When does it become 'politics'?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 18:35
VIEWED: 6108
PAGE 7 of 8

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:09 PM

I hate to oblige, but Chris, I think that this is usually used as spin.

The fact is that most "govt's for the people" are actually "for the govt." and since they are the govt., they are the elite. IOW, I think this is another leftie pigeon.

Also, left and right are differing philosophies. Bush and Clinton are not those philosophies. Clinton, as much as it pains me to say it, is no more left than Bush is right. They're both People for the Eliteist Rich Warmongering Scumbags removed from the realities of daily Real-Life.

But if we allow it to be shortened, it becomes a weighted pro-left propaganda tool. The truth is that a fair free and open society is not an equal one, but one that favors people who do something. These people will ultimately become the Elite.

For instance. I want to not have crack peddling gay prostitute rings in my society. I have them now. In the college town, not far from here. But if I became rich and powerful, I would want to live somewhere where they weren't. This is to some extent elitist. I think everyone has their own thing that they would want to not have in their society, whether it's chrisitan fundamentalist creationists or terrorist jihadists. I guess what I'm saying is everyone is an elitist. The only difference between the Elite and everyone else is they don't have to put up with it so they don't.

I think the debate has to remain what the debate is about.

Have some soup and get better.

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
I was thinking of this one, but I wasn't sure. I need to go and check the debate on this. I remember in colonial times it was the Whigs, who we consider conservatives, and the orignal basis for the GOP, who supported an independent America, but you may be right about colonialism.

The British crown was right wing and was anti-American independence. I’m not even sure if there was a credible left wing force in British politics of the time.

Quote:
Oh, come on, this is absurd. Argentina, on a blind imperialist aggression, invaded the Fauklands, and Thatcher was nothing short of 100% correct in defending it. Defending your own country against aggression does not constitute imperialism, in any way shape or form.

I felt I had to clarify my point here, as you missed it. In 1976 (I think) the exact same circumstances that led to the Falklands war occurred under a labour government. The reaction was to bolster forces in the area, sending a clear message that Britain was prepared to defend the Islands.

When this happened under Thatcher she removed existing forces, sending a clear message that Britain WASN'T going to fight for the Islands.

Net result, no war in 1976, but there is a war in 1982. I also draw attention to the fact that Thatcher’s majority was dropping like a stone, but oh look successful war and she's running the country for another decade...

Point is yeah, once Argentina invade there was no option, but we could have stopped Argentina invading without firing a shot.

Yep she did do some good things (the British EU rebate is the only thing that comes to mind off hand) but she and her mate Major also left the country in a shit state, economically, socially, defensively...

The ‘ruling’ class did alright though…

Quote:
Did you miss something? I doubt you did, you just want a left wing empire.

Well, yes, I did, the part where the EU was involved in any militarism what so ever. The part where the EU had a military. The part where the EU had invaded anyone. This is fantasy land, by the same token I could say that the nation of the moon is a right wing imperial dictatorship.

I’m afraid I’m going to need you to explain this one too me.

Quote:
I wasn't. I was just illustrating that it's a complicated issue, and you can't just call everyone right wing because you oppose them.

That’s just the point DT, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m saying the Imperialism and militarism is an aspect of the extreme left AND extreme right. It was your assertion that it was one or the other.

The thing is the Right often attacks the left with the assertion that they’re all pacifist who are on the side of the ‘enemy’ while also saying the left is responsible for all the wars and Imperialism through the ages, so seriously, which is it? It really can’t be both; the left is either a bunch of wishy washy cowardly pacifists that can’t defend themselves or a bunch of war mongering psychopaths.

Quote:
Again, this is not about the issue of monarchism

Allow me to deconstruct this argument, and then put it permanently to bed:

What Citizen is refering to is that during the time of the French Revolution, (1789-1794) the Monarchists sat on the right, and the various sorts of Democratic-Republican sat on the left, which is where the terms originally came from.

By this logic, everyone, Democrat or Republican, or their european equivalents, is left wing.

This is, indeed, where the left historically originates. Frankly yes, Democrats, Republicans, and their European equivalents are LEFT of this extreme. This does not prove that monarchists aren’t right, ergo we can prescribe the militarism of Monarchists too the right, right? But anyway, the point is these were originally left wing ideals, the fact that we can’t agree what left and right is just gives credence to what I’ve said a million times before that Left and Right is inadequate and needs to be replaced.

