Question Left or right wing? [Archive]

nerd4hire

07-04-2008, 06:14 PM

You didn't. I believe it's implicit once one learns to recognize the rhetoric. It's my personal prejudice.

It's like when you see liberals on TV speechifying, and they're presuming to speak for all members of a particular group. They'll say stuff like "Americans think", or "Americans feel", or "Americans believe". They don't stop to consider there are Americans out there who are listening, and thinking "Hey, I don't think, feel, or believer any of that".

They presume to speak from consensus even when it doesn't exist, and it's similar to the way they present polls in agreement with themselves as stone tablets from God, but write off any polls in disagreement with them as lying propaganda.

Do you see what I mean? There can only be one truth. So when you suggest people should pick a static point in the political belief system, and stay there what I hear you saying is "you must choose my point on that spectrum".

Again it's my personal prejudice. I'm just wise enough to realize it might be wrong, but it feels right...this week.

JCC

07-04-2008, 06:16 PM

You didn't. I personally believe it's implicit once one learns to recognize the rhetoric.

It's like when you see liberals on TV speechifying, and they're presuming to speak for all members of a particular group. They'll say stuff like "Americans think", or "Americans feel", or "Americans believe". They don't stop to consider there are Americans out there who are listening, and thinking "Hey, I don't think, feel, or believer any of that".

They presume to speak from consensus even when it doesn't exist, and it's similar to the way they present polls in agreement with themselves as stone tablets from God, but write off any polls in disagreement with them as lying propaganda.

Do you see what I mean? There can only be one truth. So when you suggest people should pick a static point in the political belief system, and stay there what I hear you saying is "you must choose my point on that spectrum".
Yeah, it's all politician talk. I don't particularly like Obama, though he's the best candidate. His rush to the centre was predictable if you've any interest in political science, but lost a lot of my respect. Plus, he seems so politician-ish, you can tell he sugar-coats it all.

nerd4hire

07-04-2008, 06:27 PM

And the opposition isn't any better. One week McCain is here on an issue, and the next week he's over there. Sometimes they get so close it's hard to tell which side he's on. That's when flexibility becomes waffling. There's a difference between flexibility and the old flip flop.

That's the problem with a 2 party system. It's like that episode of South Park where Stan had the deciding vote on who gets to be the school mascot. Ever seen that one? It's a hoot. Choosing between 2 bad choices.

Cangel

07-04-2008, 06:32 PM

Left wing. Totally.
And some people here will almost for certain take me down for this, but I think that communism is the way to go.

As for the ""Americans think", or "Americans feel", or "Americans believe"" part... as far as I know not everyone these days is interested in politics (well at least that's the case in Germany) ergo cares about what happens, so imo it's just fair to speak for those.

JCC

07-04-2008, 06:35 PM

Left wing. Totally.
And some people here will almost for certain take me down for this, but I think that communism is the way to go.
I'm unsure about Communism.

I used to like it, then I thought "Hang on - isn't it just Socialism, but made rather impractical?", then it sort of lost its charm. It's rather more Anarchistic in practice than Socialism, which is where my research into Anarchism may help me to rediscover an agreement with old Mr Marx.

Karrde

07-04-2008, 07:11 PM

I don't think it's sheepishness so much as organising your own beliefs.

No it's not, it's sheepishness. These people seem to think like me, uh, let's say I'm with them. But wait, that guy looks like a wolf... Nah, so many people couldn't possibly be wrong, I'm a stick with them...

Aimlessly meandering from belief to belief is pointless, and if you know that your beliefs fit with a certain wing, why bother denying it for the sake of being able to claim spontaneity or individualism?

Because it's called individualism, because you can be a someone without pointing at others and saying "I'm with them." The problem with the wingists like you is that you think my opinion doesn't matter since I don't identify myself with you or against you from the onset. I am the one who chooses to agree with something or disagree, and I don't care if it's liberal or conservative of me - for that particular moment in time, it is right, or wrong for me and for me alone.

That's why I quit politics, you know - I simply couldn't bring myself support and follow idiots who think they should lead for whatever reason. I like to educate, I don't share opinions and positions unless you ask me to do so.

Edit:

I'm unsure about Communism.

I used to like it, then I thought "Hang on - isn't it just Socialism, but made rather impractical?", then it sort of lost its charm.

