Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican

This is topic Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/626.html

Posted by Right on :

You guys are stupid.

Pardon me for saying this, but I've been reading over some of the past flames, especially the political ones.

Abe Lincoln, while a Republican, was also a flaming liberal (big gov't over state gov't, remember -- Civil War wasn't just over slavery)

George Wallace (whatever his name is, you know, "segregation now, segregation tommorow, etc.) while a Democrat, was obviously a strict conservative.

Omega is correct in saying that more Republicans helped pass the 1964 Civil Rights act, but he is only telling half the truth as the Republican Party had, at the time, a sizeable liberal wing, and the Democrats had a sizeable conservative wing (the Southern Democrats). He also ignores that liberal Democrats voted for the bill, prefering to write his own version of history, but I'm sure Omega's black & white look at the world isn't a surprise to anyone here.

The point is ... liberal does not neccessarily mean democrat, and conservative doesn't mean republican, at least, not at all points in this nation's history, although the two parties are aligned on the liberal/conservative line more closely now than they have been in the past.

Please: discuss, flame, etcetra.

------------------

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

No need to flame, this has been used often here by several members already. Thank you for pointing out the known though.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Which is why I try not to make "democrat" synonomous with "liberal" and "Republican" with "conservative." Republican and democrat are only party affiliations, whereas liberal and conservative are ideological mindsets.

------------------
"President Bush. It's fun saying that. Go ahead, you try." - M. Lucinsky, Spectrum Editor

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Although, it does seem that at this time they are such.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Then again, with the way certain conservative demagogs have literally re-written the history of the Republican party, you'd never know that the Republicans did have any liberal members in it's ranks.

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I think Right is saying that today the parties are closely aligned on the liberal/conservative lines, but that they used to be more alike, in that they each had conservative, moderate, and liberal groups in them.

Liberal Republicans? Who'd'a thought?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Would Right's opening statement be considered a flame on people, since it is directed at 'You guys..'???

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited February 07, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I think Right is not.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

How is Right wrong?

The bit about all of us being stupid? Republican liberals? Democrat conservatives? Or are you suggesting that Right is not a member of the right?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 07, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Not, Right, but right.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

I'm not inclined to take his initial statement as an insult.

------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

"You guys are stupid."

Yes. And since we're just tossing these out there, I'd like to note that you would be hard pressed to find your way down a slide with a large box marked "Slide Instructions" sitting at the bottom.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Ouch. That was cold. *LOL*

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by Right on :

As it should be bloody well clear to anyone who actually read what I posted, the "you guys are stupid" comment is directed only at those who believe Conservative = Republican and Democrat = Liberal, because they don't. Namely, Omega and JeffK, who seem to associate the two. SNAP OUT OF IT! To anyone else who was offended, I apologize -- it wasn't directed at you.

I beg your pardon?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Pardon? Since when do I think that the GOP is synonymous with wanting a smaller government, or that the DNP is synonymous with a bigger one? Just because that's what, with the exception of Richard Nixon, both have pretty well consistantly executed in office since the 30s...

I never said, indicated, nor believed that the terms were synonymous. I am well aware of the differences, and use whichever fits the situation.

And BTW: how could Mr. "Segregation FOREVER!" be "obviously" a conservative?

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Take the he as gender inspecific, until a person is known.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

How is he a liberal, Omega?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 08, 2001).]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Besides we, it seems, enjoy calling each other self righteous Conservitives/Republicans, and dim witted ignorant un-informed Liberal/Democrats, and indicisive half informed Independant. Now, if you do something silly, like start a topic on the length of the Defiant, then you will see political arch-enemies team up on you and batter your position mercilessly.

Or....

This could be a conspiracy aimed strictly at you....

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

How is he a liberal, Omega?

