|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2007 : 02:47:47
|
I have been accused of being left wing, not because I have any leaning toward socialism or communism, which only leaves I must be left wing because I don't buy the mainstream media's version of reality and don't support Bush. Of course that would mean 60-70% of the country are now left wing.
Then my news sources were described by various opinions as to how left or middle they were.
So I am challenging these stereotypes. They are absurd. I am a capitalist tried and true. I believe capitalism is flawed and needs regulations and other government market interventions to be the best system for humankind. But no other economic system regardless of how regulated comes close to capitalism as the superior choice.
How foolish of those following the right wing neocons who have laid their bed with the Evangelical Christian movement and the corporate elite to think those of us opposed to the goals of such an alliance are somehow "left wing".
What is it Republicans who aren't in the above 3 groups want? I would wager it isn't far from the same things I want. But the images labels and alliances conjure up lead to so many false assumptions we really don't see the other for what we each are.
Leave the religious groups out who want laws that fit their Bible and want schools to teach religion instead of science. I definitely am in conflict with them. Leave out the corrupt millionaires who want crony favoritisms to add to their greedy personal empires, there are a few of these sleazeballs but I would wager the majority of Republicans are not in this group. And on the left, leave out the idiots who really think some big conspiracy of power brokers imploded the Trade Towers or who think a communist government would work despite it having failed over and over around the world.
What you have left are a lot of people who may have some differences over this or that gun or abortion law. They may differ over how much welfare or government spying is the correct amount. But in general, these people are much more alike than they realize.
So why are they so convinced the other is so different? There are many many reasons. And this is the media thread so I'll get to my point. The reason I read the websites I do isn't because they lean left or reinforce my point of view. I know there are some who will just say that is nonsense and I read what agrees with my views. And they will dismiss what I have to say here as well. But I want to give you some concrete examples of what it is I am reading and why regardless of it being left or not, it exposes what is really going on in the world and what you are not hearing when you turn on CNN or MSNBC or even PBS though PBS is better than the others.
If there is BS on any of these supposed "left wing" sites, I am not an idiot. I expect the same verifying evidence regardless of the story. Cuneform dismisses Democracy Now because he doesn't like Amy Goodman. But Cune has not posted a single transcript from DN and pointed out misleading coverage. Or even if a single story is not correct, say an interviewed person is unreliable, Cune cannot point to the web site and show where the majority of the information is garbage. But I can do that with the mainstream news any day of the week.
Well here are some sample stories from these news sites to give people an idea of what I find on the sites that I do not find in the supposed news. It isn't the politics it's the information I read. Show me some right wing media watch sites that have something more than rambling opinion and I will read it.
Truth Out
31 to Stand Trial in CIA Kidnapping Casequote:
By Colleen Barry
The Associated Press
Friday 16 February 2007
Milan, Italy - A judge Friday indicted 26 Ameri
|
Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/18/2007 03:04:40
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 06:43:01 [Permalink]
|
Jesus Christ, BSG. Did I dismiss Democracy Now? No. Did I say its reporting was invalid? No. All I said what that it was pretty far to the left! You've chosen to overrect read into that and argue that my comments meant that DN featured incorrect or misleading information, but that is not what I meant.
Earlier in another thread, I mentioned a NY Times editorial that actually celebrated the Dixie Chicks' grammy wins. Your knee-jerk reaction to my mentioning the editorial (and clearly without even reading it, even with the link) was to bring in Judith Miller (!?) and assume that it, too, was critical of them.
With such reaction, it makes it difficult to have a conversation with you.
There are people who genuinely support Bush and/or the Republican Party as it has beceome in the last 25 years or so. They may be deluded in thinking that the plutocrats actually care about their social values, but that's what they think. And I'm pretty sure none of them would listen to even 30 seconds of Amy Goodman (I listen to her show daily when I drive to school), or regularly check Media Matters (like I do) to see how the mainstream media have maligned Clinton.
(Hint, BSG, we're on the same team; chill!) |
 |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 07:48:21 [Permalink]
|
I have not read your entire OP closely enough, beskeptigal, my apologies for that in advance. I have a problem with most of these discussions nowadays which I think you do address. It is the, in my opinion, detrimental division of left/right.
As far as I can see, at least in America, the left/right divide seems to be used to dismiss other's viewpoints without thinking. Crying "far left!" is much easier then actually thinking about the issues. In the thread on Yugoslavia I created (which I am still working on, but due to a number of projects I have now research time I can spend on it is going slow) I am called "far right". I think such designations are ultimately completely meaningless and we should do away with them. And perhaps that is something that rubbes me the wrong way more in the beginning of your post.