It's a utopia, it's not supposed to be practical.
Recently I started comparing Communism with the Kingdom Come. Everyone happy without having to care for what they eat and how they get it. Only thing missing is the presence of the Allpowerfull supreme being, where you don't even feel hungry or sick or horny, and you get heaven on Earth.

Nonsense if ever there was.

ckg927

07-04-2008, 07:21 PM

If a particular point on the political spectrum wants to present itself as the only correct place to be, they should stop doing dumb stuff.

Including yours. Radio talker Tom Leykis once noted of libertarians that none could get elected(to national office) because they were incapable of saying anything that could be summed up in a few sentences,let alone pages. Harsh,perhaps,but he's spot on. Unfortunately,we've become too accustomed to the 10-second sound bite devoid of any context heard over and over on the news. And,let's face facts: Everything you accuse those who represent the left on TV of doing can just as easily sum up the right. Which is why I flip BOTH of 'em off.

NO party....Democrats,Republicans,Libertarians,etc... has a monopoly on dumb stuff. The late,great Bill Hicks put it best when he said "All politicians are lying ****suckers."

As for me...put me down on the left(a majority of the time,but it will differ on the issue),and a "small-L libertarian."

Aethra

07-05-2008, 01:18 AM

And some people here will almost for certain take me down for this, but I think that communism is the way to go.

Ideally, communism is the perfect form of government, but in itself it is a complete impossibility.
After all, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Anywho, mostly left. I really don't throw myself into politics at all, but I certainly do have views on many topics. I'm not as hardcore as other liberals, but I'm faaaar from conservative.

The Kinslayer

07-05-2008, 02:10 AM

If there is such a thing as a "good" test, please post the link and I´ll be happy to find out.

nerd4hire

07-05-2008, 02:25 AM

If there is such a thing as a "good" test, please post the link and I´ll be happy to find out.

Here's one on who you should vote for for President. That kind of, almost fits.

Candidate Match Game II - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm)

JCC

07-05-2008, 02:32 AM

No it's not, it's sheepishness. These people seem to think like me, uh, let's say I'm with them. But wait, that guy looks like a wolf... Nah, so many people couldn't possibly be wrong, I'm a stick with them...
I didn't say any people. There are people on the left that irritate me greatly because they don't know what they're talking about, but if you follow left issues, you're on the left. It's like, if you are born in Birmingham, you are born in Birmingham. From that, you can't say "I AM BORN OF A PLACE UNSPECIFIED OTHERWISE MY INDIVIDUALITY IS STOLEN", because it is fact that you were born in Birmingham. There's no sheepishness in wings, it's categorizing, the same as some people are black, they wouldn't say they are people of undecided colour.

The Kinslayer

07-05-2008, 03:02 AM

Candidate Match Game II - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm)

So I would vote for Obama. Can´t say that I´m surprised.

Karrde

07-05-2008, 04:53 AM

I didn't say any people. There are people on the left that irritate me greatly because they don't know what they're talking about, but if you follow left issues, you're on the left. It's like, if you are born in Birmingham, you are born in Birmingham. From that, you can't say "I AM BORN OF A PLACE UNSPECIFIED OTHERWISE MY INDIVIDUALITY IS STOLEN", because it is fact that you were born in Birmingham. There's no sheepishness in wings, it's categorizing, the same as some people are black, they wouldn't say they are people of undecided colour.

Ah, but why would I want to be categorized? It's your need to categorize me, I am happy the way I am. I don't let the fact that I was born in Birmingham or San Diego or Rio de Janeiro determine my opinions or my relationship to other people, why should you allow it to change how you communicate with me? Same is with liberal or conservative - when I tell you I'm liberal, you're thinking "good for you!". But when I tell it to a conservative he's thinking "bloody commy" or at best "he doesn't have a clue, does he?".
So why should I allow myself be judged before I even said two words? Because it's "normal" to belong? Not to me. For me, it's normal to communicate, on different subjects, with different knowledge. It's normal to learn, and that's best we can hope for in this life.
More obvious categories, like being white or Hispanic, or Chinese, I accept because you can't run away from them - it will take generations before they're merged or erased, just like it is with sexes - even after millions of years, if you have boobs, you're a category that needs to stay in the kitchen and let your man feed you and cloth you. Can you point out to me what exactly is so different between this and telling people you're conservative?

