Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

mooseboy84 · Feb 22, 2004, 09:52 pm

there is no "left".

that is just a term the conservative right [in the us] use against anyone that goes against a certian policy or agenda of theres. its like the all inclusive "you know they say".

i can call the "right" right because there is more cohesiveness in there limited way of thinking.

if you gave a checklist of 150 questions ranging across a wide base of political and philosophical ideals, there would be a much higher percantage of congruity of people that identify themselves as "right", "conservatives" or even "republicans".

however, the engimas "left" and "liberals" is pretty much everyone else. there is a large discrepency and various political opinions between them.

denis kucinich was against the iraq war. pat buchanon [someone i politically revere] was against the war in iraq. they denied supporting the war for different reasons, however they hold very contrasting views politically.

blah, im tired of typing. basiclly the "left" is misnomer that is used to try and describe people that are against a certian policy of the "right" or modern american "conservatives". the left is not a homogenous group of the same political persausions, -- or at least not in the same since as the "right". on any given issue, someone can be rendered "leftist" or "liberal", however there are not are not any real core issues that can define left, as there are like those defined by someone like Russel kirk. this is not to pigeon hole the right as being all the same. there are different types of conservatives, but the ties that bind them to the "right" are more self-evident than with the "left".

The_Isolationist · Feb 22, 2004, 10:01 pm

Wow talk about shutting up! You ramble on and on, thinking you are smart and making an important point in the left side of your brain, and what comes out? "Blah, blah blah, whine, blah blah, whine whine whine."

That's the problem with the left, the think themselves to be intellectuals, when, really, they are no more than stuffy, blow-hard, cry babies.

daviddennis · Feb 22, 2004, 10:05 pm

You are misinformed in at least one respect: Pat Buchanan is often considered a rightist, and I believe he ran for President under the Republican ticket.

In reality, left and right both have a shifting set of core beliefs and a wide diversity of opinion. Both religious conservatives and libertarians generally vote Republican, and yet their viewpoints could hardly be any different.

I think you're seeing the diversity of the group you're in, while ignoring the diversity of the group you're not in. I suspect this is because you don't get to know us. Perhaps "know your enemy" is the best advice I could give people on both sides.

D

Feb 22, 2004, 10:11 pm

There is one decent argument for doing away with the "left/right" distinction: there is no fundamental difference between the two in the US..

After all they both want the same thing" increased state (read politicians and bureaucrats) control over the lives of innocent victims of their policies. Neither supports freedom. Neither supports justice. Neither supports responsibility or reason. Why pretend that there are two opposing camps when they are essentially the same?

rmnunez · Feb 22, 2004, 10:20 pm

One thing we've got to admit about the left is that they are uniquely idiotic. This collection of like-minded eco-femi-soci-lib thinking that amalgamates around vaguely Democratic party candidates is what I refer to with the pejorative "left". These imbeciles have done it again; Ralph Nader announced he will run as an independent.

daviddennis · Feb 22, 2004, 10:21 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
There is one decent argument for doing away with the "left/right" distinction: there is no fundamental difference between the two in the US.. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Unfortunately, a desire to be in government indicates a tendancy to try to use it to do "good". I'd say it's difficult for anyone once in power to not give in to that temptation. You have, after all, a gigantic pool of money to dip into.

Because of that, Republicans and Democrats alike do not live up to the high ideals proclaimed in their speeches. Nonetheless, I fear Republicans less, simply because they have a point that in these days defense of our country against various threats is vital. I appreciate what we've done in Iraq, not based on WMDs, but based on the ideal of giving the nation freedom from a vile dictator. We may wind up seeing a freer government in Iraq than our own country!

This all being said, it is indeed disappointing that there is no mainstream movement that makes a case for truly limited government and economic freedom. But at their best, the Republicans at least have to pay lip service to it, and that's better than sending control to an out of control Democratic party who wants to "fight" for you.

They're fighting for themselves, they're fighting for their careers and they're fighting for their favourite special interests.

It's too bad Republican politicians get themselves mixed up in the same old fights.