Quote:
by 1824, when the two party system was f

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FLETCH2

Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:25 PM

Or put another way

Political space is curved such that the distance between the extreme ends is less than the distance between the extremes and the middle.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Political space is curved such that the distance between the extreme ends is less than the distance between the extremes and the middle.

Maybe it's the fever, but that make sense to me...

In and out Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 19, 2006 10:05 PM

Something like this:

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

STARSONG

Monday, February 20, 2006 12:54 AM

Quote:
When does it become 'politics'?

When it ceases to be about doing something productive, or even talking about doing something productive, and becomes just being mean to people.

:(

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, February 20, 2006 2:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm sorry, the constitution is not a decree of divine dictatorship. The CiC does not decide where and when we go to war. It's not his position to decide who Americas enemies are and why we fight. The president is top General, not legislator.

What you give here is the line that ArchDictator Cheney and the monkey puppet Bush want you to believe, as told by the ArchTraitor Stanley H. Gonzalez.

What I gave you was the Constitution:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”
U.S. Constitution: Article II. Section 2. Paragraph 1.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nothing irrational about hating these international terrorists who are trying to destroy everything we have worked for, and turning America into a four letter word internationally.

Finn, as a rhetorrical style alone, this isn't working, perhaps you should think about you're overall position before you lose my vote to Pirate News.

If you want to throw your ‘vote to Pirate News,’ you go right ahead. Anyone who advocates burning the government to the ground would probably fit far better in PirateNews’ world then in mine.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

DREAMTROVE

Monday, February 20, 2006 2:45 AM

Quote:
The British crown was right wing and was anti-American independence. I’m not even sure if there was a credible left wing force in British politics of the time.

Citizen,

This is just the sort of thing I was complaining about. The concept that the British crown was right wing is pure postumous left wing spin. Being a monarchy, it doesn't fall into our left-right continuum. It is no-wing. It's not left, It's not right, It's not center, it's not anywhere

near the left right continuum we know. To say that it's right wing would be to imply that it was a pro-business limited-govt. with an interest in private sector and a focus of preservation of a way of life for the citizenry. To say that it was left wing would be to say it was pro

social-safety-net, pro-universal equality, and pro-large govt. labor projects. None of this is true, so it's no-wing.

Quote:
I felt I had to clarify my point here, as you missed it. In 1976 (I think) the exact same circumstances that led to the Falklands war occurred under a labour government. The reaction was to bolster forces in the area, sending a clear message that Britain was

prepared to defend the Islands.

I think the later threat was more severe, Argentina was actually in the process of invading. The president of Argentina had just put himself into a perilous political position which made him appear extremely weak to his own people. He invaded the Fauklands for

essentially one reason: to save his political career. He wasn't about to be easily deterred.
But anyway, I didn't know she had facilitated the invasion by reducing troop levels, which wasn't very imperialist of her, either way. Thatcher was, like Reagan, less than ideal. But nowhere near as bad as what we have now.

Quote:
Well, yes, I did, the part where the EU was involved in any militarism what so ever. The part where the EU had a military. The part where the EU had invaded anyone.

It's still an empire. Did you even read the socialist nightmare constitution? Good God, is all I can say. At the moment, I feel lucky to have Bush by comparison, and that's saying a lot. Anyway, it's not fantasy, it's imaginiation, something which you need in order to

see what is clearly coming. The EU military, once up and running, will allow the EU to do what it really wants, which is to destroy freedom in Europe. The first step is to take control of the currency and the economy, and once done, no one will be economically able

to leave. Once the military is started, and this is not made up, the proposal has already been put forth for an independent military supported by EU-wide taxation, that military will then be able to call British forces to war even if Britain votes against the war in the same

way that New York must send forces to Iraq, even though it's people overwhelmingly oppose the action. You are making all of the mistakes we made, and many of the ones the USSR did.

BTW, If I were in England Labor wouldn't have a chance of getting my vote. At the moment, the democrats do, they could put up Russ Feingold. But if I were a Brit it would be a choice between Tory (probably) and LibDem (Possibly) for me.

