum government control to no government control and you say they end up in the same place?

No, that isn't how it works........