EPTcase in point: holy lol
DHS: Recession fueling right-wing extremism - Page 22
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
case in point: holy lol | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
Oh yeah, well conservatives are the devil because look at these crazy guys. Too much of this in this thread. Sometimes we have to remind ourselves that being conservative does not mean watching Nascar and hating the poor and that being liberal does not mean forcing gay marriage and raising taxes. There's also the point that conservative and liberal are not enough to define a political spectrum on their own. Politics is a very broad subject over which a myriad of different opinions can be had, not even necessarily in opposition. Can we stop hating on each other for stupid reasons (I'm sure we can find good reasons)? Sometimes it's better to agree to disagree. It's ok for people to have differing opinions. If one person thinks that it's a wise investment to give lots of money to the poor to increase their standard of living (and therefore increase the middle class), that's a perfectly valid opinion. Another opinion might address the problem from the opposite direction - give lots of benefits to those with a great deal of money. That way, more wealthy people will want to be there and will invest in the economic infrastructure and bring lots of money into the area. Both of these are valid solutions to a problem (improving the economy in the long-term). Both of these have problems with their implementation and execution. They are almost completely mutually exclusive as well. ----- The original post was talking about something that everyone should be concerned with - economic problems fueling irrational behavior. It's not even the 'left' or the 'center' that should be concerned with this, it's the 'right'. People with abrasive personalities and people that make ridiculous statements are dangerous and unhelpful to any cause that they champion. As MANY have pointed out in this thread, left-wing extremism exists as well, and it's JUST as ridiculous. How about we all stop using the worst examples of a group to represent that group? What if we all pointed our fingers at Muslims and said "They're like Osama Bin Laden, we should kill them all." Or what if we pointed at all Americans and said "They're like Jeffery Dahmer, they're all perverted and disgusting." That's how ridiculous this shit is. Instead maybe we could focus on the good things that each group brings to the table and leave disagreements as differences of opinion. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On August 20 2009 10:44 DefMatrixUltra wrote: How about we all stop using the worst examples of a group to represent that group? What if we all pointed our fingers at Muslims and said "They're like Osama Bin Laden, we should kill them all." Or what if we pointed at all Americans and said "They're like Jeffery Dahmer, they're all perverted and disgusting." That's how ridiculous this shit is. Instead maybe we could focus on the good things that each group brings to the table and leave disagreements as differences of opinion. Thats what the most extreme right wingers do. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
The quaint notion of the orthodox view of right and left in politics today is inherently deceiving and a false representation. The more apt and truistic political spectrum is indeed from the right to the left, however on the right in the beginning of the spectrum is Anarchism, while on the far Left is Totalitarian. The orthodox view makes it stupid because you can't have a notion of right or left or center for Anarchists like Anarcho-Capitalists, or people who advocate Anarcho-Capitalistic approach however with an extremely limited form of Government, which most Libertarians are. It also doesn't take into account the Economic side of the delimma. Economics and Politics go hand in hand. So for example the accurate approach is something that looks like this: [||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||] |----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|-----| - - Anarchy Totalitarian--------------------------------------Centrist------------------------------------------Libertarian Totalitarian - Corporate Statist, Fascist, Communist, Socialist, etc. Centrists are more in line with Republicanism, with a clear form of Government that sets to intervene to preserve Liberty and Freedoms. Neither lean too much towards Totalitarian state Economically or Politically, but a more middle approach, I see the Centrist as a more indifferent political base. Libertarian - While you have different views within the sect, they all advocate extremely limited to no Government. Advocating purely Economic Freedom with no Government economic interference, and a limited political to no political Government intervention (Government, Police, Military, etc.). Advocates of Anarcho-Capitalism fall within this realm. On this line here is our current geopolitical US position along with the world view. [||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||] ----|-------|-----|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------| World--Dem--GOP-----------------Independants---------------------Constitutionalist----Libertarian P. Within each of the sects is a clear Economic approach. You cannot seperate Economic Freedom from Political Freedom, they are one and the same and both lead down the Totalitarian path. That is the only accurate way to approach. So, on this view you can see the world and the US is overwhelming Leftist because they both seek to deny you rights through the Government. You are less free when both the GOP and DEM are in control you only have the facade of choice. America is a one party political system as I suspect most the world is. Edit: GRRRR, let me see if I can fix the stupid posts so to align the | where they need to be. Any suggestions? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