What turns me away from your post are statements like "I have been accused of being left wing" or "I am a capitalist tried and true." I think that statements like these give the left/right language far too much credit. They reinforce the right/left thinking instead of dispelling it. I think we could better ignore it altogether, and drive to the issues. What I see nowadays, especially in America (but I do see a tendency for it propping up in the Netherlands unfortunately) as that people get bogged down in a "this is left, this is right"-view, that is completely useless in discussions like these.
Perhaps part of why I think this is because I am a European who has lived in America (and has quite a few friends from Latin America and Eastern Europe). Discussing issues this way then becomes totally irrelevant, since what is left in America, is at best center in the Netherlands and quickly becomes right in France and Germany. My personal feeling is that, when you discuss these kind of issues with people from different cultures, the terms don't gain any credibility in the first place. My feeling is that it would be good to ignore the terms altogether when they come up. Do not go in defensive mode when being called "far left" "left" "right" or "far right". Rather, ignore the label altogether and focus on the issues. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 12:13:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I have been accused of being left wing, not because I have any leaning toward socialism or communism, which only leaves I must be left wing because I don't buy the mainstream media's version of reality and don't support Bush. Of course that would mean 60-70% of the country are now left wing.
Okay, for starters everything you say after “which only leaves…” is a straw man argument. Real life is more complex than simplistic either/or propositions. The very fact that you can only conceive of two propositions, either communist or whatever suggests a fundamental immaturity in your political thinking.
But to clarify my position, I call you a lefty because your views are leftist, you are strongly biased towards leftist sources, and you have a strong –virtually paranoid- distrust of right-wing sources.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
How foolish of those following the right wing neocons who have laid their bed with the Evangelical Christian movement and the corporate elite to think those of us opposed to the goals of such an alliance are somehow "left wing".
Who exactly are those people? Are you referring to anyone on this forum, or are you conflating them with people in the world at large?
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
So why are they so convinced the other is so different? There are many many reasons. And this is the media thread so I'll get to my point. The reason I read the websites I do isn't because they lean left or reinforce my point of view.
Yet they do.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I know there are some who will just say that is nonsense and I read what agrees with my views. And they will dismiss what I have to say here as well. But I want to give you some concrete examples of what it is I am reading and why regardless of it being left or not, it exposes what is really going on in the world and what you are not hearing when you turn on CNN or MSNBC or even PBS though PBS is better than the others.
Except when you go down the list it becomes apparent that everything there either has been reported in the “mainstream media” or that it's editorial in nature. Much of it blurs the line between editorials and reporting. Ironically, it's much the same criticism you have of the “right-wing” source you quote at the end.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 13:55:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Jesus Christ, BSG. Did I dismiss Democracy Now? No. Did I say its reporting was invalid? No. All I said what that it was pretty far to the left! You've chosen to overrect read into that and argue that my comments meant that DN featured incorrect or misleading information, but that is not what I meant.
Earlier in another thread, I mentioned a NY Times editorial that actually celebrated the Dixie Chicks' grammy wins. Your knee-jerk reaction to my mentioning the editorial (and clearly without even reading it, even with the link) was to bring in Judith Miller (!?) and assume that it, too, was critical of them.
With such reaction, it makes it difficult to have a conversation with you.
There are people who genuinely support Bush and/or the Republican Party as it has beceome in the last 25 years or so. They may be deluded in thinking that the plutocrats actually care about their social values, but that's what they think. And I'm pretty sure none of them would listen to even 30 seconds of Amy Goodman (I listen to her show daily when I drive to school), or regularly check Media Matters (like I do) to see how the mainstream media have maligned Clinton.
(Hint, BSG, we're on the same team; chill!)
I did hear you dismiss Democracy Now. You said more than once that Any Goodman bothered you. But really, this post wasn't in response to that alone. I posted this because I am really trying to expose the anemic mainstream news and the serious risk control of information poses to free societies.
It isn't just you, Cune. There is a wide swath of the American public that actually believes they are well informed when they are not. This group, however big is hard to say, doesn't recognize just how well marketing techniques affect behavior and beliefs. You know how poorly many people's critical thinking skills are. If those skills are that bad in science and logic, what makes you think they are any better at recognizing when they are being sold a bill of goods?