D

SeanWah · Feb 22, 2004, 10:38 pm

Actually, mooseboy has a somewhat relevant point. The so-called left defines itself by what the right isn't -- therefore it isn't so much a coherent ideology as it is simply the political manifestation of the in-your-face counter-culture.

Squirt · Feb 22, 2004, 10:42 pm

Mooseboy,

I would remind you that the left use the term "right" or "religious right" to refer to conservatives. Political name-calling is not something that only the "right" does, and in fact calling someone the left is not a bad thing. It's a term to describe people that are on a different side of the political fence than you are. If you have a problem with the word "left" perhaps you shouldn't express your opinion.

Anniee · Feb 22, 2004, 10:49 pm

Squirt, he said it's ALL RIGHT for him to use the term "right" because in that case it's actually true. Or something.

LOL

The terms left and right assume a middle, a center. Generally if you were going to use fiscal and social issues, the left of center would be going towards increased government control over fiscal issues and lesser governmental control over social issues. Going towards the right on the scale would be the opposite - more social control and less fiscal control. Personally I use "left" to describe people who favor big government fiscally, such as massive entitlements and punitive taxation, and yes it is a pejorative because those things are evil.

Of course everyone knows the scale is garbage and that the important thing is government control versus liberty, that statism by any other name is still statism. :)

mooseboy84 · Feb 23, 2004, 12:28 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (daviddennis,)
You are misinformed in at least one respect: Pat Buchanan is often considered a rightist, and I believe he ran for President under the Republican ticket.

In reality, left and right both have a shifting set of core beliefs and a wide diversity of opinion. Both religious conservatives and libertarians generally vote Republican, and yet their viewpoints could hardly be any different.

I think you're seeing the diversity of the group you're in, while ignoring the diversity of the group you're not in. I suspect this is because you don't get to know us. Perhaps "know your enemy" is the best advice I could give people on both sides.

D<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

first of all, i have no "enemys" as an american other al qadea. there are fellow citizens of mine i may strongly dislike or not agree with, but they are not my enemys.

if you would re-read my original post, at the end i said the "right" is not one big lump of people. i know there are many types of conseravtives.

i would be defined by most people on this site as a "leftist", however i very strongly agree at times with the paleo-conservative ideals -- minus all the hocus pocus nonsense about americas only capacity of being an anglo saxon christian nation. i know of the neocons and there agenda, the evangelicals and the blue bloods. there are more, but those are pretty much the main categorys in wich most "conservatives" fall.

Squirt · Feb 23, 2004, 02:17 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anniee,)
Squirt, he said it's ALL RIGHT for him to use the term "right" because in that case it's actually true. Or something. LOL

The terms left and right assume a middle, a center. Generally if you were going to use fiscal and social issues, the left of center would be going towards increased government control over fiscal issues and lesser governmental control over social issues. Going towards the right on the scale would be the opposite - more social control and less fiscal control. Personally I use "left" to describe people who favor big government fiscally, such as massive entitlements and punitive taxation, and yes it is a pejorative because those things are evil.

Of course everyone knows the scale is garbage and that the important thing is government control versus liberty, that statism by any other name is still statism. :)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I kind of like the scale. It's simple, true, not completly accurate, but it works. Of course there are more labels than just right or left, or Conservative and liberal. I use a scale more akin to this one, more terms than just two. Of course it's split again by economical and social issues.

Liberal liberals
Conservative Liberals
Middle of The roads (the ones who generally don't vote)
Liberal Conservatives
Conservative Conservatives

Texas Lynn · Feb 23, 2004, 02:51 am

The problem as I see it is more that of "The Right" labeling such moderate to conservative liberals as the Clintons, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. as "Leftists", which they are not in any sense of the word. A "Leftist" rejects capitalism though one need not necessarily be socialist or communist to do so. All of the examples I cited are quite pro-capitalist and have profited well from the system.

Less educated members of "The Right" will even describe such as communists or socialists. It is a form of lying-or stupidity if the person doesn't know the difference.

koi · Feb 23, 2004, 03:04 am

"Liberal liberals
Conservative Liberals
Middle of The roads (the ones who generally don't vote)
Liberal Conservatives
Conservative Conservatives"

I disagree with this list. party because it fails to encompass such beliefs as Anarcho-capitalism and Libertarianism. partly because such a bipolar range does not, or should not, be applied to human thought. Which is what the political spectrum boils down to, measuring where people place importance on different issues.