The orthodox view makes it stupid because you can't have a notion of right or left or center for Anarchists like Anarcho-Capitalists, or people who advocate Anarcho-Capitalistic approach however with an extremely limited form of Government, which most Libertarians are. It also doesn't take into account the Economic side of the delimma. Economics and Politics go hand in hand. Uh. That's not how it works. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
ghrur
United States3785 Posts
On August 20 2009 10:28 psion0011 wrote: The american media isn't liberal biased, since the american "liberal" is pretty much center of the line (maybe even a bit right-leaning), the media is neutral as well. It's just that your republicans are so crazy it makes the other party look left-leaning. case in point: holy lol + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD4X25eoFQo Or it could be that the rest of the world in general is just more liberal. This would then make America seem like crazy conservatives when it might actually be that the majority are just crazy liberals, and America actually is in the center. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 20 2009 12:06 L wrote: You basically tell us there's a problem with a one variable system, then provide us with another one variable system which you then arbitrarily put yourself at the middle in. Uh. That's not how it works. I'm not at the middle. I'm a Libertarian. I'm about as far right as you can get. It's basically the only accurate spectrum for the Liberties and Freedoms of people, which is afterall the only nascent view of politics. One party wants to take your Economic liberty away and silence the opposite party, thereby coercing and forcing others. The other party wants to stop people from exercising their civil liberties and creates a permanent Corporate State. I am not a party to neither, nor am I a centrist/independant. I'm a staunch non-interventionist libertarian. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On August 20 2009 12:30 Aegraen wrote: I'm not at the middle. I'm a Libertarian. I'm about as far right as you can get. It's basically the only accurate spectrum for the Liberties and Freedoms of people, which is afterall the only nascent view of politics. One party wants to take your Economic liberty away and silence the opposite party, thereby coercing and forcing others. The other party wants to stop people from exercising their civil liberties and creates a permanent Corporate State. I am not a party to neither, nor am I a centrist/independant. I'm a staunch non-interventionist libertarian. some of your opinions would go against your paultardness while i respect Ron Paul and agree with things he says, the Paultards are as almost as bad as the Socialists and Communists. libertarian monarchy ftw | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 20 2009 12:07 Mindcrime wrote: Aegraen, where are anarcho-communists and libertarian socialists? It's both Anarchy, therefore it is where the slider indicates "Anarchy" is. Both Lib. Socialists and Anarcho-Communits do not advocate the use or coercion of power and authority to force an individual into any arrangement. Therefore, in a philosophical sense, individual liberty, freedom, etc.is maximized and no intrusive forces are involved. It's pretty simple. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 20 2009 12:34 Caller wrote: some of your opinions would go against your paultardness while i respect Ron Paul and agree with things he says, the Paultards are as almost as bad as the Socialists and Communists. libertarian monarchy ftw What the fuck are you talking about Libertarian Monarchy? I don't think you understand the different views of Libertarianism. There's the anarchistic side, which I fully lean to in the Economic realm (Anarcho-Capitalism;Laissez-Faire - Murry Rothbard), and the fusion with the political realm of Libertarianism where the Government has specific limited enumerated roles. In every case Libertarianism seeks to expand and maximize personal freedom and liberty. I'm quite curious what makes you think that we actually need this bloated government? That we actually need the various bureaucrats, the various departments, and the other thousands and thousands of regulations, rules, and other such institutions. When the US was founded and up through most of the 1800s, there were little to no regulations, extremely limited government where we didn't have EPA, Dpt of Education, etc. and America was a superpower. There is no documented case where the expansion of Government power was of any benefit at all. If you do not care about your liberty and freedom then sure, go ahead and call all of us Libertarians idiots and retards while surrendering, or forcing upon others the surrender of their rights. I also don't follow in lockstep with Ron Paul, but as he is a fellow Austrian Economics advocate, I am in special agreement with him on certain issues such as monetary and foreign policy. It's quite funny, that many of the Libertarian stances were actually old Republican stances and further back, the stance of Democrat-Republicans under Jefferson. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 20 2009 12:42 Mindcrime wrote: And they both staunchly oppose concentrations of power. So yeah, it is pretty simple; they belong on the far left. So you are telling me liberals oppose concentrations of power? Are you saying this with a straight face? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On August 20 2009 12:49 Aegraen wrote: So you are telling me liberals oppose concentrations of power? Are you saying this with a straight face? modern liberals? no At best, they have left wing goals and right wing methods. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On August 20 2009 12:46 Aegraen wrote: What the fuck are you talking about Libertarian Monarchy? I don't think you understand the different views of Libertarianism. There's the anarchistic side, which I fully lean to in the Economic realm (Anarcho-Capitalism;Laissez-Faire - Murry Rothbard), and the fusion with the political realm of Libertarianism where the Government has specific limited enumerated roles. In every case Libertarianism seeks to expand and maximize personal freedom and liberty. I'm quite curious what makes you think that we actually need this bloated government? That we actually need the various bureaucrats, the various departments, and the other thousands and thousands of regulations, rules, and other such institutions. When the US was founded and up through most of the 1800s, there were little to no regulations, extremely limited government where we didn't have EPA, Dpt of Education, etc. and America was a superpower. There is no documented case where the expansion of Government power was of any benefit at all. If you do not care about your liberty and freedom then sure, go ahead and call all of us Libertarians idiots and retards while surrendering, or forcing upon others the surrender of their rights. I also don't follow in lockstep with Ron Paul, but as he is a fellow Austrian Economics advocate, I am in special agreement with him on certain issues such as monetary and foreign policy. It's quite funny, that many of the Libertarian stances were actually old Republican stances and further back, the stance of Democrat-Republicans under Jefferson. you misunderstand what a libertarian monarchy is: A libertarian monarchy is essentially a monarchy that has its power restricted to being a figurehead and controlling the military for defense purposes only. It is fairly close to anarchism, although not quite anarcho-capitalist. You may have read the book Democracy: The God that Failed. The author makes good points about how monarchy, despite its flaws, is still a better alternative than democracy in a libertarian government. But I believe that people will not be able to appreciate anarchy, as it is too ingrained in human beings to obey authority. The "King" or whatever title it may be would act as the figurehead,the head of state, and the person little children remember as the leader of whichever country. Eventually, it would be possible to transition to anarchism: however, until then, I view libertarian monarchy as the best option. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 20 2009 12:53 Mindcrime wrote: modern liberals? no At best, they have left wing goals and right wing methods. I'm curious then, where would you place Libertarians such as Ayn Rand (Objectivism is a part of Libertarianism), Milton Friedman, and Murry Rothbard on the traditional view of Right/Left politics? They don't fit in anywhere in there because they are an amalgamation of both right and left. Therefore, you can't use the traditional spectrum. That is why the only spectrum which places all political views in their proper place is the one I showed. Please, do try and fit the Libertarians aforementioned into your Right/Left view. I want to hear this. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On August 20 2009 13:00 Aegraen wrote: I'm curious then, where would you place Libertarians such as Ayn Rand (Objectivism is a part of Libertarianism), Milton Friedman, and Murry Rothbard on the traditional view of Right/Left politics? They don't fit in anywhere in there because they are an amalgamation of both right and left. Therefore, you can't use the traditional spectrum. That is why the only spectrum which places all political views in their proper place is the one I showed. Please, do try and fit the Libertarians aforementioned into your Right/Left view. I want to hear this. i'm pretty sure I've seen a spectrum that is actually a square, with libertarians at the top, conservatives at the right, liberals at the left, and populist/totalitarians at the bottom. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 20 2009 13:04 Caller wrote: i'm pretty sure I've seen a spectrum that is actually a square, with libertarians at the top, conservatives at the right, liberals at the left, and populist/totalitarians at the bottom. That doesn't take into account Economic policy. American "liberals" Economic policy is extremely Fascistic, and GOP Economic policy is extremely State Corporatist, both maximally reducing freedom and liberty. What would you call that then? That square does not take into effect any Economic factors whatsoever, and I would argue that Economic Freedom is the most important part of any political ideology. | ||
| ||