RockManic

07-05-2008, 04:58 AM

I'm RockManic wing. I'd vote for myself. I'm the only decent choice for saving this country from itself! ;)

Actually I'm probably neither, or maybe both. It's hard to say because the truth is I see all the parties as the same thing. They say what they want you to here and then do what they want to do once given the opportunity. All I believe you can do is listen to all parties at the time you need to make the decision and judge based on what you see.

Right now, all I know is that the current UK government doesn't seem to have a clue. Brown's position exists on a knife edge and the fact is that they have lost their direction as a party. The Conservatives, however, seem to have found a real identity and my gut is telling me that it's time for a real change at Number 10. Which pretty should tell you where my vote will go when the election comes.

Basically though, I don't follow any one party for longer than I consider what they have to say as being right for the times we live in. Right now, the Conservatives seem to me to have the right idea but that doesn't make me a Tory by any stretch of the imagination. My vote goes to the correct choice at the time and that's all the political commitment I will ever make.

palabravampiress

07-05-2008, 12:18 PM

I'm more Libertarian than anything. It just seems to have more in common with the ideals upon which our nation was founded and my own middle-of-the-road beliefs than does anything else. I just can't honestly put myself on one side or the other.

I think the conservatives have the right idea about small government and fiscal conservatism/responsibility -- or at least they did before they played such a large role in sinking the economy. I think they have the wrong idea about limiting individual's freedoms, though. They are too closely affiliated with the religious right, so when they oppose abortion and birth control, push for anti-drug legislation and abstinence only programs, ban gay marriage, and support other policies that I see as interfering with individual liberty, my alarm bells go off. The war seems to be a larger, international reflection of that same attitude. Conservatives act like they can just force their own narrowly defined views onto whomever they choose and then pretty it up with nice rhetoric later. For me, freedom is the top priority, so I just can't align myself with a party that seeks so much control over the actions and choices of private individuals (and sovereign nations). The conservatives scare me. If I give them power over my country, then I'm afraid that that is tantamount to giving them power over everything -- including my religion, my marriage, and my body. That makes me more uncomfortable than I can say. Sometimes, the conservatives seem truly evil and terribly frightening.

The liberals don't get off any easier. I think they have the right idea about supporting and expanding civil rights -- when they're not tempering their language in order to appeal to swing voters, that is. I think they have the right idea about getting out of an unjust war and repairing our international relationships. I think they're wrong about big government and taking care of everyone, though. I mean, the liberal answer to every problem seems to be to throw more money at it, but that's a short term solution that could be dangerous in the long run*. Health care comes to mind. Our system is broken... so their solution is to FORCE those of us who aren't paying into it to pay more money into it? Huh? The word "mandatory" has no place in a free society. I also think they're wrong about group politics. With the liberals, no one is an individual. Everyone is part of a group. You're a black or an immigrant or a gay or... whatever. Unless, you know, you're middle class, white, and (gasp) a man, in which case you're a privileged scapegoat (even if you grew up a lot less than privileged and became middle class with the old pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps strategy). Liberals are so focused on making things easier for/more fair for certain oppressed groups that they completely lose sight of equality and individual liberty, not to mention personal responsibility. The same could be said for their energy policies. The liberals are in such a rush to help everyone that they don't stop and consider who or what they might be hurting -- or how. They divide us when what we really need is to be united.

So, yeah. Libertarianism it is for me. I don't want to be taken care of or controlled. I want to sink or swim on my own and with my freedom intact. Libertarianism isn't perfect, but it suits me better than the main two parties do.

InsaneMystic

07-05-2008, 12:23 PM

Firmly left-wing. If communism had any chance on earth working in practice, I'd be all for it. Until then, I stick to democratic socialism.

Actually, if we start talking impossible, my favorite would be an anarcho-communist theocracy. LOL

Btw, I've never quite got what's so great about "not labeling oneself". I know that every time I find a label that fits me, I embrace it with satisfaction... and situations where I spend years without finding a label that fits right (e.g., my sexuality) are frustrating me to no end. Individuality, IMO, lies in the blend of labels attached to you, not in the absence of labels.