I typically come across as very "leftist" or socialist despite being very much in favor of the Free Market because people assosicate anti-government sentiments as "communist". This can be counter argued that practical communism (China, USSR) is then VERY right wing because it featured almost a dicatorial government.

I guess the whole point of the rant comes down to agreeing that the terms "left" and "right" do not fully apply to politics or economics as any sort of data can be manipulated to present any side. well, to a degree at least.

Feb 23, 2004, 08:32 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
but based on the ideal of giving the nation freedom from a vile dictator. We may wind up seeing a freer government in Iraq than our own country!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The record of US nation building is rather poor. Recall that the US set up the Taliban, Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet, Osama, etc..

Furthermore, there exists no authority by which the US government can invade foreign nations, kills thousands of innocent people, and seize control in order to dictate the form of government is acceptable to the powers that be in the US. \

The republicans are just as frightening as the demoncrats because both are ideologues who are moved by fervor, blind faith, and the desire to force others to abide by their desires.

Annie,

Well said! A statist by any other name would still smell of fertilizer.. :)

Anniee · Feb 23, 2004, 12:57 pm

The problem with it (the scale), Squirt, is that it makes assumptions that shouldn't be made. It ASSUMES people must necessarily be controlled by government in either their finances or their morality (I'm not referring to encroachment upon other persons or their property, or breach of contract as clearly these are immoral and should remain illegal.) It's useful for gauging whether someone is left or right in their desire for governmental control, but did you happen to notice there's NOWHERE on there for those who don't wish it? Libertarians for example, fit nowhere on that scale. Richard Maybury proposed a scale which instead is shaped pretty much like a diamond, with the open middle being the juris naturalist (natural law - free market and common law) position, which is similar to libertarian though not affiliated with the questionable party itself. I agree in that I prefer to judge these things more on their statism (amt of gov't control, interference in the market, etc.) Though I'm not sure about his diamond.

I am much more afraid of leftism because a people in economic ruin, as any amount of socialistic economic programming WILL lead to, leaves a people so devastated that they don't have the ability anymore to fight the government encroachment. The right at least makes a pretense of standing for a "free market" and comes a little closer to it (not that that's saying much) and it seems to me that a prosperous people (to which a free market inevitably leads) will at least have the means and ability to fight the other forms of encroachment by the government. People who are hungry are all too eager to accept the benevolent chains of government.

And I wouldn't think of the middle-of-the-road centrists the way you do...if the right wants less fiscal but more social control and the left wants the reverse, the centrist is happy to control both. It's all statism, none of it is liberty, though some is more dangerous than others.

Feb 23, 2004, 01:26 pm

Annie, one of the many frightening problems with the right is that if you disagree with them, then they immediately label you a heretic. They appeal to god and pseudo morality to condemn anyone who dares to think and therefore disagree. They do not suffer any deviation from the strictest of doctrines, of ideologies, or of personalities.. They will work hard to shatter the peaceful happiness of others who are causing no harm at all, merely because those others may actually be happy rather than be suffering per the religious doctrine. Look to the court cases in SF right now for fine examples of this..

When appealing to religion, the right assumes the highest ground and the least scrutiny. While the US left is indeed frightening, when it states X is the way to help the poor, there is some way to judge the truth of the claim. The right simply stipulates that "god told me so" allowing for no verification or falsification.

Also, compare the number of people killed in the name of god(s) versus the number killed in the name of progressive goals..

I am not a fan of any statist, but as a matter of psychological motivation, the religious right has a much more troublesome fervor (religious fever?) than the granola left.

Feb 22, 2004, 09:52 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
mooseboy84 Molten Ash Location: Cognitive Dissonance Posts: 60	there is no "left". that is just a term the conservative right [in the us] use against anyone that goes against a certian policy or agenda of theres. its like the all inclusive "you know they say". i can call the "right" right because there is more cohesiveness in there limited way of thinking. if you gave a checklist of 150 questions ranging across a wide base of political and philosophical ideals, there would be a much higher percantage of congruity of people that identify themselves as "right", "conservatives" or even "republicans". however, the engimas "left" and "liberals" is pretty much everyone else. there is a large discrepency and various political opinions between them. denis kucinich was against the iraq war. pat buchanon [someone i politically revere] was against the war in iraq. they denied supporting the war for different reasons, however they hold very contrasting views politically. blah, im tired of typing. basiclly the "left" is misnomer that is used to try and describe people that are against a certian policy of the "right" or modern american "conservatives". the left is not a homogenous group of the same political persausions, -- or at least not in the same since as the "right". on any given issue, someone can be rendered "leftist" or "liberal", however there are not are not any real core issues that can define left, as there are like those defined by someone like Russel kirk. this is not to pigeon hole the right as being all the same. there are different types of conservatives, but the ties that bind them to the "right" are more self-evident than with the "left". <<because i f**kin said so>>™

Feb 22, 2004, 10:01 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
The_Isolationist Sedimentary Rock Location: Upstate, New York Posts: 2	Wow talk about shutting up! You ramble on and on, thinking you are smart and making an important point in the left side of your brain, and what comes out? "Blah, blah blah, whine, blah blah, whine whine whine." That's the problem with the left, the think themselves to be intellectuals, when, really, they are no more than stuffy, blow-hard, cry babies. <span style='color:red'><span style='font-family:Times'>"There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only one-hundred percent Americanism," Teddy Roosevelt, Speech, July 19,1918 </span></span>

Feb 22, 2004, 10:20 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	One thing we've got to admit about the left is that they are uniquely idiotic. This collection of like-minded eco-femi-soci-lib thinking that amalgamates around vaguely Democratic party candidates is what I refer to with the pejorative "left". These imbeciles have done it again; Ralph Nader announced he will run as an independent. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Feb 22, 2004, 10:21 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
daviddennis Sedimentary Rock Posts: 3	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) There is one decent argument for doing away with the "left/right" distinction: there is no fundamental difference between the two in the US.. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Unfortunately, a desire to be in government indicates a tendancy to try to use it to do "good". I'd say it's difficult for anyone once in power to not give in to that temptation. You have, after all, a gigantic pool of money to dip into. Because of that, Republicans and Democrats alike do not live up to the high ideals proclaimed in their speeches. Nonetheless, I fear Republicans less, simply because they have a point that in these days defense of our country against various threats is vital. I appreciate what we've done in Iraq, not based on WMDs, but based on the ideal of giving the nation freedom from a vile dictator. We may wind up seeing a freer government in Iraq than our own country! This all being said, it is indeed disappointing that there is no mainstream movement that makes a case for truly limited government and economic freedom. But at their best, the Republicans at least have to pay lip service to it, and that's better than sending control to an out of control Democratic party who wants to "fight" for you. They're fighting for themselves, they're fighting for their careers and they're fighting for their favourite special interests. It's too bad Republican politicians get themselves mixed up in the same old fights. D

Feb 22, 2004, 10:49 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Anniee Mr. Queen Posts: 231	Squirt, he said it's ALL RIGHT for him to use the term "right" because in that case it's actually true. Or something. LOL The terms left and right assume a middle, a center. Generally if you were going to use fiscal and social issues, the left of center would be going towards increased government control over fiscal issues and lesser governmental control over social issues. Going towards the right on the scale would be the opposite - more social control and less fiscal control. Personally I use "left" to describe people who favor big government fiscally, such as massive entitlements and punitive taxation, and yes it is a pejorative because those things are evil. Of course everyone knows the scale is garbage and that the important thing is government control versus liberty, that statism by any other name is still statism. :) Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Mohandas Gandhi

Feb 22, 2004, 10:05 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
daviddennis Sedimentary Rock Posts: 3	You are misinformed in at least one respect: Pat Buchanan is often considered a rightist, and I believe he ran for President under the Republican ticket. In reality, left and right both have a shifting set of core beliefs and a wide diversity of opinion. Both religious conservatives and libertarians generally vote Republican, and yet their viewpoints could hardly be any different. I think you're seeing the diversity of the group you're in, while ignoring the diversity of the group you're not in. I suspect this is because you don't get to know us. Perhaps "know your enemy" is the best advice I could give people on both sides. D

Feb 22, 2004, 10:11 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	There is one decent argument for doing away with the "left/right" distinction: there is no fundamental difference between the two in the US.. After all they both want the same thing" increased state (read politicians and bureaucrats) control over the lives of innocent victims of their policies. Neither supports freedom. Neither supports justice. Neither supports responsibility or reason. Why pretend that there are two opposing camps when they are essentially the same?

Feb 22, 2004, 10:38 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
SeanWah Molten Ash Posts: 47	Actually, mooseboy has a somewhat relevant point. The so-called left defines itself by what the right isn't -- therefore it isn't so much a coherent ideology as it is simply the political manifestation of the in-your-face counter-culture.

Feb 22, 2004, 10:42 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Squirt Sedimentary Rock Posts: 2	Mooseboy, I would remind you that the left use the term "right" or "religious right" to refer to conservatives. Political name-calling is not something that only the "right" does, and in fact calling someone the left is not a bad thing. It's a term to describe people that are on a different side of the political fence than you are. If you have a problem with the word "left" perhaps you shouldn't express your opinion.

Feb 23, 2004, 12:28 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
mooseboy84 Molten Ash Location: Cognitive Dissonance Posts: 60	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (daviddennis,) You are misinformed in at least one respect: Pat Buchanan is often considered a rightist, and I believe he ran for President under the Republican ticket. In reality, left and right both have a shifting set of core beliefs and a wide diversity of opinion. Both religious conservatives and libertarians generally vote Republican, and yet their viewpoints could hardly be any different. I think you're seeing the diversity of the group you're in, while ignoring the diversity of the group you're not in. I suspect this is because you don't get to know us. Perhaps "know your enemy" is the best advice I could give people on both sides. D<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> first of all, i have no "enemys" as an american other al qadea. there are fellow citizens of mine i may strongly dislike or not agree with, but they are not my enemys. if you would re-read my original post, at the end i said the "right" is not one big lump of people. i know there are many types of conseravtives. i would be defined by most people on this site as a "leftist", however i very strongly agree at times with the paleo-conservative ideals -- minus all the hocus pocus nonsense about americas only capacity of being an anglo saxon christian nation. i know of the neocons and there agenda, the evangelicals and the blue bloods. there are more, but those are pretty much the main categorys in wich most "conservatives" fall. <<because i f**kin said so>>™

Feb 23, 2004, 02:17 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Squirt Sedimentary Rock Posts: 2	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anniee,) Squirt, he said it's ALL RIGHT for him to use the term "right" because in that case it's actually true. Or something. LOL The terms left and right assume a middle, a center. Generally if you were going to use fiscal and social issues, the left of center would be going towards increased government control over fiscal issues and lesser governmental control over social issues. Going towards the right on the scale would be the opposite - more social control and less fiscal control. Personally I use "left" to describe people who favor big government fiscally, such as massive entitlements and punitive taxation, and yes it is a pejorative because those things are evil. Of course everyone knows the scale is garbage and that the important thing is government control versus liberty, that statism by any other name is still statism. :)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I kind of like the scale. It's simple, true, not completly accurate, but it works. Of course there are more labels than just right or left, or Conservative and liberal. I use a scale more akin to this one, more terms than just two. Of course it's split again by economical and social issues. Liberal liberals Conservative Liberals Middle of The roads (the ones who generally don't vote) Liberal Conservatives Conservative Conservatives

Feb 23, 2004, 02:51 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Texas Lynn Sedimentary Rock Posts: 4	The problem as I see it is more that of "The Right" labeling such moderate to conservative liberals as the Clintons, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. as "Leftists", which they are not in any sense of the word. A "Leftist" rejects capitalism though one need not necessarily be socialist or communist to do so. All of the examples I cited are quite pro-capitalist and have profited well from the system. Less educated members of "The Right" will even describe such as communists or socialists. It is a form of lying-or stupidity if the person doesn't know the difference.