Quote:
That’s just the point DT, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m saying the Imperialism and militarism is an aspect of the extreme left AND extreme right. It was your assertion that it was one or the other.

I was saying on balance empire building has been a leftwing activity, esp. lately.

Quote:
The thing is the Right often attacks the left with the assertion that they’re all pacifist who are on the side of the ‘enemy’ while also saying the left is responsible for all the wars and Imperialism through the ages, so seriously, which is it? It really can’t be both; the

left is either a bunch of wishy washy cowardly pacifists that can’t defend themselves or a bunch of war mongering psychopaths.

The left being pacifists is almost an absurd position. When were the left pacifists? I agree that this is how the hawks always try to paint the doves, bu

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, February 20, 2006 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I respectfully submit we drop the whole Right/Left thing in favour of People for the People/People for the Eliteist Rich Warmongering Scumbags removed from the realities of daily Real-Life.

Okay, shorten that second one, I guess. People for the Elite.

Simplifies things a bit, don't you think? Now you don't have to decide whether Bush is conservative or radical, he's simply 'for the Elite'.

*feels the detailed response why he's wrong coming, decides to fly*
FLAME ON!

I agree.

Strictly speaking, the Left and Right are just political dichotomies, one – the Right – representing the proposition (established thought) and the other – the Left – representing the antiproposition (the opposition to the established thought). The specific meaning is relative to the current politics, or established thought. So the further you get away from today the less relevant the current definitions of Left and Right become. This is why it is meaningless to define post-classical Rome as “right-wing.” There certainly were similarities in thought, but the actual polices advocated by the Roman government following, say, Tiberius, swayed widely from emperor to emperor between what we might consider the two extremes, although very rarely in my opinion falling into cadence with any current political doctrine. Politics in Rome before and perhaps during Augustus was defined more by competing schools of thought, much as politics is today, and it is generally acknowledged that the two dialectic schools of thought were defined by the ideals expressed by the, so called “conservatives,” like Cato, and philhellenes, like Cicero. And once again there are similarities to today’s politics, but neither of them falls easily into any current defined category.

I’m not as intimately familiar with other ancient and classical civilizations as I am the Romans, but I would imagine that a similar difficulty exists in trying to cast any of them into the current idea of Left and Right.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

DREAMTROVE

Monday, February 20, 2006 3:04 AM

Citizen,

Thanks for the circle. I posted something very similar twice before:

only I put big runaway govt. on the top., I believe you have it on the bottom, if you mean to say that Blair/Bush is extreme, which I would agree with.

Also, curiously, the right in the US is identified by red, and the left by blue. Is it the reverse in the UK? It used to be the other way here.

I posted the names of Senators, I guess the Brits wouldn't get the references, but I'm sure you have prominant people to fill in.

Feingold and Boxer are democrats who are esentially libertarian, capitalist and pro-peace.

Larry Craig, Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee, John Sununu are republicans who support these same positions.

This is not to say that Feingold=Craig, they have points they disagree on, related to standard left right issues, pro-business vs. govt. social programs or whathaveyou, but the import part is that Both Russ Feingold and Larry Craig have opposed Bush and opposed Clinton close to 100% of the time.

Curiously, I was reading a review of the Senate which ranked everyone left to right, and this is when it occured to me that the left-right line was not correct.

Joe Leiberman and Russ Feingold were right next to each other. Both were right towards the middle. I think Russ might have voted with the GOP only a couple more times than Joementum (Lieberman's nickname). Anyway, as a political guide, that was horridly deceptive. The fact is that Lieberman and Feingold (both jewish of course, PN) have voted on opposite sides from one another on just about every major policy for the last 15 years (no conspiracy here.) Lieberman and Fiengold, being in the identical spot on a left-right continuum, were clearly polar opposites. That's when I thought of the circle. Two types of moderate, both opposites of each other. The fact is Lieberman supported Clinton and then Bush all of the time, and Feingold opposed them.

I've been trying to sus out who the left and right are. I think Kennedy, Biden, Rockafeller are probably in the center of that democratic arc, and probably McCain, Warner, Lugar are in the middle of the republican arc.

I'm curious to know how brits would classify the libdems in a way that an American could understand. To me, they seem like moderates. Torys are like Republicans, Labor are like Democrats, and the LibDems are somewhere in the middle?

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE