Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
dogma wrote:I disagree. Expressing one's hated of a particular woman does not indicate that one hates women in general; especially when her femininity is not being directly attacked. Remember, whore is often used in the same vein as lecher; eg. "I'll bet Bill Clinton is a lecher" carries about the same stigma as "I'll bet Michelle Bachman is a whore".
For someone as obsessed with definintions as you are, I find this comment questionable.
Which part? The comparison of lecher (a person who indulges in an inordinate amount of sex, male connotation) and whore (a person who is either promiscuous or immoral, female connotation), or the bit about misogyny (hatred of women)?
Lecher can be either lewdness or sexual promiscuity, and is more commonly used in the context of lewdness.
"Lecher" is not commonly used as a similar word as "whore."
Polonius wrote:Hmm, it's odd that I would make a statment and not explaint my point...
I was merely pointing out the inconsistency issue in sebster's post.
While you have provided some reasoning to support a difference between right and left, I don't think it's necessarily dispositive of the issue.
Well, if you're saying there isn't a difference between right and left wing militants, and I show a difference, than it's at least a little dispositive. We could explore the issue more, you know.
Left wing anti-war protests (which could getviolent) have pretty much dropped off since the 2008 election, despite the continued presence of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Libya).
Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that some of the reduction in anti-war violence is due to Obama's election.
Well, I'd imagine they'd also be at least somewhat satisfied with the troop draw down in Iraq, which was always the more contentious of the wars. I think you're correct in that at least some of the fire died due to the transition (it'd embarassing to the left to protest against an ostensibly left wing president on a core issue), but I wouldn't minimize the change that's occured since (if not because of) the election.
Of course, lumping anti-war protesters in with militants starts to get hazy. I'm not saying it can't be done, but pushing and shoving at a large rally isn't exactly militant. The same thing can happen at a Phish Concert, and nobody is calling them militant.
Short answer: Some people are going to be crazy regardless of politics. Some people are going to be crazy based on politics regardless of political affiliation. Most people aren't going to be crazy.
I'd agree, if only that militants and actual terrorists are probably closer to crazy than most. But, and this is key, is that militias, which are different in that whiel they are organized and committed to the idea of violence see themselves as reactive and do not seek out violence, are almost all right wing. They're not really terrorists, but they're also, well, militant.
that's the key to this: if you define militant to mean "person that uses violence to advance a cause," you might have a point, but even then the stats don't back it up. If instead you look at groups that share both a structure and comfort with violence as militant, than the picture widens dramatically.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/04/19 14:46:46
dogma wrote:I disagree. Expressing one's hated of a particular woman does not indicate that one hates women in general; especially when her femininity is not being directly attacked. Remember, whore is often used in the same vein as lecher; eg. "I'll bet Bill Clinton is a lecher" carries about the same stigma as "I'll bet Michelle Bachman is a whore".
For someone as obsessed with definintions as you are, I find this comment questionable.
Which part? The comparison of lecher (a person who indulges in an inordinate amount of sex, male connotation) and whore (a person who is either promiscuous or immoral, female connotation), or the bit about misogyny (hatred of women)?
Lecher can be either lewdness or sexual promiscuity, and is more commonly used in the context of lewdness.
"Lecher" is not commonly used as a similar word as "whore."
I know, right! It's like, totally unlikely that my post could have been a humorous response to another humorous post and instead was a vicious and vile attack on the sovereignty of womanhood. That's why I chose that picture of her with a pearl necklace!! It is to clearly demonstrate the inferiority of woman and their rank as objectifiable second class citizens, suited only to carrying my seed and cooking my dinner, that's precisely what I tell Mrs S every damned day as I beat her vigorously with wet celery.
Did my sarcasm provide a pleasant and complimentary aperitif to your multiple course meal of passive aggressive attempted moderator manipulation?
biccat wrote:
Lecher can be either lewdness or sexual promiscuity, and is more commonly used in the context of lewdness.
Yes, and "whore" if often used as a synonym for venal, and can therefore have nothing at all to do with sexuality.
biccat wrote:
"Lecher" is not commonly used as a similar word as "whore."
You're free to your opinion, though I think you're absolutely incorrect. Moreover, my argument was from "often" not from any sort of comparative degree of common usage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/19 14:43:59
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
biccat wrote:Did I shout down, belittle, or attack someone? No, the poster I was responding to was moving the goalposts.
Hmmmm.. this reminds me of this poster, name rhymes with "top-hat", seems to be ever so slightly right wing, changes the rules of the argument whenever he starts to realise that he's losing...
So, you'll agree that Bookwrack's (apologies for misspelling his name in my other post) comment was incorrect? Because now you're the one moving the goalposts. His claim was that I was "shouting down and insulting other posters." Now, the new claim is that I'm "moving the goalposts."
If you're going to respond to my post, then respond to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
Goliath wrote:You're putting him on the ignore list for the exact same things that I've seen you do in 3 different threads that I've seen today, you seem to ignore refudiations of your points, and then criticise the posters who made those points for not contributing meaningfully to the discussion.
I assume you mean "repudiations," since I assume you're not being ironic. I ignored sebster's "refudiations" because he thinks that personal attacks are a valid debate technique. I think that he's wrong, and honestly, I don't want to read more of his insulting drivel.
Goliath wrote:You criticise Mean Green Stompa for jokingly saying that a republican politician would be promiscuous when extremely drunk, and then in your next comment, call a democrat frigid, how is that any less insulting?
The moderators have clearly indicated by failing to address the issue that calling a Republican politician a whore is acceptable on this forum. No one else seemed even moderately phased by the comment, so I guess it's open season on female politicians. I'm simply rising to the level of discourse that is provided.
You have simply chosen to interpret an obviously exaggerated joke as a serious political attack.
Now you propose to use that as an excuse to change your own tone.
Polonius wrote:Well, if you're saying there isn't a difference between right and left wing militants, and I show a difference, than it's at least a little dispositive. We could explore the issue more, you know.
Of course there's a difference. But to suggest that the post in question wasn't inconsistent is a bit silly.
Polonius wrote:Well, I'd imagine they'd also be at least somewhat satisfied with the troop draw down in Iraq, which was always the more contentious of the wars. I think you're correct in that at least some of the fire died due to the transition (it'd embarassing to the left to protest against an ostensibly left wing president on a core issue), but I wouldn't minimize the change that's occured since (if not because of) the election.
Well, it's also a little embarassing to protest against the guy you voted for.
Polonius wrote:that's the key to this: if you define militant to mean "person that uses violence to advance a cause," you might have a point, but even then the stats don't back it up. If instead you look at groups that share both a structure and comfort with violence as militant, than the picture widens dramatically.
Militant would be those who see the use of violence as a legitimate means to an end.
Polonius wrote:Well, if you're saying there isn't a difference between right and left wing militants, and I show a difference, than it's at least a little dispositive. We could explore the issue more, you know.
Of course there's a difference. But to suggest that the post in question wasn't inconsistent is a bit silly.
It looks inconsistent. Lumping members of one group together, and then protesting the lumping of members of a second group together, is only inconsistent if the groups lumping being done is equally proper or improper in both cases. If the first lumping is more proper than the second, than it's not inconsistent at all. It becomes a question of fact, and I think that so far there has been some pretty decent theories that:
1) Left wing militnats are less common that right wingers
2) The far left wing is more dis-enchanted with the democrats than the far right is with republicans
Well, it's also a little embarassing to protest against the guy you voted for.
It is. I think it's well documented that people are always willing to overlook a behavior in a friend or ally that they would find fault with in a friend.
Militant would be those who see the use of violence as a legitimate means to an end.
I'm not wild about that definition, as it's so vague as to include nearly everybody. Surely violence is a legitimate means to some ends.
I'd suggest something closer to "a person that sees violence as a legitimate means to advance a political end."
Automatically Appended Next Post: I will say that there is a point to be made that women are disproportionatley attacked for their sexuality. Rarely are men mocked for possibly being promiscouis. So, while clearly a joke, it does hint at the innate sexism in much of our culture.
That said, in the current instance while I agree with the principle that it was in poor taste, I'm not sure that the concern raised is legitimate, and not simply an exercise in tangential conflict.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/19 15:20:14
Polonius wrote:Well, if you're saying there isn't a difference between right and left wing militants, and I show a difference, than it's at least a little dispositive. We could explore the issue more, you know.
Of course there's a difference. But to suggest that the post in question wasn't inconsistent is a bit silly.