Feb 23, 2004, 03:04 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
koi Molten Ash Location: Edmonton Alberta Posts: 63	"Liberal liberals Conservative Liberals Middle of The roads (the ones who generally don't vote) Liberal Conservatives Conservative Conservatives" I disagree with this list. party because it fails to encompass such beliefs as Anarcho-capitalism and Libertarianism. partly because such a bipolar range does not, or should not, be applied to human thought. Which is what the political spectrum boils down to, measuring where people place importance on different issues. I typically come across as very "leftist" or socialist despite being very much in favor of the Free Market because people assosicate anti-government sentiments as "communist". This can be counter argued that practical communism (China, USSR) is then VERY right wing because it featured almost a dicatorial government. I guess the whole point of the rant comes down to agreeing that the terms "left" and "right" do not fully apply to politics or economics as any sort of data can be manipulated to present any side. well, to a degree at least. "Optimisim is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable" Voltaire "The point of sacrifice is giving up something you didn't want in the first place"

Feb 23, 2004, 08:32 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by but based on the ideal of giving the nation freedom from a vile dictator. We may wind up seeing a freer government in Iraq than our own country!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The record of US nation building is rather poor. Recall that the US set up the Taliban, Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet, Osama, etc.. Furthermore, there exists no authority by which the US government can invade foreign nations, kills thousands of innocent people, and seize control in order to dictate the form of government is acceptable to the powers that be in the US. \ The republicans are just as frightening as the demoncrats because both are ideologues who are moved by fervor, blind faith, and the desire to force others to abide by their desires. Annie, Well said! A statist by any other name would still smell of fertilizer.. :)

Feb 23, 2004, 12:57 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Anniee Mr. Queen Posts: 231	The problem with it (the scale), Squirt, is that it makes assumptions that shouldn't be made. It ASSUMES people must necessarily be controlled by government in either their finances or their morality (I'm not referring to encroachment upon other persons or their property, or breach of contract as clearly these are immoral and should remain illegal.) It's useful for gauging whether someone is left or right in their desire for governmental control, but did you happen to notice there's NOWHERE on there for those who don't wish it? Libertarians for example, fit nowhere on that scale. Richard Maybury proposed a scale which instead is shaped pretty much like a diamond, with the open middle being the juris naturalist (natural law - free market and common law) position, which is similar to libertarian though not affiliated with the questionable party itself. I agree in that I prefer to judge these things more on their statism (amt of gov't control, interference in the market, etc.) Though I'm not sure about his diamond. I am much more afraid of leftism because a people in economic ruin, as any amount of socialistic economic programming WILL lead to, leaves a people so devastated that they don't have the ability anymore to fight the government encroachment. The right at least makes a pretense of standing for a "free market" and comes a little closer to it (not that that's saying much) and it seems to me that a prosperous people (to which a free market inevitably leads) will at least have the means and ability to fight the other forms of encroachment by the government. People who are hungry are all too eager to accept the benevolent chains of government. And I wouldn't think of the middle-of-the-road centrists the way you do...if the right wants less fiscal but more social control and the left wants the reverse, the centrist is happy to control both. It's all statism, none of it is liberty, though some is more dangerous than others. Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Mohandas Gandhi

Feb 23, 2004, 01:26 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Annie, one of the many frightening problems with the right is that if you disagree with them, then they immediately label you a heretic. They appeal to god and pseudo morality to condemn anyone who dares to think and therefore disagree. They do not suffer any deviation from the strictest of doctrines, of ideologies, or of personalities.. They will work hard to shatter the peaceful happiness of others who are causing no harm at all, merely because those others may actually be happy rather than be suffering per the religious doctrine. Look to the court cases in SF right now for fine examples of this.. When appealing to religion, the right assumes the highest ground and the least scrutiny. While the US left is indeed frightening, when it states X is the way to help the poor, there is some way to judge the truth of the claim. The right simply stipulates that "god told me so" allowing for no verification or falsification. Also, compare the number of people killed in the name of god(s) versus the number killed in the name of progressive goals.. I am not a fan of any statist, but as a matter of psychological motivation, the religious right has a much more troublesome fervor (religious fever?) than the granola left.