Karrde

07-05-2008, 12:38 PM

Btw, I've never quite got what's so great about "not labeling oneself". I know that every time I find a label that fits me, I embrace it with satisfaction... and situations where I spend years without finding a label that fits right (e.g., my sexuality) are frustrating me to no end.
Socially induced discomfort at the notion of not belonging. I got over it when I was 12.

Individuality, IMO, lies in the blend of labels attached to you, not in the absence of labels.

Individuality is individual, so to speak. You're what you are because of all the factors and influences in your life, not because there is a label saying that you belong or don't belong to a certain group. In this sense, labels don't blend because they can't, that's why they're called labels - they just change over time and apply to different belief systems. Also, labels can be (and most often, are) factors and influences, but individuality is lost within a label.

I'm making these things short and incomplete on purpose just so you could think about what I'm trying to say and come to your own conclusions and opinions - just like as an individual you should.

JCC

07-05-2008, 01:55 PM

Until then, I stick to democratic socialism.
I'm a democratic socialist! Let's have kids!

InLoveWithBuffy

07-05-2008, 02:48 PM

What is this "wing" thing so i can answer?!

Mr. Pointy

07-05-2008, 03:19 PM

What is this "wing" thing so i can answer?!

Apparently it dates back to French Revolutionary politics...from Wiki -

The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the king was still the formal head of state, and the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left

Left-right politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics)

...though those left-wingers from Revolutionary times supported ideas like laissez-faire capitalism and free markets, which we would regard as right-wing...funny ol' world, ain't it? I suspect that the difference between right and left wings really only exists on the extremes...most politicians these days strive towards the blandness of the centre.

Me..."I'm just a lawn mower, you can tell me by the way I walk", as Peter Gabriel said way back in the early 70s :)

InsaneMystic

07-05-2008, 07:17 PM

Socially induced discomfort at the notion of not belonging. I got over it when I was 12.
Hey, I'm used to not belonging... no matter what "group" I relate myself to, I'm always the oddball, and that's something I accepted around the age of 14 or so.
I'm pretty sure that, in the end, I make a neat little fraction of one on the social level; it's just that I intellectually crave a word (or five) to describe that faction with, mainly to myself. My discomfort is introvertedly mental, not social.

Individuality is individual, so to speak. You're what you are because of all the factors and influences in your life, not because there is a label saying that you belong or don't belong to a certain group. In this sense, labels don't blend because they can't, that's why they're called labels - they just change over time and apply to different belief systems. Also, labels can be (and most often, are) factors and influences, but individuality is lost within a label.
Ok, perhaps the word "blend" was a poor choice on my part. Perhaps I should rather have referred to the mosaic of labels. I envision individuality to be based in the specific combination of labels stuck to you - let's arbitrarily say, you have 8 categories in which labeling occurs, with an average of four possibilities in labels per category... that would make 4^8 different mosaics you could be, and that's the degree of individuality that possible world allows.

While I'm pretty sure that our world has higher numbers than that, I'm also convinced that the number of either is finite, so theres in the end a finite number of "types" a person could be, individually - even if that number can go into the millions. (This conviction of mine might be objectively wrong, no one knows; but even if it is, it's subjectively comforting. The idea that the world could be fully explained in numbers, categories and formulae, even if the maths are too high for the human mind, is fear-reducing for me. But that's leaving politics and straying into (quasi-)religious faith. ;) )

I'm a democratic socialist! Let's have kids!
Well even if I were planning to ever procreate, your gender makes the two of us having kids together biologically very, very unlikely, to say the least. :lmao:

Karrde

07-05-2008, 07:54 PM

Hey, I'm used to not belonging... no matter what "group" I relate myself to, I'm always the oddball, and that's something I accepted around the age of 14 or so.
I'm pretty sure that, in the end, I make a neat little fraction of one on the social level; it's just that I intellectually crave a word (or five) to describe that faction with, mainly to myself. My discomfort is introvertedly mental, not social.

It's still socially induced, if it is introvert. See my point? You're born and die as a single entity, but all the time in between you're bombarded with expectations and orders. No wonder people go crazy as often as they do.

Ok, perhaps the word "blend" was a poor choice on my part. Perhaps I should rather have referred to the mosaic of labels. I envision individuality to be based in the specific combination of labels stuck to you - let's arbitrarily say, you have 8 categories in which labeling occurs, with an average of four possibilities in labels per category... that would make 4^8 different mosaics you could be, and that's the degree of individuality that possible world allows.

