I'm going to try to separate this issue from the Aghan thread which I consider has become boring and repetitive.

Ulysses G claims there are no right wingers here, I doubt there are any true leftists here, a few social liberals perhaps but no one I would consider an economic Socialist. I place myself in the failed Socialist class, definitely the black sheep of the family, hard line economic Socialists all and socially to the right.

I made the comment to UG, when replying to a PM, that the Australian Labour Party, currently in government, is openly divided into three major factions; left, right and centre something. All three would probably be considered to the left of Trotsky by the average American observer.

So discuss...

I find it interesting that Endure says that he sees right wing views, but no examples of "extreme" left-wing ones. I am just the opposite and I do not consider myself to be anything other than maybe a moderate with some conservative leanings.

I suppose that if you think that not hating Bush and giving him some credit for trying to do the best job that he could and supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is right wing, then you could pin that label on some of us, but if you look up the definition for right-wing, there is no picture of George Bush in the dictionary.

As far as the left goes, between hatred for America and Israel and the rhetoric that is used here and all the conspiracy theories that are presented as facts or at least well worth considering, I just don't see how they could called anything other than pretty serious left-wing views.

The single-line left-right doesn't work for me. I'm pro-life, before and after birth. So I am opposed to capital punishment, alongside Anabaptists who are too conservative to vote. I consider Jesus to be a lower-case communist who taught us to love our enemies or else we are not children of God. I choose faith first, and choose politics low on the priorities. Thus USA should never be invaders. Universal basic health care seems obvious, and predatory capitalism seems demonic. Gore Vidal said both national parties were right of center.

personal opinion............

The forcing of labels again into left wing or right wing is many times a complete failure of the listener to comprehend what the speaker is saying.

So the listener has to categorize based on/limited by what *they* the listener are trying to comprehend.

When that proves too difficult or too outside the box for them, they then place the speaker/opinion in the opposite box of the one they perceive themselves as occupying.

It is too outside the box for them. Something that does not make sense to them is deemed nonsense. Which of course in turn must be in the opposite wing/box than the one they themselves occupy. Because they could not be wrong could they?

Classic examples..... If one does not agree with X-President Bush's foreign policy they are deemed Bush haters or left box.

If one does agree well they get placed in the right box.

Yet that does not really leave any room for a person who is thinking outside the common boxes.

If Bush represented right & Obama represented left....Where does that leave a person who disagrees with both?

Many strongly disagree with both presidents foreign policies....not that they differ in many ways.

If someone disagrees with America & Israels aggressive foreign policies they are again called haters of both & considered far left. How can that be? In this day & age can no human disagree with what they perceive to be wrong? It is also odd that those same folks who disagree with aggressive foreign policy should be the ones to be called haters. Yet the ones who support aggressive behavior label those against it as haters?

Same with any that have questions about *events* that of course will place them in the far left.....

Pretty odd when you consider many times the questions are from victims families of the events in question. Who would like a better explanation than the one being given.

There are also posters who so are so far in outer space that it is impossible to answer their posts seriously. It is frowned on to point that out, so you call them a "liberal' as that pretty much explains everything.

There are also posters who so are so far in outer space that it is impossible to answer their posts seriously. It is frowned on to point that out, so you call them a "liberal' as that pretty much explains everything.

Would that be the outer space to the right of Earth, or to the left?

personal opinion............

The forcing of labels again into left wing or right wing is many times a complete failure of the listener to comprehend what the speaker is saying.

So the listener has to categorize based on/limited by what *they* the listener are trying to comprehend.

When that proves too difficult or too outside the box for them, they then place the speaker/opinion in the opposite box of the one they perceive themselves as occupying.

It is too outside the box for them. Something that does not make sense to them is deemed nonsense. Which of course in turn must be in the opposite wing/box than the one they themselves occupy. Because they could not be wrong could they?

Classic examples..... If one does not agree with X-President Bush's foreign policy they are deemed Bush haters or left box.

If one does agree well they get placed in the right box.

Yet that does not really leave any room for a person who is thinking outside the common boxes.

If Bush represented right & Obama represented left....Where does that leave a person who disagrees with both?

Many strongly disagree with both presidents foreign policies....not that they differ in many ways.

If someone disagrees with America & Israels aggressive foreign policies they are again called haters of both & considered far left. How can that be? In this day & age can no human disagree with what they perceive to be wrong? It is also odd that those same folks who disagree with aggressive foreign policy should be the ones to be called haters. Yet the ones who support aggressive behavior label those against it as haters?

Same with any that have questions about *events* that of course will place them in the far left.....

Pretty odd when you consider many times the questions are from victims families of the events in question. Who would like a better explanation than the one being given.

I pretty much agree with all of that. I am apparently extreme left because I see Bush as an idiot (which is not hatred....it is amusement).

I think this simple breakdown, (which I've paraphrased from here http://www.tellmehowto.net/howto/tell_left..._right_wing_888 ) addresses the OP:

Right focuses on the individual, left on the community. Extreme right eg fascism, extreme left eg communism

are generally detrimental to community and individuals.

Originated in the National Assembly in France (1789-91), where the nobles sat to the president’s right and the commons to the left

The talk of politics is full of talk of the left and the right, but what exactly is the difference between the two?

Well, the right wing tends to be associated more with 'conservative' values (with a small 'c')... the status quo and tradition. They tend to be me tougher on law and order than the left, and emphasise the importance of free trade and low taxation policies, often cutting tax when in power. A welfare state may be seen as important, but not the extent as for a more left wing society.

The right essentially plays up the role of the individual, and in an extreme right wing view, like atomism, there may be no society, but only a collection of individuals. Extreme right wing views are those such as fascism. Most governments these days move away from the right to the centre.