How many skeptics are attracted to political image over reality? There are many in the skeptical community that are not media literate even though they are science literate. In this thread, I just want to get past the "image" which leads some people to dismiss these sources of information on current events as nothing of substance.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/18/2007 13:56:36 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 14:10:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I did hear you dismiss Democracy Now. You said more than once that Any Goodman bothered you. But really, this post wasn't in response to that alone. I posted this because I am really trying to expose the anemic mainstream news and the serious risk control of information poses to free societies.
Amy Goodman annoys me because of her utter monotone way of reading news. THAT'S ALL. I said NOTHING about the accuracy or value of WHAT she's reporting. You're projecting. Read what I said again and find where I said that she dissembles or otherwise slants the news she reads... like... this... Bueller... Bueller...
quote:
It isn't just you, Cune. There is a wide swath of the American public that actually believes they are well informed when they are not. This group, however big is hard to say, doesn't recognize just how well marketing techniques affect behavior and beliefs. You know how poorly many people's critical thinking skills are. If those skills are that bad in science and logic, what makes you think they are any better at recognizing when they are being sold a bill of goods?
Well, since I've said already that I listen to and read many of the SAME SOURCES OF INFORMATION that you do, it's unclear how you are lumping me in to the "wide swath" of uninformed Americans. That said, I'm sure the loyal Fox News viewers would say that you are the one who's deluded into thinking she's well informed.
quote:
How many skeptics are attracted to political image over reality? There are many in the skeptical community that are not media literate even though they are science literate. In this thread, I just want to get past the "image" which leads some people to dismiss these sources of information on current events as nothing of substance.
Fantastic. Just be sure you know who's dismissing what before you get on the high horse. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 14:17:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
I have not read your entire OP closely enough, beskeptigal, my apologies for that in advance. I have a problem with most of these discussions nowadays which I think you do address. It is the, in my opinion, detrimental division of left/right.
As far as I can see, at least in America, the left/right divide seems to be used to dismiss other's viewpoints without thinking. Crying "far left!" is much easier then actually thinking about the issues. In the thread on Yugoslavia I created (which I am still working on, but due to a number of projects I have now research time I can spend on it is going slow) I am called "far right". I think such designations are ultimately completely meaningless and we should do away with them. And perhaps that is something that rubbes me the wrong way more in the beginning of your post.
What turns me away from your post are statements like "I have been accused of being left wing" or "I am a capitalist tried and true." I think that statements like these give the left/right language far too much credit. They reinforce the right/left thinking instead of dispelling it. I think we could better ignore it altogether, and drive to the issues. What I see nowadays, especially in America (but I do see a tendency for it propping up in the Netherlands unfortunately) as that people get bogged down in a "this is left, this is right"-view, that is completely useless in discussions like these.
Perhaps part of why I think this is because I am a European who has lived in America (and has quite a few friends from Latin America and Eastern Europe). Discussing issues this way then becomes totally irrelevant, since what is left in America, is at best center in the Netherlands and quickly becomes right in France and Germany. My personal feeling is that, when you discuss these kind of issues with people from different cultures, the terms don't gain any credibility in the first place. My feeling is that it would be good to ignore the terms altogether when they come up. Do not go in defensive mode when being called "far left" "left" "right" or "far right". Rather, ignore the label altogether and focus on the issues.
I agree with your statement about the damage from the right/left divide. That's why I put such a long introduction in this thread.
There is a group at odds with secular America. I don't think you can dismiss that fact. And they have formed an alliance with the leadership in the Republican Party. In addition, part of their strategy is to divide people. There is no shortage of evidence. Just look at the gay marriage issue trotted out by the Republicans specifically to motivate a particular voting base.
But I'm with you in that there is a big middle where we are not so divided. Here is the problem, though. It is in this middle that people are aligning themselves with the image and not the reality. I was accused of being a radical leftist in the post that led to this one. And, I hear it all the time. Why? because those people marketing the Republican image portray anyone that isn't a Republican as a left wing radical. If you aren't for Bush, in all his incompetence, you are a left wing radical. That is absurd.
How would I discuss this without saying I've been accused? How should I defend the falsehood of the claim if not by reminding people what left is supposed to be, therefore what claims of far left mean?
Your criticism makes no sense to me. I am trying to discuss the very divide you speak of and you find that the basis of the very same problem. You just want to ignore it? Leave it out of the discussion?
Fine. Here is the issue in the thread. People are dismissing these news sources based on the belief the sources are just left wing distortions. Ooops, I brought up the divide.
Under some circumstances, your approach makes sense. Ignoring the divide in the belief that will lessen it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 14:49:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Then my news sources were described by various opinions as to how left or middle they were.
So I am challenging these stereotypes. They are absurd. I am a capitalist tried and true. I believe capitalism is flawed and needs regulations and other government market interventions to be the best system for humankind. But no other economic system regardless of how regulated comes close to capitalism as the superior choice.
How foolish of those following the right wing neocons who have laid their bed with the Evangelical Christian movement and the corporate elite to think those of us opposed to the goals of such an alliance are somehow "left wing".
Beskeptigal, NeoCons are trying to poison the well. Everything that is against them is "Leftie" or Commie and out to destroy the American Way of Life(tm), in order to make them the only viable, sane alternative. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 15:38:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
...
Okay, for starters everything you say after “which only leaves…” is a straw man argument. Real life is more complex than simplistic either/or propositions. The very fact that you can only conceive of two propositions, either communist or whatever suggests a fundamental immaturity in your political thinking.
But to clarify my position, I call you a lefty because your views are leftist, you are strongly biased towards leftist sources, and you have a strong –virtually paranoid- distrust of right-wing sources.
Define leftist, Mycroft. Define left wing sources. You are making a blatantly false claim if you are using the true definition of left wing. I'm a leftist because I'm a leftist is all you've said here. And you call me fundamentally immature in my political thinking?
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
...Who exactly are those [Neocons]? Are you referring to anyone on this forum, or are you conflating them with people in the world at large?
If one holds the belief anyone who isn't a Republican is left wing they probably fit into this definition. The reason I stated it the way I did is there is a campaign coming from the top of the Republican Party to portray everyone who isn't with them as a leftist.
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
...
Yet the [websites] do [lean left or reinforce my point of view.]
No, they don't. Again, define left wing. As far as reinforcing my point of view, you ignore the factual nature of the information, the verifiable content, and the benefit of knowing more about the world than CNN's warped little keyhole view.
You haven't addressed the validity of the content of these sites nor offered any alternatives which have factual information which supports other points of view.
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
...
Except when you go down the list it becomes apparent that everything there either has been reported in the “mainstream media” or that it's editorial in nature. Much of it blurs the line between editorials and reporting. Ironically, it's much the same criticism you have of the “right-wing” source you quote at the end.
No, it hasn't been in the mainstream. They fill up too much of their space with stories like Anna Nicole and Natalie Holloway.
Leading up to the Iraq War, the press reported the White House press releases and conferences as if they were unquestionable fact. When you have a government that has taken propaganda to the heights the Bush administration has taken it, that is a dangerous combination.
Fortunately, the news media has begun to report on it's own failings to investigate the White House claims which led up to the Iraq War. If we had had a better watchdog press, instead of a milk toast product, it's possible the public wouldn't have been fooled into supporting the incredible disaster we now have. But who knows where media monopolies, corporate interests which include selling the news product and values corporate profits over any duty or motivation to inform the public will take us.
Corporations are supposed to make profits, that is fine. But when the news is just a product, the outcome becomes |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 16:40:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
You are making a blatantly false claim if you are using the true definition of left wing.
What is the "true definition" of "left wing?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 18:47:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally, the left wing in politics was
quote:
From britannica.com
In politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life.
The term dates from the 1790s, when in the French revolutionary parliament the socialist representatives sat to the presiding officer's left. Leftists tend to be hostile to the interests of traditional elites, including the wealthy and members of the aristocracy, and to favour the interests of the working class (see proletariat). They tend to regard social welfare as the most important goal of government. Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology.
This discussion did not start because Mycroft referred to me as left wing or left of center. It began with his claim I was of "the radical left wing" and my "opinions seem to be formed by whatever the party line is of the far left."
To which I replied, "I'm hardly far left just because I have not bought into the mainstream misinformation flow. Where have I ever posted a single thing supporting socialism, communism, the Socialist Workers Party or anything in that political realm except one anti-war rally. And in any discussion of that rally almost every post of mine was about the rally being anti-war and not pro anything else and that it was attended by a variety of groups."
Mycroft then responded, "Uhm, actually yeah, that's what makes you far left. Democracy Now, Media Matters, Air America and other sources that you quote are far lefty sources. ...I don't think open support of communism is the only definition of far left."
Dr Mab weighed in, "From my point of view, they seem rather centric/neutral... But I don't expect much else from a country where the political spectrum is tilted so much to the right it's in immediate danger of capsizing.
