...
There are a lot people on the right that just don't like how far right the mainstream right has moved, therefore they are critical and appear to be often taking sides with the left on many issues.
A lot of people on the left feel the same way and want to distance themselves from extreme positions.
Almost. But there's a subtle and a very important difference.
Centre-righties tend to view and call the right-wing nuts – nuts, and are ashamed to be associated with them. Centre-lefties tend to excuse left-wing extremists' views and actions by "understanding" the reasons for their rightful anger.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Almost. But there's a subtle and a very important difference.
Centre-righties tend to view and call the right-wing nuts – nuts, and are ashamed to be associated with them. Centre-lefties tend to excuse left-wing extremists' views and actions by "understanding" the reasons for their rightful anger.
Maybe. I don't see that, but maybe I am not in a position to. I consider myself a centre-lefty and can't stand the extreme left on a lot of issues, and hate the preachiness and lack of respect and tact that they often display.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
The guy was a mass murderer, a war criminal and just an over all scum bag. Not going to show respect to this guy.
Bush can rot in hell.
I only know what I read about him so maybe explain some of this to me, all presidents make mistakes but from I gather his worst was invading Panama, helping the Guatemala military and naming a diddler to the supreme court.
I only know what I read about him so maybe explain some of this to me, all presidents make mistakes but from I gather his worst was invading Panama, helping the Guatemala military and naming a diddler to the supreme court.
Almost. But there's a subtle and a very important difference.
Centre-righties tend to view and call the right-wing nuts – nuts, and are ashamed to be associated with them. Centre-lefties tend to excuse left-wing extremists' views and actions by "understanding" the reasons for their rightful anger.
Disagree 100%. I saw folks from the left condemn Obama and dems for a multitude of things like the compromise on the ACA, drone strikes, etc. Yet compare that with republicans who support Trump no matter what he does. Republicans have always been good at getting their people in line. When was the last time you heard from a never-Trump person?
Maybe. I don't see that, but maybe I am not in a position to. I consider myself a centre-lefty and can't stand the extreme left on a lot of issues, and hate the preachiness and lack of respect and tact that they often display.
I agree 100% my only political beliefs are not knowing the answer before I've heard the question, and a belief that the best government governs from a position of fear of the populous in both personal and professional concerns.
What I find perplexing is just how skewed politics is today based on how much I hear the term Liberal associated with the left wing.
Being liberal means you're more centrist than anything else. The opposite of conservative is progressive, not liberal. That's why in Canada we had the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative party. PC is a contradiction of terms, essentially meaning they're balanced.
The language has been consistently hijacked for decades (mainly in the US) to the point where most people don't even know what they're discussing half the time.
Today people seem to be in a hurry to align their support like they're cheering for a sports team rather than appreciating the complexity of any number of topics.
Maybe this is the case, or maybe in the big party of social media we all are just forced to hear the blowhards louder hollering at the party more than we ever did before.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Boreal For This Useful Post:
I agree 100% my only political beliefs are not knowing the answer before I've heard the question, and a belief that the best government governs from a position of fear of the populous in both personal and professional concerns.
What I find perplexing is just how skewed politics is today based on how much I hear the term Liberal associated with the left wing.
Being liberal means you're more centrist than anything else. The opposite of conservative is progressive, not liberal. That's why in Canada we had the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative party. PC is a contradiction of terms, essentially meaning they're balanced.
The language has been consistently hijacked for decades (mainly in the US) to the point where most people don't even know what they're discussing half the time.
Today people seem to be in a hurry to align their support like they're cheering for a sports team rather than appreciating the complexity of any number of topics.
Maybe this is the case, or maybe in the big party of social media we all are just forced to hear the blowhards louder hollering at the party more than we ever did before.
Is the language of what you call your party or yourself really all that important. The USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Nazi was short for "National Socialist".
I would disagree with our assessment though. The term "liberal" is a somewhat distinct concept from the divide between left and right, although typically liberal values coincide with "left win" values. Liberalism means putting human rights above other goals. This has changed over time, from individual to group rights.
Whereas progressive or reform, just mean any change to the existing status quo, which involves some kind of development, which can mean economic. A right wing party looking to replace an established left wing government, with a government that promotes economic development, would, therefore, fit the definition of progressive and reformist. There is no dichotomy in the term progressive conservative or reformist conservative.