Now you're getting out of hand. Whose labels are we talking about? God's? Goddess'? Or is it, again, the society that imposes limitations on what you may or may not think, how much you can develop and what group you belong to? Is there really a limit as to what a human's brain may or may not do?

While I'm pretty sure that our world has higher numbers than that, I'm also convinced that the number of either is finite, so theres in the end a finite number of "types" a person could be, individually - even if that number can go into the millions. (This conviction of mine might be objectively wrong, no one knows; but even if it is, it's subjectively comforting. The idea that the world could be fully explained in numbers, categories and formulae, even if the maths are too high for the human mind, is fear-reducing for me. But that's leaving politics and straying into (quasi-)religious faith. ;) )

Math was never my piece of bread, and that's why I turned to social studies and psychology for existential questions. And though I do agree that the ultimate answer lies within some sort of math equation, there is more than enough evidence to prove that math only really has input on physiological processes within the human body, not on the way we perceive the world and our place in it.

What mental capacity we humans have ought to be spent on learning, and this short lifespan is the only real limitation we have. When I look at portrayal of gods and goddesses, even God/dess Him/Herself, I don't see their power - I see the limitations we people impose on them in our little, constricted minds and thoughts. We are so limited (by fear, by stupidity, lack of knowledge) that we impose labels as you say on everything, even the ultimate creator Him/Herself.

And that is, in my humble opinion, the biggest problem of all. For what can we expect from ourselves if we impose limits on something that mustn't and has no limits?

That's why I like Hindus - every wo/man is a God and when they bow to a man/woman, they bow out of respect to the divinity within that man/woman. I still have to find one god reason why limiting oneself is good outside of social interactions of course, and that's the main argument I have with your position on labels. :)

Randy Giles

07-05-2008, 08:13 PM

I don't classify myself as either one. There are some issues in which I side with liberalism, other issues in which I side with conservatism, others in which I side with neither. And I don't get along well with people are extreme on either side. I don't like politics very much, and I don't trust politicians. I think a very small number of them actually believe in what they say they do, and I also think they care more about power than trying to change the world for the better. I don't believe that George Bush has the country's best interests at heart, and I don't think McCain or Obama do either, so I won't be voting.

And n4h, do you ever listen to conservative radio shows? I'm exposed to them all day long - when I park cars a large number of people have their radios tuned into to this AM station for conservatives, and they are just as extreme as the liberals you talk about. It's quite annoying.

In case anyone was wondering where I stand on certain issues...I side more with liberals when it comes to the environment, I think we're far too careless about the environment, especially corporations. I definitely side with conservatives when it comes to abortion, I'm against it except in certain cases.

Overall I'm just for people having more freedom than they do now. I think the government is really f**ked up, some laws we have are completely ridiculous, I also think the government is wasting money in some of the stuff they focus on (for example, going after people for stuff like marijuana. Seriously? Cocaine, heroin, meth...sure. But marijuana? MDMA? If they stopped being so hardcore about it crime would go down, I think).

I think we just need another government altogether in the U.S. - we do not have a democracy, and we have more of an illusion of freedom than actual freedom. But there's nothing really I can do about it, so I just don't worry too much about it and try to live my life. I don't even talk politics that much, I'm surprised I've typed as much as I have.

InsaneMystic

07-06-2008, 01:05 AM

It's still socially induced, if it is introvert. See my point? You're born and die as a single entity, but all the time in between you're bombarded with expectations and orders. No wonder people go crazy as often as they do.
I'm not sure if I can agree to that. It seems to be more a matter of temperament, and I rather put that on the "nature" end of the old "nature vs. nurture" question...

Now you're getting out of hand. Whose labels are we talking about? God's? Goddess'?
Well, if they're supposed to be "objective" categories, then yes, they'd be God's labels - as objectivity is a superhuman viewpoint. Of course that means that we can never know whether those categories or the sorting is true/correct. Well, that's the fate of homo sapiens - we never know anything, really...