I assume you're refering to Wallace. I never said he was. Right just said that he was obviously a conservative, and I asked for an explaination of his claim.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Slide etc. = joke, you know.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Personally, I'd like to applaud Right for posting this. It sorta puts a light on all the negative typecasting that is associated with Liberals and Democrats. And as Ritten said, associated the Conservative and Republicans as "self-righteous". Just thinking of that makes me retch.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I demand royalties. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you = stupid.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, since liberals backed the Civil Rights Act, it's a fairly good bet Conservatives opposed it. Mind you, I'm not talking about today's Conservatives, but those in the fifties and sixties. Obviously, today's Conservatives are a bit more open minded than those, just as today's liberals are more liberal than the liberals of that time period. But Wallace wasn't a liberal (at that time, anyway, apparently he later became a staunch opponent of segregation, but I don't know much about that), might've been a moderate (it's been suggested he took such a hard line simply to be re-elected and not because he personally supported segregation), but probably a Conservative.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

What is your basis for the statement that "liberals backed the Civil Rights Act"? Al Gore, Sr., certainly was a liberal (and was also in the back pocket of a Soviet operative ironically named Armand Hammer, BTW), and he opposed it vehemently.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yeah, you're right, JFK and LBJ didn't support the thing at all. I keep forgetting. Hello? Whose history books are you reading? Just wondering. Where does your proof for your allegations (both of them) come from? Rush Limbaugh doesn't count, BTW.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Um... excuse me? You made a completely whacked-out blanket statement that made no sense whatsoever, and I am the one reading the wrong history books. You said that because liberals, ANY liberals, supported it, conservatives had to be against it. Did you even think about this before you typed it?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Er, no, hardly. Although why do you think Conservatives supported it? Just out of curiousity. Wallace didn't support it -- he was a Conservative.

This whole nation has been based on liberal ideals. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two of the most liberal documents ever written (especially at that time). The Civil War was fought for very liberal agendas (at first, the power of the Federal gov't over the state, then the freedom of the enslaved). Just look at FDR's term to identify other liberal ideals.

I don't thinks its very far-fetched to suggest that the Civil Rights Act has more liberal support than conservative, does it?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Er, no, hardly.

So you DIDN'T think about it before you typed?

I don't thinks its very far-fetched to suggest that the Civil Rights Act has more liberal support than conservative, does it?

Yes, it is quite far-fetched, because you have no evidence to support it.

The DoI is not liberal or conservative, as it states no powers of government.

The Constitution is not liberal, unless compaired to uber-weak governments like the Articles of Confederation.

FDR, however, WAS a liberal, and practically all his ideas increased the power of the government.

But what does this have to do with the CRA? How the heck does freeing slaves and letting everyone vote increase the power of the government? It doesn't, and is thus not a liberal idea. It's like abortion and capital punishment: they have nothing to do with the level of control the government has over your life, and thus are not liberal or conservative ideas. They're issues of morality.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

While those are how many liberal/conservative ideals are defined today, that does not mean they're how they were defined in the past.

***

Liberal -

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry

b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded

Conservative -

a. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

***

The DoI and the Constitution were liberal documents at the time because they were NOT limited to the established attitude of rule by monarch. Very much, those documents, the ideas they were based on, etcetra, were EXTREMELY liberal for their time.

By definition, the Civil Rights Act was a very liberal document, and Conservatives tended to oppose it. Mind you, this is not an attack on today's Republican Party (which tends to made up of mostly conservatives).

Liberal minded people supported the CRA, Conservative minded people (opposed to change) didn't.

How the heck does freeing slaves and letting everyone vote increase the power of the government? It doesn't, and is thus not a liberal idea

Um, Omega, I don't know what your definition of liberal is. I can safely say it is incorrect. While many liberals do support a bigger gov't, that hardly means that liberal ideals can ONLY be those associated with having a bigger government. It's like saying you have to support the NRA to be a Conservative. You don't, it's just one issue of many and of a completely different ideology.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was liberal precisely because it challenged the concept of segregation, etc.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

The definitions of conservative and liberal have changed over the decades. As it now stands, a liberal is defined as someone who wants a bigger government, not someone who wants to change things. A conservative is defined as someone who wants a smaller government and more personal freedom. The definition changes because the situation changes.

Look at Bill Clinton. You won't find anyone who argues that he's not liberal, yet what did he do to REALLY change things? Not one stinkin' thing. After he left office, Social Security and Medicare were exactly the same as they were, plus eight years of decay.

Look at the President. He wants to change quite a bit of stuff (Social security, vouchers, etc.), and yet he's conservative.

Words mean whatever they're intended by the speaker to mean, and if that intent changes, so does the definition of the word. You're definitions do not fit current usage of terms. Mine do.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

personal freedom

Like not allowing homosexuals to marry? Wanting to throw out the right of privacy? Suuuuuuure, buddy. By the way, basing your definition of liberals on one person is hardly conclusive, and frankly, rather ignorant.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Unfortunately, the "Right of Privacy" is not implicit in the Constitution or other documents. It's a very tenuous, ephemeral thing that has been used both for good and evil purposes.

Likewise, rights like that of free speech have been eroded by people from both sides (or have we forgotten that it was CLINTON who failed to veto the latest Internet restriction bill, when he could have?)

From the CDA to the MPAA to the PMRC to the CCA, to various 'hate speech' acts "whaddaya mean, 'water buffalo' is a racist term??", to restrictions (some of which are reasonable, others of which are ludicrous) as to what can be said in certain company, or by certain people. (A woman comic can rip on men's frailties and insanity till the cows come home, but a male comic ranting on women? *boot*)

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

Like not allowing homosexuals to marry?

As I have said multiple times, I support this. It's a conservative idea to get the government out of religious business. Some people who are generally conservative just don't realize that.

Wanting to throw out the right of privacy?

WTF are you talking about here?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Unless you worded that wrong, Omega, I'm not surprised you support those who oppose homosexual marriages. The Christian Right (which, BTW, is neither) is very much opposed to any of the "gay lifestyle." It's also, BTW, a fight which tends to tack to liberals, and some moderates, but few conservatives.

That was the bill supported by Ashcroft, wasn't it?

I don't think the example you gave of the comics is quite fair. That's more of a public perception there, and honestly, it's not even a very realistic example. There are a lot of male (and female) comedians who don't get flack for their 'ripping on female' routines, or their 'ripping on male' routines. The flack they usually do get is from interest groups and individuals.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

A 'water buffalo' is a water tank on a trailer. Makes a half-assed shower in the woods for infantrymen, but usually thirst is priorty one.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Jeff: Yes, but who has all the 'interest groups?' Not men, and definitely not white men.

I THINK Omega was supporting gay marriage, since marriage is largely a legal institution nowadays.

Incidentally, did you know that the SSI Administration (the govt. program which my handicapped fiancee's medical bills, and gives her a pittance of a living wage at $550 a month) will cut off her money and benefits entirely if she marries me? Talk about LACK of support for the family, or at least, low-income families. At my current salary, that'd be a REAL stretch to make ends meet.

Ritten: I was referring to a white male college student who was expelled from his university because he referred to a small group of 'full-figured' female black students who were being very loud outside his window early in the morning as 'water buffaloes' when he was yelling at them to go away and be quiet. They sued.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited February 09, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Yeah, as I recall, they won, too. They claimed that he was calling them "large, stupid black animals from Africa". Never mind the fact that the kid was a Jew, and that "water buffalo" is the literal translation of a Yiddish insult. Also never mind the fact that water buffalo are from Asia.

And Rob is correct. At least someone here pays attention to my stated beliefs. But just so there's no confusion, I don't support the CONCEPT of gay marriage, just the legal right.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

But wouldn't legal allowance for Gay marriages recognize them as people? And doesn't that = bad with some books, and some other old stuff?

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

First off, its immeasurably dumb to get into a tizzy about who can better define the term "liberal" and "conservative." They're words like "tall" or "fat."

Restricting the definition of which is one and which is the other to whether they favor "bigger" or "smaller" government is crazy. For starters, everyone has a different idea of what "bigger government" means. It could mean a more interventionist policy on social security issues. It could mean a larger civil service. It could mean a government that spends lots of money. It could mean a government that is visible. Ad nauseum.

For instance, the Mulroney government in Canada assembled an enormous bureaucracy and raised taxes, and yet nobody challenged its status as right-of-center. Chretien's Liberals came to power, cut the bureaucracy and public spending in general, and nobody pointed at them and said they favoured "small government."

However, Jeff's interpreation is also somewhat suspect. Many right-of-center politicians in Canada come to mind as being generally progressive-minded with regards to social issues. Up here, fiscal policy seems to be the biggest contributing factor to a "liberal," "social democrat" or "conservative" label.

But I digress. For the only satisfactory answer, we've gotta call on our friend Mr. Spectrum.

You see, we have a somewhat arbitrary thing called a political spectrum, where we line up politicians roughly according to their political beliefs. It's incredibly innacurate, party lines will undoubtedly be blurred, etc. But it's really the only acceptable way to label people something.

We can start with our line and then wave our arms at a huge chunk of them off to the left and call them socialists. We can then point out that some of them to the extreme Left are communists (which can be broken down further into Stalinists, Leninists etc.) and those closer to the center are Social Democrats. But sprinkled in there are Greens... often not particulary eye-to-eye with the Union leaders of the world. They aren't socialists. How far to the left do you stick Allende? Castro? Aristide? Marx? Orwell? Roddenberry? I think you can see how fuzzy this all is becoming.