It looks inconsistent. Lumping members of one group together, and then protesting the lumping of members of a second group together, is only inconsistent if the groups lumping being done is equally proper or improper in both cases.
When there's no attempt to distinguish between the two, it's inconsistent.
Round fruit like oranges are good for throwing at people.
Round fruit like coconuts are not good for throwing at people.
Unless I propose some disctinction between oranges and coconuts, there's no way to judge how these statements are not inconsistent as they pertain to round fruits.
Polonius wrote:1) Left wing militnats are less common that right wingers
I don't think this is necessarily true. Left-wing militias are less common than right-wing militias, since the idea of a militia is almost inherently anti-leftist. But there isn't really a whole lot of right-wing violence, or protests that turn violent, in the U.S.
Polonius wrote:2) The far left wing is more dis-enchanted with the democrats than the far right is with republicans
I think this is largely a view based on your perception. The tea party is clear evidence that conservatives are not happy with Republicans. Ditto with the Rand/Ron Paul fanatics. There really isn't anyone comparable on the left (maybe Kucinich).
Polonius wrote:I'd suggest something closer to "a person that sees violence as a legitimate means to advance a political end."
Fair enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Hmmm, lets consider mainstream comedy movies and perhaps glean a message we can all relate to in your case.
Wow, that's really quite terrible. And I am not joking.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/19 15:26:49
biccat wrote:Did I shout down, belittle, or attack someone? No, the poster I was responding to was moving the goalposts.
Hmmmm.. this reminds me of this poster, name rhymes with "top-hat", seems to be ever so slightly right wing, changes the rules of the argument whenever he starts to realise that he's losing...
So, you'll agree that Bookwrack's (apologies for misspelling his name in my other post) comment was incorrect? Because now you're the one moving the goalposts. His claim was that I was "shouting down and insulting other posters." Now, the new claim is that I'm "moving the goalposts."
If you're going to respond to my post, then respond to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
I wasn't responding to that exact example, I was commenting on your insistence that he was "moving the goalposts" which you seem to have done previously in the "90% of planned parenthood" thread, where you repeatedly countered peoples arguments by changing which argument you were having.
biccat wrote:
Goliath wrote:You're putting him on the ignore list for the exact same things that I've seen you do in 3 different threads that I've seen today, you seem to ignore refudiations of your points, and then criticise the posters who made those points for not contributing meaningfully to the discussion.
I assume you mean "repudiations," since I assume you're not being ironic. I ignored sebster's "refudiations" because he thinks that personal attacks are a valid debate technique. I think that he's wrong, and honestly, I don't want to read more of his insulting drivel.
I felt like using one of Ms. Palin's choice inventions, for the giggles.
Your "drivel" is hardly less insulting to him, with the constant assertations that he is inconsistent, which he may be, because (and heres the kicker) You're both being a teensy bit inconsistent with your arguments.
biccat wrote:
Goliath wrote:You criticise Mean Green Stompa for jokingly saying that a republican politician would be promiscuous when extremely drunk, and then in your next comment, call a democrat frigid, how is that any less insulting?
The moderators have clearly indicated by failing to address the issue that calling a Republican politician a whore is acceptable on this forum. No one else seemed even moderately phased by the comment, so I guess it's open season on female politicians. I'm simply rising to the level of discourse that is provided.
Hypothetical conversation:
Person 1: blah blah blah ... You're cousin is stupid... blah blah blah
Person 2: Don't use terms like that! It comes across as stupidist!!
Biccat's desire to have every conversation revolve around him aside, trump isn't going to make himself look reasonable by having a hardline stance on a position that has already been proved wrong...
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
biccat wrote:
Unless I propose some disctinction between oranges and coconuts, there's no way to judge how these statements are not inconsistent as they pertain to round fruits.
Maybe it was an exercise left to the reader. If the statement can be backed up, and shown not inconsistent, than maybe it was just hastily typed.
I don't think this is necessarily true. Left-wing militias are less common than right-wing militias, since the idea of a militia is almost inherently anti-leftist. But there isn't really a whole lot of right-wing violence, or protests that turn violent, in the U.S.
I guess it depends on where you draw the lines. The data I've found is older, but i terms of incidents you're probably right. The environmental terrorists stay pretty active with arsons and bombings, while more right wing activities tend to be less frequent (though do seem to be fatal more often).
Polonius wrote:2) The far left wing is more dis-enchanted with the democrats than the far right is with republicans
I think this is largely a view based on your perception. The tea party is clear evidence that conservatives are not happy with Republicans. Ditto with the Rand/Ron Paul fanatics. There really isn't anyone comparable on the left (maybe Kucinich).
Really? Didn't tea party members vote republicans into office? And didn't Gore lose an election because left wingers voted green? There's an argument to be made the largest third party in the US is the green party, which is very left wing. When you're still voting for somebody with (R) after your name, it's hard to call them throroughly disenchanted.
Polonius wrote:Really? Didn't tea party members vote republicans into office?
Yes, but the latest chatter seems to be disappointment with the Republican leaders.
Polonius wrote:And didn't Gore lose an election because left wingers voted green?
I'm not sure about that. I am not aware of any states that Bush won by a close enough margin that the Green vote made a difference.
Polonius wrote:There's an argument to be made the largest third party in the US is the green party, which is very left wing.
There's some debate as to whether the largest 3rd party is Libertarians (more right than left) or Greens (more left than right). I wouldn't call it one way or the other.
Polonius wrote:When you're still voting for somebody with (R) after your name, it's hard to call them throroughly disenchanted.
I'm not sure that they're "thoroughly disenchanted," or that I called them disenchanted. But there is plenty of evidence that conservatives are not happy with Republicans.
Well, the GOP constantly fails to deliver on it's promises. The religious right waited for 8 Bush years for something to happen, and it never did. The Tea Party seemed to think they were going to take over the federal government with 1/3 of the majority in one House of Congress. Latest chatter is one thing, but when the tea party not only wins races, but increases overall turnout and turnout for the party, that's still helping the GOP.
If 1% of the green party vote had gone to Gore, the entire presidential election changes. And the green party vote is greater than all other 3rd party votes combined.
By one count, the Constitution party is the larget 3rd party by registration, although that is nearly all in California, where they are allied with the American Independent party, which is currently in some form of schism:
Greens do outnumber Libretarians, but it's actually pretty close, both in registraiton and local election success.
I'd argue that given the influence greens have had in tight elections, it shows that they are, in fact, thoroughly disenchanted with the democrats in much the same way libretarians are with republicans, but far from the way the Tea Pary is from the GOP.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/04/19 17:57:42
Polonius wrote:Well, the GOP constantly fails to deliver on it's promises. The religious right waited for 8 Bush years for something to happen, and it never did.
Most hard-line political people are disappointed in their leaders, it's not an exclusive left or right problem. Bush's failure to perform for the Republicans led to the election of Obama in '08, and the tea party helped turnout in '10.
Polonius wrote:As for the influence of the green party, are you really forgetting florida?
If 1% of the green party vote had gone to Gore, the entire presidential election changes. And the green party vote is greater than all other 3rd party votes combined.
Good point. Although I don't expect that those numbers would have been the same even if 1% of the green party vote had gone to Gore. There were a lot of issues in Florida, mainly regarding when to stop counting. Bush wanted to stop when he was ahead, Gore wanted to wait until he had a lead to stop counting.
Anyway, I think we're arguing minor points here, so I'm not sure what's left to cover.
Well, the green party numbers show that there is a larger chunk of the left wing that is non-democrat than there is right wing that is non-republican. The numbers are (slightly) larger, and greens are nearly uniformly left wing. Libretarians are more right wing, but have major problems with the social platforms of the GOP. To an extent the Libs are becoming another part of the right wing, but too many of their views are off the standard spectrum to really apply.
Polonius wrote:Well, the green party numbers show that there is a larger chunk of the left wing that is non-democrat than there is right wing that is non-republican.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Even if the Green party is larger than the Libertarian, you're still discounting the "American Constitution Party" which is very conservative.
Plus, there are a lot of conservatives (and liberals) who are registered independents.
So I don't think that your comment is verifiable.
I suppose you could compare election results in a given year vs. party registrations, but it still wouldn't account for non-voters, which might be higher for one side (Democrats in '08) or the other (Republicans in '10) based on the political climate.
I would tend to concur with Biccat that it's tough to verify. Especially given that a lot of us on both sides of the spectrum who are disenchanted with the dominant parties register or identify as Independent.