Or is it, again, the society that imposes limitations on what you may or may not think, how much you can develop and what group you belong to? Is there really a limit as to what a human's brain may or may not do?
I don't think it's a question of "may", but of "can". Call me pessimist if you like, but I don't share the attitude that everything is possible regarding change of personality/attitude; sooner or later, you run into the limits of your capacities (quite a lot of which will be biologically/genetically based). And anyway, at any one given moment, your current state of mind/character/personality/whatever you call it (by which I mean that which defines "who you are") definitely excludes a whole lot of other "options". As long as you are you, you CANNOT be someone else, even if you are ALLOWED to be someone else. And this "you" can be described with adjectives (which, in themselves, are a form of labels).

Math was never my piece of bread, and that's why I turned to social studies and psychology for existential questions. And though I do agree that the ultimate answer lies within some sort of math equation, there is more than enough evidence to prove that math only really has input on physiological processes within the human body, not on the way we perceive the world and our place in it.
I'd believe that even that is math, but with too many variables to keep track of. :) Either way, it can't be proven...

What mental capacity we humans have ought to be spent on learning, and this short lifespan is the only real limitation we have.
Of course, there's that pesky problem of subjectivity/objectivity again... we do not and, indeed, cannot know if the things we learn have any objective value whatsoever, so this "ought" falls right back into the category of social expectations and orders, doesn't it?

When I look at portrayal of gods and goddesses, even God/dess Him/Herself, I don't see their power - I see the limitations we people impose on them in our little, constricted minds and thoughts. We are so limited (by fear, by stupidity, lack of knowledge) that we impose labels as you say on everything, even the ultimate creator Him/Herself.

And that is, in my humble opinion, the biggest problem of all. For what can we expect from ourselves if we impose limits on something that mustn't and has no limits?

That's why I like Hindus - every wo/man is a God and when they bow to a man/woman, they bow out of respect to the divinity within that man/woman. I still have to find one god reason why limiting oneself is good outside of social interactions of course, and that's the main argument I have with your position on labels. :)
Ok, I guess we're deeply into religion now... I don't expect such a lot of ourselves, as I see humanity as in essence one with God (thus, unlimited), but in form (including the brain) severely limited. On a spiritual level, we may be drops in the ocean, but on the physical, it's more like cogs in the machine (and you can definitely describe a cog - number of teeth, size, function, etc.).

But I fear we're bringing this thread off track with the turn our discussion is taking.

Karrde

07-06-2008, 06:18 AM

Oh God, I just lost another page of text. In short:
Temperament really is something you develop. Emotions need to develop in order to comprehend and live with whatever's around you, and between basic instincts and you're feeling right now is more than time - there is knowledge.

Our main dispute seems to be really what a man can do. And I'm talking about men and women with fully developed brain functions, not retards (although, even a full human can still be made retarded by the society, but that's another topic). I do believe that there is nothing we can't accomplish, and only prerogative to do that is to learn. In this sense, you change who you are by learning and you can't possibly think that you're still the same individual you were yesterday after reading through my ramblings today?

Objectivity is again subjective. Whatever you thought of objectively as possible 30 years ago (Santa Claus, dragons etc), you can't really consider today and what you believe today may be gone for good 10 years into the future, no matter how objective you think it might be. What does this really lead us to? It leads us to the fact that all we can do is learn, even if presented with the notion it can never be truly proven. We need to see and learn to make sure that whatever is here or in the future isn't lost to us.

Not to wander far from the topic, this is the God's honest truth about politics (conservative or liberal, it doesn't matter): they don't want you to learn. They don't want the population to be smart, because they don't think we deserve it. They believe they're the only ones in the know and deserve to know, and stupider people are, happier they are. In the words of one of the greats, George Carlin, may he R.I.P., they don't care about you. They don't. They just want an honest, power fearing worker who will work for them and not complain about the working hours that keep getting longer, end of overtime and health security, etc. etc. And they're not even important, they're just put their to make you believe that you have a choice. The real powers, people who really own everything worthwhile are the corporations - from land to oil, technology and those same politicians, judges, everything - they know how to make sure they don't loose what they have: by making sure we stay uneducated and make us think that we have limitations. And we're happy to oblige, what you can see from this topic as well, we'll continue to bend our backs and make sure they have everything they want while we loose little what we have, and even praise their policies and accomplishments. All the while, those conservatives and liberals that stand so strongly against each other on such idiotic stand points concerning e.g. birth control or marijuana, work together whenever they know that they're getting something out of it, and all the grand notions of liberalism or conservativism are thrown out of the window like they never existed when it's necessary to make sure that they don't loose what they have.