Pretty near the center, with perhaps a few more on the left side of the centerline than the right are the liberals. Is Chretien there? I think so. How about FDR? Yup. Trudeau? Yup. JFK? Probably. Jimmy Carter? Yeah, possibly the only American president ever to be left of the midway mark. Blair? yeah, he's in the clump somewhere, though most of his coworkers are over hanging with the Social Democrats. Clinton? Definitely on the right side of the line, but probably in there nonetheless. Joe Clark, leader of Canada's Progressive Conservative Party? Toughie. One so-called Liberal leader who isn't here is my local example, Premier-to-be Gordon Campbell of BC. His party is called the BC Liberals, but they're liberal in name only. He's far further right, exchanging anecdotes with Mike Harris.

The liberals bleed into the moderate Conservatives. McCain. Lougheed (look him up). I'd risk Nixon here, maybe even Eisenhower. If Joe Clark isn't actually a closet liberal, he's in this pack.

To their right come the hardliners, which include the neoconservatives of today some of the conservatives of the Past. Dubya. Daddy. Reagan. Thatcher. The Canadian neoconservative contingent to this category includes Conrad Black, Ralph Klein, Mike Harris, the aforementioned Gordon Campbell, and all the members of the Canadian Alliance Party who don't fall into the next category, the Fundies and Fascists. Buchanan. Limbaugh. Ashcroft. Pinochet. Mussolini. Hitler.

Of course, problems remain. Where do you put the Libertarians? Or the Anarchists? Somebody stick Putin into the lineup, or Mandela. Can you?

Bring an American into the Room, and the centerline of the spectrum immediately shifts, sliding rightwards so the moderate conservatives touch the line. Bring in a Swede, and it slides back so the Liberals are dead center, with social democrats no more off-center than the likes of McCain. Bring in a panel of political scientists from democracies all over the world and it resets itself somewhere closer to where I said it was, dividing Liberals between a slightly larger chunk to the left and a slightly smaller chunk to the right.

Omega made an the apparently indisputable claim that Clinton is a liberal. Dead wrong. The DNC today is right-of-center. It looks very liberal all of a sudden if the only point of comparison is the Republican Party, but that's like saying Drew Barrymore is fat when you stand her next to Callista Flockhart. A panel of medical experts would put Ms. Barrymore on the same side of the median line as Ms. Flockhart, with the former clearly much closer to the middle. But ask a TV viewer whose only really seen those two actresses or those with very similar body shapes if Barrymore is fat and he'll say yes.

If GW Bush were to enter Canadian Politics, he'd most likely wind up in the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance, our local neoconservative and fundie social club. Clinton, on the other hand, would probably fit in better with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada than the Liberal Party.

In Canada, the entire liberal/conservative thing is especially fun because we have political parties with said words in their titles. As a result, Canadians have our little system of talking about "small-c conservatives" and "small-l liberals." We've also got the term "Red Tories," which are what used to be the centrist wing of the PC Party (including Mr. Clark) that now make up pretty much the entirety of the organization since the CA arrived on the scene.

------------------
"People have the right to discriminate based on religion."
"There is no "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution"
-Omega, Jan 26 and 30, respectively

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

But I don't think you can use Canada's "Conservative" parties as examples of those. The Alliance, the only "Conservative" party with actual backing, is merely a Western Alienation party. Therefore, they'll be more change-oriented, in order to "get those anti-west bastards in Ottawa to realize they hate the west". (Living in 4 different provinces helps you get acquainted with regional trife.) Therefore, our "Conservatives", are not.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

UM:

But wouldn't legal allowance for Gay marriages recognize them as people? And doesn't that = bad with some books, and some other old stuff?

No books I've been reading.

Seriously, you guys get the strangest ideas about the Bible. (I assume that was what you were refering to.) Perhaps you should read it some time.

Tom:

For starters, everyone has a different idea of what "bigger government" means.

Bigger in this context is best defined as more intrusive into your personal life, be it by restricting your activities, or simply by reducing your income, and thus options, with higher taxes.

We can then point out that some of them to the extreme Left are communists

Technically, Communists would be extreme right, since the philosophy favors no government at all. It's basically a dreamers anarchy.