If you go back to the origins of term "left wing", it meant people to the left of the King of France, or people who were anti-establishment. Theoretically, the left should always be pushing for social change against the establishment, and the right should be pushing to preserve or give powers back to the establishment. Unfortunately, the left wing in North American politics is often just as bogged down by the right in their establishments and who they owe favors to.
This a major problem with partisanship right now. Both the left and the right have put their ideologies ahead of people.
Can't answer for Q but maybe you're on to something, for a so-called mass murderer, war criminal and a scum bag he sure is getting a lot of love on both sides of the isle and around the world.
Is the language of what you call your party or yourself really all that important. The USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Nazi was short for "National Socialist".
I would disagree with our assessment though. The term "liberal" is a somewhat distinct concept from the divide between left and right, although typically liberal values coincide with "left win" values. Liberalism means putting human rights above other goals. This has changed over time, from individual to group rights.
Whereas progressive or reform, just mean any change to the existing status quo, which involves some kind of development, which can mean economic. A right wing party looking to replace an established left wing government, with a government that promotes economic development, would, therefore, fit the definition of progressive and reformist. There is no dichotomy in the term progressive conservative or reformist conservative.
If you go back to the origins of term "left wing", it meant people to the left of the King of France, or people who were anti-establishment. Theoretically, the left should always be pushing for social change against the establishment, and the right should be pushing to preserve or give powers back to the establishment. Unfortunately, the left wing in North American politics is often just as bogged down by the right in their establishments and who they owe favors to.
This a major problem with partisanship right now. Both the left and the right have put their ideologies ahead of people.
The language is of utmost important. What you stated actually reaffirms what I was trying to say. Liberal is far from an extreme or a polarized viewpoint. Maybe it leans left, and is not quite balanced, but it is far from being purely left wing.
The Right have known the importance of language for decades.
Their language dominates discourse.
It isn't a coincidence that they have been able to demonize the way we collectively fund projects that would be impossible otherwise... ie "taxes" by labeling it "the tax burden" with zero mention of tax benefits or identifying any problems with taxation funding initiatives they agree with, while providing next to no feasible alternative.
But I do agree with the partisanship problem.
Each party seems to become more and more group thinking echo chambers viewing everything through an ideological lens rather than collective sharing of ideas to understand the best left/right course of action to navigate complex problems when their solutions that require it.
Both the left and the right need to exist, that is the point I find so many people fail to reconcile in their heads. I usually summarize it in my mind with the statement I use when I go into the back country.
"Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."
If we hope too much for a positive situation we become vulnerable to a negative situation. If we prepare too much we leave ourselves open to getting bogged down in waste. This requires both wavelengths of thinking.
Having one wavelength of thinking that knows the answer before they have heard the question is just stupid.
Almost. But there's a subtle and a very important difference.
Centre-righties tend to view and call the right-wing nuts – nuts, and are ashamed to be associated with them. Centre-lefties tend to excuse left-wing extremists' views and actions by "understanding" the reasons for their rightful anger.
That sounds more like how Centre-righties view of themselves. I bet if you ask Centre-lefties, they'd have the opposite view of what you just stated.
Sorry, is what you're saying here that you like to call people a libtard simply to test peoples tolerance for a joke?
Brilliant.
I didn't call anyone a libtard, I used a well known meme to razz people with ideological blinders on. You read "Ben Shapiro destroyed libtards using facts and knowledge" and decided this was a serious thing that must be dealt with in a serious way. If you can be razzed by such a thing, you deserve a razzin'.
I didn't call anyone a libtard, I used a well known meme to razz people with ideological blinders on. You read "Ben Shapiro destroyed libtards using facts and knowledge" and decided this was a serious thing that must be dealt with in a serious way. If you can be razzed by such a thing, you deserve a razzin'.
In his defense, there's a lot of legitimate internet dialogue that sounds just like that and it's very difficult to tell sometimes between sarcasm and stupidity.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
I didn't call anyone a libtard, I used a well known meme to razz people with ideological blinders on. You read "Ben Shapiro destroyed libtards using facts and knowledge" and decided this was a serious thing that must be dealt with in a serious way. If you can be razzed by such a thing, you deserve a razzin'.
I didn't say you call people libtards. I asked the question. You sure are defensive.