That being said, the Green Party in 2000 definitely had a very dramatic impact to the detriment of the Dems, as opposed to the Tea Party in 2008, which very much boosted the Reps, even if it was particular flavors of Rep. IMO what numbers we do have do seem to support there being greater factionalization and functional opposition to the dominant party on the Left side. The results of those two elections are pretty illustrative.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/19 18:55:29
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
From a British perspective, there is very little clear water between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, in most areas of policy.
The Democrats are far more business friendly than the Greens. The Tea Partiers don't seem to have any particular line on business. They seem to be mainly anti-government, or for small government, whatever that means.
When it comes to reducing the national debt, the Democrats surprisingly have a much better record than the Republicans, for what it is worth.
Kilkrazy wrote:When it comes to reducing the national debt, the Democrats surprisingly have a much better record than the Republicans, for what it is worth.
Well yeah... republicans as a party don't really care about the debt, they just use it as a point of argument.
For the most part (there are exceptions of course), you can't really be a successful politician in the US without being business-friendly, oftentimes very much so.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Kilkrazy wrote:When it comes to reducing the national debt, the Democrats surprisingly have a much better record than the Republicans, for what it is worth.
Well yeah... republicans as a party don't really care about the debt, they just use it as a point of argument.
For the most part (there are exceptions of course), you can't really be a successful politician in the US without being business-friendly, oftentimes very much so.
That's the problem though. I don't mind business friendly. Stupid is another matter, the nations credit was degraded yesterday because of the national debt , causing the stock market to take a hit.
"While reaffirming its top-tier rating for the U.S. economy, S&P lowered its outlook for America's long-term credit rating to "negative" from "stable" based on the uncertain political debate around the nation's fiscal problems. It said resolution of major issues was unlikely ahead of the 2012 elections.
The report by one of the major agencies that evaluates debt ratings sent stocks tumbling, with the Dow Jones industrial average sinking 140 points on the day."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/19 21:09:25
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
I'm done responding to your inconsistent posts. Welcome to the ignore list.
Which would be a totally inciteful response, if one presumed groups like ETA must had the same relation to the mainstream of politics that groups like the militias have. This isn't the case, militias been noted in many reports as dutifully turning up on election day to vote to protect their gun rights, no such situation has been found among fringe environmental whackos.
Maybe in future, instead of spotting a difference in two things you don't really understand, instead of declaring it hypocrisy on the part of the other person, you might instead inquire about it, to see if maybe there was something you didn't understand, that way you might not be able to go through life always thinking your team was right, but you might learn something.
Not that this matters anymore, you've put your fingers in your ears and now you're yelling "lalalala I can't hear you!". Which is, again, part of the problem.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that some of the reduction in anti-war violence is due to Obama's election.
Incidentally, this is a totally reasonable point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Maybe it was an exercise left to the reader. If the statement can be backed up, and shown not inconsistent, than maybe it was just hastily typed.
I had assumed the difference was known. In hindsight, I should have clarified, it was my error, but a small one at worst.
Upon seeing the error, biccat should have asked for clarification, in an attempt to establish an inconsistancy. Simply declaring the inconsistancy without waiting to see if there was any greater information that would demonstrate it was no such thing was a considerably greater failing than my original error.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Really? Didn't tea party members vote republicans into office? And didn't Gore lose an election because left wingers voted green? There's an argument to be made the largest third party in the US is the green party, which is very left wing. When you're still voting for somebody with (R) after your name, it's hard to call them throroughly disenchanted.
There is considerable disenchantment among the right towards the Republican party, hence Freedomworks starting up the Tea Party in an effort to rebrand the party. But that's a disenchantment among the mainstream of the right wing, over the failure of Republicans to do anything over mainstream rght wing issues (read as small government).
Meanwhile the Republicans have had, and continue to have, great success in getting the militias and the fringe groups in to vote on single issues such as guns. The Democrats have not had anywhere near the same effect in getting single issue voters to come in and vote for them, there are few if any "environmental" voters turning up to vote D.
Whether that's a product of a superior Republican political machine or something inherent in the different voting groups, I don't know.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/04/20 02:28:52
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Guitardian wrote:Just imagine how much better the post-disaster years would have been you know, if the country was run by a profiteering rich guy with his own cult of personality?
My god, that would have been terrible.
Wait...don't the Republicans and Conservatives already label Obama a a profiteering rich guy with his own cult of personality? Just with the whole socialism and destroy America thing of course.