You define Hitler as being CONSERVATIVE? He was a frikin' DICTATOR, for cryin' out loud! That's as left as you get! Well, short of the Borg Collective, or 1984...

Where do you put the Libertarians?

WAY right.

Or the Anarchists?

Extreme right.

Another advantage of using my definitions, aside from the fact that they're the ones people use anyway, is that they simplify things so much. Every possible political philosophy can be fit into the scale somewhere.

It also helps to codify them in a very simple manner. Then you can't have people saying, "Oh, he's racist, and therefore conservative!" in contravention of any and all evidence.

Of course, I've been through this with Daryus multiple times. I am fully aware that these definitions only apply in the US, because we're the only ones that mean these things when we use the words. But we ARE talking about US politics in this thread, are we not?

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

UM: While the Alliance continues to draw most of its support from the West, I would disagree vehemently that Western alienation is its dominant political plank. Klein-style neoconservatism combined with decentralization policies, yes, but western BQ, no. Most of Bay Street (Mr. Black and co, for starters) who formerly backed Mulroney have thrown their money at Stock (the CA easily have the second largest political coffers in the country and most of it has been raised in the last year). Considering the lengths the party went to to woo voters in Ontario, to call it a party with only regional interests is insulting. (Hey, I hate them too, but don't underestimate one's enemy.)

But I digress.

Omega, I think we've found where're you're fucking up.

You equate left with maximum intrusiveness, massive dictatorship, etc. and right with absolute liberty/anarchy.

That's a ridiculous statment. Absolutely ridiculous.

What you apparently subscibe to is a spectrum all right. It's a useful method of organizing ideologies and I don't really dipute your positioning of each on it. But this spectrum that you have in your mind isn't the same one everyone else uses when they talk about "left wing" and "right wing." It's not, ahem, the political spectrum, that is, the left to right one any student with so much as a high school politics course could tell you about.

When CNN calls Ariel Sharon right-wing, does that mean he supports liberty and equality and government nonintervention for all? Is Barak therefore more dictatorial than Sharon? Gee, fuck no, I think not. Sharon's considered right wing because he supports maintaining the status quo, rejects making concessions to the poor and downtrodden and has strong religious fundamentalist backing. Those are typical right wing characteristics. You can similar threads running through Pat Buchanan's platform or Rush Limbaugh's diatribes.

Omega, pick up a fucking book and read it. The fact that you're so ignorant to even basic political science astounds me, considering how often you wax political on us all. I'm not asking you to read and accept the Origin of Species. I'm asking you to familiarize yourself with general knowledge before you shoot your mouth off and embarrass yourself.

The Nazis were right wing. Mussolini and later Hitler subscribed to a concept called "the corporate state," that is, government giving its allies in industry carte blanche to organize society into a lean, directed operation, running the state like a business in the hunt for profit (or, in Germany and Italy's case, territory, pride and wealth). Fascism is, sadly enough, an offshoot of Conservatism. This isn't liberal pansy Tom making up stuff to discredit your political interests. I mean, Ike Eisenhower is, for all intents and purposes, as far removed from Hitler ideologically as Tony Blair, regardless of which side of the spectrum they're on. But don't toss it onto the left end of the spectrum just because its got a Command Economy.

The Mujahiden are right-wing, too. If you're convinced that your little spectrum you've outlined is indeed correct, I suggest you go and tell them that they're all libertarians to their face.

Pinochet's Chile was right-wing, too. The country's economy was basically run by U. of Chicago business professors as the ultimate model in right-wing capitalism. Ah, you say, but Chile had a dictatorship. Dictatorship = Left. So why don't you come up here to my University and chat up my Poli Sci prof from Chile who was exiled from the country by Pinochet and try to convince him that it was just those damn Lefties at it again.

This is an area where you show next to zero knowledge, Omega. So do many other people, but the difference is, they don't jump up and down correcting me.

------------------
"People have the right to discriminate based on religion."
"There is no "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution"
-Omega, Jan 26 and 30, respectively

Posted by Right on :

The Tom,

I love you. Wanna get married? Seriously, you need to break out the "me beat you ignorant bastards with political speak" stick more often. Some of the forum posters in here really need it.

I completely agree, Clinton is not a liberal.

Omega, Poli-Sci 101 is a very good class. I recommend you take it. Preferably, you will continue to other Poli-Sci classes as well at some point.