As did OY, "OY Sez: The media cited above are NOT far left. They are left."
But Mycroft persisted, "I call you a lefty because your views are leftist, you are strongly biased towards leftist sources, and you have a strong –virtually paranoid- distrust of right-wing sources. "
So in the context being used by Mycroft, I object to being labeled as "far", "extreme", or "radical" which implies all the way to the left which would be a communist or a socialist.
I have no objections to being called or considered "in" or "within" the left wing. What is bothersome here is exactly what Dr M referred to, "the political spectrum is tilted so much to the right it's in immediate danger of capsizing". I don't know how much further to the right one can go than where we are now. A little, we could follow that 2004 Libertarian Party Platform which had the State divesting itself of any and all infrastructure including police, fire and roads.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 19:53:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
So in the context being used by Mycroft, I object to being labeled as "far", "extreme", or "radical" which implies all the way to the left which would be a communist or a socialist.
How so? In the context being used by Mycroft, Air America is "far left." Mycroft certainly isn't using the "true definition" from the 1790s. Let Mycroft's context be his context, forcryingoutloud. You certainly can't dictate to him that he meant "socialist" when he said "far left."
Good grief, beskeptigal! If you're going to quote Mycroft saying that he thinks that Democracy Now is "far left," and then conclude that Mycroft considers you a communist, then you're either saying that you think Democracy Now is a bunch of commies (which is laughable), or that you think that Mycroft thinks that Democracy Now is a bunch of commies (a idea for which evidence is lacking, except for a 200-year-old definition which ignores the current political climate here in the States).quote:
I have no objections to being called or considered "in" or "within" the left wing. What is bothersome here is exactly what Dr M referred to, "the political spectrum is tilted so much to the right it's in immediate danger of capsizing".
Well, there you go. The solution is right there, without need of citing old French politics. To the rest of the world, the entire political spectrum of the USA is shifted so far to the right that what everyone else considers "centrist" is here instead thought of as "far left." Given that context, Mycroft considers you to be a moderate conservative, I'm sure, just like the world sees most other Democrats. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 23:17:08 [Permalink]
|
So you are saying I cannot point out Mycroft is wrong on all those counts? And that the discussion is only about his definition?
The discussion isn't about mischaracterizing the whole political side of the isle? Then how might that discussion go and what would be the indications that was the issue?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 23:31:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
So you are saying I cannot point out Mycroft is wrong on all those counts?
No, I'm saying that you're pointing out that Mycroft is wrong about what you assume his position to be, which may not be the actual position he takes.quote:
And that the discussion is only about his definition?
You've assumed a definition for him, one he may not share. That sort of behaviour will not serve you well.quote:
The discussion isn't about mischaracterizing the whole political side of the isle?
Is it? Or is it about how American liberals appear to be conservatives to the rest of the world, Americans in general simply having accepted a tremendous shift in their own political spectrum, and you denying it?quote:
Then how might that discussion go and what would be the indications that was the issue?
Beats the hell out of me, since I can't even parse that question. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 00:36:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, there you go. The solution is right there, without need of citing old French politics. To the rest of the world, the entire political spectrum of the USA is shifted so far to the right that what everyone else considers "centrist" is here instead thought of as "far left." Given that context, Mycroft considers you to be a moderate conservative, I'm sure, just like the world sees most other Democrats.
Dave, 99.95% of the time I agree with you, but I can't figure out your angle on this. Since when do we allow people to redefine their own terms? When creationists say that evolution is a "religion," we don't say "but of course that's absolutely true in their context." We say "No, that's wrong."
"Far" anything implies, and has always implied, that the thing in question is considered fringe by reasonable people. Anti-tax militants are far right. Anti-capitalism communists are far left. beskeptigal isn't "far" anything, so far as I've seen, regardless of where the current political center resides in any given country.
She's correct to question the applicability of the label given her, because in this case it is wrong.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/19/2007 00:41:40 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 04:11:16 [Permalink]
|
| Perhaps we've got too few qualifiers. That is, there's far X, and then there's far X. And perhaps, too, the modern political climate is so complex now that just "left" and "right" no longer do. There are social issues, economic issues, diplomacit issues, and so on each of which has "left" and "right" positions and none of which is dependant on the other. Aren't Libertarians "right" on economic issues (no taxes, or regulation) and "left" on social issues (no 'moral' legislation)? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
My supposed left wing media sources