They call him a lot of things, most of which aren't true and none of which are flattering.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Polonius wrote:The Tea Party seemed to think they were going to take over the federal government with 1/3 of the majority in one House of Congress.
It reminds me of the Republican Revolution.
Gingrich: Contract for America! We're taking back the government for the people!
Dole: Lol, noob.
Gingrich: Ethics reforms!
GOP House members: We don't care.
Gingrich: Ethics reforms be damned!
Press: Lol, noob.
Polonius wrote:
Latest chatter is one thing, but when the tea party not only wins races, but increases overall turnout and turnout for the party, that's still helping the GOP.
Yep.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
When it comes to reducing the national debt, the Democrats surprisingly have a much better record than the Republicans, for what it is worth.
Ryan: Obama's plan assumes 5% growth, that's unrealistic!
Press: Your plan assumes 6% growth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/20 15:37:00
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Melissia wrote:Not so much that, as much as we are already a very right-wing leaning nation to begin with, so they appear more mainstream.
The claim that the US is 'right leaning' really just boils down to 'the US is different than Europe', with an implication of 'they're kind of a bunch of nazis' thrown in since right-wing in Europe is associated with Neo-Nazi parties. Is favoring freedom of speech right-wing? Freedom of religion? How about extremely loose immigration law? Strong legal protections against discrimination for race, age, religion? Western European political parties ares far-right on all of those topics by US standards - restrictions on political speech and symbols are noncontroversial in Europe, as are restrictions on building buildings for non-christian religions, deporting illegal aliens and refusing to grant citizen ship to people who were born in the country is considered noncontroversial and completely normal, and asking for picture, age, marital status, number of children, and so on is completely routine in hiring decisions.
The only way this really works is to define mainstream as 'kind of sort of like what a lot of europeans think' and 'right wing' as 'something different than that'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:There's some debate as to whether the largest 3rd party is Libertarians (more right than left) or Greens (more left than right). I wouldn't call it one way or the other.
Bringing up the Libertarians really highlights the uselessness of 'left wing' and 'right wing' for anything beyond a convoluted way to say 'republican' or 'democrat' (for the US, for other countries pick two parties). The Libertarian party favors completely legal abortion, which is hardly a right-wing position. And did gay marriage become right wing while I wan't looking? Reducing the military to a level where it's suitable only for national defense, not occupying 2 countries while fighting in a 3rd and maintaining bases all over the place, which is not exactly right-wing. Drug legalization is generally considered left-wing, though I don't think even allegedly left-leaning european countries favor outright legalization of heroin or crystal meth. I'm not sure where jury nullification fits on the left vs right spectrum, but since most of Europe doesn't even have jury trials, it's hard to call it left wing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/04/21 02:16:39
BearersOfSalvation wrote:The claim that the US is 'right leaning' really just boils down to 'the US is different than Europe'
Only if someone were to presume Europe to be some kind of mono-culture with a single government, which would be wrong. Or if they were to ignore all the other developed, democratic countries that also stay well to the left of the US politically.
And for the record, while it captures all kind of other elements, for the most part right/left wing is determined on economic grounds, because ultimately that's where most people's votes are decided.
Bringing up the Libertarians really highlights the uselessness of 'left wing' and 'right wing' for anything beyond a convoluted way to say 'republican' or 'democrat' (for the US, for other countries pick two parties). The Libertarian party favors completely legal abortion, which is hardly a right-wing position. And did gay marriage become right wing while I wan't looking? Reducing the military to a level where it's suitable only for national defense, not occupying 2 countries while fighting in a 3rd and maintaining bases all over the place, which is not exactly right-wing. Drug legalization is generally considered left-wing, though I don't think even allegedly left-leaning european countries favor outright legalization of heroin or crystal meth. I'm not sure where jury nullification fits on the left vs right spectrum, but since most of Europe doesn't even have jury trials, it's hard to call it left wing.
Except that 'left' and 'right' are used as general descriptors, not absolute definitions. And in this case placing libertarians on the right works pretty well, as they are far more likely to vote Republican. Despite differences over drug policy and foreign wars, the thing that primarily drives votes is economics, and the libertarians and Republicans line up on that (well, in rhetoric they do, in practice the Republicans having really done all that much about reducing spending).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/21 02:37:04
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