Also, explain this:

I don't support the CONCEPT of gay marriage, just the legal right

Don't they go rather hand in hand? Isn't it like having a key without a keychain? You get my drift. Kindly elaborate.

[This message has been edited by Right (edited February 10, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Somebody posted something like this a loong time ago, but I think there's great truth to it, so I'm posting it again in my own words. Forgive any copyright infringements.

The political spectrum is a RING with an open end, like a torque or a claddagh brooch.

Both the extreme right and left wings require dictatorships and massive government control to hold them together, as evidenced by not only Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo and Pinochet, but Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and Castro.

It is the CENTER where Maximum Freedom is located, with the Libertarians, and those who think government existence in life, of ANY kind, Rightist OR Leftist, should be minimized.

If you want to legislate "morality", you're rightist.
If you want to legislate "equity" you're leftist.
The farther you want to go, the farther left or right you are, because each type destroyes freedom in favor of government control.

But there's very little difference between a dictatorship of fascists and one of communists.

Anarchists? They're not in the ring, because they don't believe in government at all. Also, they're idiots.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Very well said!

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

I'd agree.

Tom, please marry Right, please?

Right: So Omega does not support the concept of Gay Marriage. Well neither do I. Personally, I believe homosexuality is immoral, and at times, disgusting.

Doesn't immediately mean that I'm gonna grab a bullhorn and lead a one man futile demonstration against my government.

Two Gay Marriages occurred here in Ontario. And these newlyweds want to challenge the government into recognizing their rights as a married couple, gay or straight. If they win, good for them, I will not object to anything.

Point here is that while Omega does not support Gay Marriage, he will not attempt to hammer his influence onto others who support it. And neither will I. You can say that we are somewhat ignorant to this concept.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited February 10, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I don't find homosexuality immoral, entirely because the Bible is not my book (and that book is the ONLY basis for supposing that homosexuals are any more immoral than anybody else), but I admit to being nauseated by it on occasion. Gay porn. YECCH!

Of course, I've been nauseated by a lot of things even worse. The revoltingly high priority some people place on varsity, collegiate, and professional athletics, for example.

For me, homosexuality falls under the 'as long as you aren't hurting anybody (note to Fundies: the vast majority of pedophiles tend to be straight), and as long as you aren't doing it on my front lawn, I don't care' category.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Incidentally, my comments about our SSI problem that I mentioned above were to show one of the dangers of relying on government for support.
They don't want to give it, despite their claims to the contrary. It's much easier to keep you dependent.

And to show that the government might not be wise to step into the 'caring for addicts' cause until they care adequately for the people they're ALREADY supposed to be caring for, the truly disabled.

My gf could probably be paying her own way in a couple of years, maybe significantly less, with the proper assistance. She needs things I can't give her, though: A place other than her childhood home (with all its oppresion and nightmares) to live in, a computer with special accessibility programs (like voice recognition), assistance to finish school (she was a graduate student working towards a Masters in Literature, before her pain and surgeries sidelined her), and a medical system that provides adequate pain relief (Doctors here seem to believe that chronic pain is somehow less important and less deserving of treatment than acute pain. But her chronic pain IS acute!)

She's been denied all these things. And now they're telling her she'll lose what little they WERE willing to give her, if she marries.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I made this yesterday at school, before anyone had posted anything on the "political ring", which makes more sense than this. This was induced by massive amounts of This wierd orange-type soda, and many bags of salted peanuts, so I am not responsible for any permanent brain damage it causes. It's not that well fleshed out, but it made sense at the time, to me, and well, here.

[Warning. It's a .bmp, and 245k]
I have no software on this old computer at school to convert it to jpeg. I = suck.

Here.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

You could load it into IE, and save it as a JPEG. I think.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

I'm keeping my mouth shut about this particular thread. Ya'll know how I feel about it.

*silently doesn't watch*

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Well, I got home and converted my picture into .gif it's now 10k.

I = KING OF GETTING THE POWERUP AND WINNING THE GAME!

*snort*

Powerup.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

AUTOBOTS!

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 11, 2001).]

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

The Death Star vs Unicron vs Galactus vs Super Sayian 4 Goku!

Sorry, that should be "Super Saiya-jin Vi Gokou! PoWer Levelz 469358039!"

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

DUBZ SUCKZ!!!!! YOU ARE ON THE WAY TO DESTRUCTION!

I 0WN5 J00!

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited February 14, 2001).]