The left wing, on the other hand, is associated much more with what may be termed more liberal values, the role of society, and the community as a whole. Law and order policies tend to be more relaxed, taxation is increased by large amounts as they look to create a safety net and look after the poorer members of society through a more robust healthcare system etc.

The autonomy and role of the individual is undermined much more in such a system, and the state plays a larger role in people's lives. Many governments of today occupy a centre-left position. These governments are more likely to experience poor law and order records, and declining success of businesses, due to the taxation policies and more relaxed approach to law and order.

An extreme left wing view is something like communism, which looks exclusively at the community as a whole, to the detriment of the individuals that constitute that community. Both extremes lead to very unpleasant systems under which to live.

I would strongly disagree with the association of fascism with Extreme Right Wing politics.

It is hard to pin down fascism as being anywhere in the political spectrum. I would say it is more a style of political expression than belonging to one side or the other. You can have Left or Right Wing or even Centre Fascists (I would say the current British Government is fascist in its bullying tactics and attacks on civil liberties)

One thing seems to be widely agreed and that is that fascism is accompanied by overbearing State control of the population, usually by unpleasant means.

That's a pretty far stretch simply to say that those on the left desire to have gov involved heavily in their lives. On the contrary, many people on the left don't even want a government, rather to have people in control over their own lives. It's dismaying to see such loose definitions which mischaracterize both sides so deeply. It is no wonder 4 out of 5 Americans don't know what is really going on- so many people are determined to obfuscate the truth. It is much better to avoid the left- right- filters and stick to the pursuit of truth.

http://www.tellmehowto.net/howto/tell_left..._right_wing_888

There is more to it. Here is the whole thing with one response.

You've just quoted verbatim the article in the link I provide a while back.....without crediting it, making out it's your own words.

Tut tut. I would have expected that from some of your fellow rightists that are a bit dim, but not from you.

I couldn't put a name to what I believe... other than "Humanist". There are the basic rights and wrongs, but everything else gets bastardized to suit one's personal needs. When I say "humanist" I mean it is all the traits that humans have: lazyness, greed, anger, strength of character, inquisitiveness, artistic, sympathy, hard working, religious, forthright, inventive, and just about everything else in the spectrum.

Most of the so called religions and politics have basic goals that are good. But when bastardized by humans for personal gain they become a far cry from what they were intended for. I've never seen a leader of any country anywhere that didn't screw up at some point in the game of life.

I agree with you Ian.

To me, right and left is about tax, who pays it, how it is spent and division of labour....

The liberal issues are personal opinion, some of the pro Israel people are liberal in other fields; what else is the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan but a war between conservatives?

My father is a patriot, a veteran, a pro life, pro gun, pro death penalty Socialist who believes that there should be a fair and honourable relationship between labour and management and that trade unions play a vital role in ensuring this.

I grew up under a conservative government which presided over State owned hospitals, schools, prisons, all public utilities and they ran like clockwork to the satisfaction of all.

Go figure.

It has been said that there is no perfect model for government.

Aesop penned a fable about a father, his son, and their donkey. I subscribe to his story's moral; "He who tries to please everybody, pleases nobody".

Sometimes I think that a dictatorship, run by a self-sacrificing, benevolent, open-minded, ruler is the way to go.

Lets be frank here.....the "masses" are not the brightest, nor are they the most benevolent....they are only "average", by definition.

If you think about it, submitting to directives made by an omniscient and benevolent ruler is both socialist and conservative.

The problem is....where is the Omniscient Director?

He/she probably exists but has been oppressed by his/her government.

You've just quoted verbatim the article in the link I provide a while back.....without crediting it, making out it's your own words.

Tut tut. I would have expected that from some of your fellow rightists that are a bit dim, but not from you.

Ulysses G.Posted Today, 2010-02-18 12:14:14

There is more to it. Here is the whole thing with one response.

http://www.tellmehowto.net/howto/tell_left..._right_wing_888

Oh really now? Look a little more carefully.

Gore Vidal said both national parties were right of center.

And Mr Vidal is correct.

It has been said that there is no perfect model for government.

Aesop penned a fable about a father, his son, and their donkey. I subscribe to his story's moral; "He who tries to please everybody, pleases nobody".

Sometimes I think that a dictatorship, run by a self-sacrificing, benevolent, open-minded, ruler is the way to go.

Lets be frank here.....the "masses" are not the brightest, nor are they the most benevolent....they are only "average", by definition.

If you think about it, submitting to directives made by an omniscient and benevolent ruler is both socialist and conservative.

The problem is....where is the Omniscient Director?

He/she probably exists but has been oppressed by his/her government.

Suharto in indonesia is a perfect example of this, he was in power for more than 30 yrs, bought his votes every election, used the military to oppress any objectors while keeping fuel and rice affordable to all. even after his over throw they still called him bapak suharto meaning daddy suharto.

What did Kissinger say about Suharto?

"He might be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch".

What did Kissinger say about Suharto?

"He might be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch".

FDR said it about Somoza of Nicaragua before that.

Nothing like recycling a good quote.

What did Kissinger say about Suharto?

"He might be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch".

FDR said it about Somoza of Nicaragua before that.

FDR said it (reportedly) about Somoza Sr.

Right and left are political positions taken by people who cannot think freely, which leaves a huge gap in the middle that all the common sense escapes through.

Right and left are political positions taken by people who cannot think freely, which leaves a huge gap in the middle that all the common sense escapes through.

Hmmm....I take your point, however I have to say that I think that some free-thinkers do take a position on either extreme.

cdnvic said it!

See Tigger, I told you we were all playing nicely this week.