I would have rode Webb’s nuts so hard in the last election I might have even donated for the first, and likely only time in my life, to a politician.
But as to the conversation at large where this quote came from. I think Eyedentist sees “right vs left” in a European sense, where anything less than Marxism is “right wing”…
So you don’t know the definition of militia then?
Good to know. lmao.
Obviously grade school English is an issue for you too.
edit:
Lol, I was just gonna let it go… I am; however, glad that you did not. That’s very funny.
The facts so far about Flynn:
He omitted the discussion he had with the Russian ambassador when being interviewed by Pence. Assuming no new information this seems like a pretty boring scandal
I believe they call that position the Reverse Zeb.
haha.
It’s also where this (utterly false on it’s face) notion that fascism is “right wing”. It’s not, and can’t be.
If you are going to discuss political ideals on a spectrum, one direction is total government, the other no government. Therefore communism and fascism have to reside on the same side. Whether you want to call the left total or no is up to the individual, but you can’t have totalitarian states on either side of s spectrum, because then it stops being a spectrum.
LOL at Hot Button Man getting Hot Button pushed while trying to relax from a steady diet of numbers.
Saw this on way to gym last week.
It’s the 2nd.
It’s the litmus test for a person’s ultimate belief and understanding of individual freedom. If they can’t pass that test, they don’t believe in freedom.
It’s hard for me to let that go.
An interesting concept is that it is a circle rather than line and thus the two sit side by side.
But then where is anarchy?
I’ve heard this before and reject it as it doesn’t work.
The actual dividing line right between the two?
Like this but replace lunatic fringe with anarchy?
I’ve never seen the circle concept before, but it seems interesting.
There’s a political compass that has government power and economic liberty on separate axis. I disagree with the concept. But it is a line of thinking. You can’t have redistribution without authoritarian control to some extent (my thinking).
Boring, eh maybe.
But he made Trump a liar by proxy, therefore has to hit the bricks.
Even if its of no real consequence, you can’t have someone in the ranks that will lie to you (even if by omission), or the next one could be devastating.
Doesn’t work because you go from total government control on either side of the break (communism and fascism) to no government in a single step?
Doesn’t make sense.
Theocracy should also be in the total government control, even though it is a marriage of state and church. It’s still totalitarian on it’s face.
The circle doesn’t work, and seems like a twisted attempt to paint the “right” as having “an ugly past too” therefore “my leftist dreams failures in the past aren’t any worse than yours”.
EDIT:
There are, without question, “lunatic” fringe on both sides though. I won’t deny that. “Lunatic” isn’t reserved for one, or only similar, political ideologies. Pure free market will likely fair about as well as pure communism, for the same reasons, people are imperfect and there are evil ones out there.
Where are your long term examples of actual anarchy?
Sure you have the M/E deserts or maybe parts of Somalia, but generally there is a strongman that rises up and takes control, as he gains a few allies that can subject the more passive.
There aren’t. But that isn’t the point here.
The point is if we’re going to discuss ideologies, it has to be on the spectrum, which means the spectrum can’t be a circle.
Tasking about left vs right is almost fruitless since the origin is so messed up (below). Basically the authoritarians sat on the right and the liberty crowd sat on the left. So it might be more helpful to talk about it without the right left labels.
"The French Revolutionary era was where the terms Left-wing politics and Right-wing politics first originated.
The reason for the terms to become used at all was the seating of the ancien régime of France at that time. The aristocrats sat on the right, and the commoners sat on the left."
Wouldn’t, theoretically, anarchy not belong on a spectrum as the spectrum is varying levels of govt where anarchy is the lack thereof?
I guess, but that seems silly to me. As the beginning (or end depending on your beliefs) would be zero government, and the other end total government, with all the steps in between.