I think I wrote some other things first time around but can't think of them right now. Damn!

JCC

07-06-2008, 07:06 AM

Apparently it dates back to French Revolutionary politics...from Wiki -

Left-right politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics)

...though those left-wingers from Revolutionary times supported ideas like laissez-faire capitalism and free markets, which we would regard as right-wing...funny ol' world, ain't it? I suspect that the difference between right and left wings really only exists on the extremes...most politicians these days strive towards the blandness of the centre.

Me..."I'm just a lawn mower, you can tell me by the way I walk", as Peter Gabriel said way back in the early 70s :)
Laissez-faire free market isn't right, free market is left. Confusing.

hyperballadbrad

07-09-2008, 08:23 AM

In principle I am more left wing, but in practicality, I would have to say more right wing. This is because modern day societies IMO can't really function without a sense of discipline and control. There are too many people, too many cultures, too many problems for everyone to be happy. Populations need to be controlled sadly

hyperballadbrad

07-09-2008, 01:36 PM

Wll exactly Karrde... it's such a complex and ridiculous subject. No one avenue is correct, and never will be *shrug*

SpikedBuffy

07-09-2008, 01:55 PM

Right-wing conservative.

nerd4hire

07-09-2008, 04:16 PM

Right-wing conservative.

Really? That's interesting. That just goes to show a person can't trust his pidgeon-holing, narrow-mindeness. I'm speaking of myself here. I saw your name, and thought to myself I think she's a school teacher. She must swing left.

But wait, maybe I can still save it (not sure why I'd want to). I'm thinking Canadian here. Is it different where you are?

SpikedBuffy

07-09-2008, 05:21 PM

Yeah, that's what most people think. That because I'm a school teacher and am (regretfully) in the teacher's union, that I swing left. But no. I surprise people.

I only joined the teacher's union because they make you pay fair-share dues anyways, and it was not much difference. I thought, if I join the union, at least I'll have automatic protection from the crazy parents who want to sue you or 'report you to the board'.

:)

slayerpower

07-09-2008, 06:55 PM

I'm mostly left wing. I think the death penalty should be allowed in extreme cases. I don't like abortion, but I still think it should be legal.

~angelic slayer~

07-09-2008, 06:58 PM

I also think that it depends on the issue at hand, however in general I think I'm MORE of a left-winged person, generally. (Not to say I'm at the end of either side of the spectrum). If I had the choice, I would probably vote liberal over conservative (not sure what that is in other countries-- sorry :().

I'm not very much of "let's do it the old way" kind of gal, I'm not so much into military action (peace-keeping missions, I've always thought are better to focus on rather than pouring endless resources into active combat-- again, just my opinion), and I'm really more for the little guy than big business. And when it comes to capital punishment, abortion, gay marriage, etc. I've noticed that I tend to swing to a more liberal perspective, rather than conservative.

Again though, I think it really depends on the issue at hand :)

TrueVengeance

07-09-2008, 11:19 PM

Right winged conservative. :)

I do believe in Gay rights however.

eponinethen

07-13-2008, 02:52 AM

I am completely left wing. I'm almost as far-left as you can get. [...]
I'd say that's me too, although "as far-left as you can get" could be interpreted very different by different people, so I'm just gonna say that I'm a Swede, and for being a Swede I'm left-wing. I think health care should be free for everyone (and paid with taxes course), I think everyone should have the right to education (all kinds of schools incl. university etc. should be free), everyone should have the right to work, a place to live, food, etc. and rich people should pay more taxes etc.
(Oh and I'm against punishment, war, all kinds of violence pretty much, death penalty of course, etc.)

Although, mainly I'm a feminist. Mainly I care about feminism, queer activism, "gay rights" (although I see it as more complicated than that), all kinds of equal rights, anti-racism, -age-ism, -sexism, -homophobia, and anti whatever you call discrimination against people who are disabled in any kind of way etc. Plus I care about the environment, of course. I work for and care about human rights etc. more than I care about economy etc...

I've gotten into quite many (imo) really upsetting discussions on these boards the last few years, many that have made me cry, heh, I have a tendency to care too much...