Which Way Do You Lean
- Thread starter ataxia
- Start date
budsmoker87
New Member
what a ridiculous question
how about a more sensible poll...
which do you believe more in...liberty/freedom...or oppression/less freedom
government intervention, or a completely free market that is government-REGULATED
etc
this right/left bullshit serves no fucking purpose
how about a more sensible poll...
which do you believe more in...liberty/freedom...or oppression/less freedom
government intervention, or a completely free market that is government-REGULATED
etc
this right/left bullshit serves no fucking purpose
Yep its not a left right thing its a freedom/tyranny thing.
The goal of our constitution was to limit the scope of government.
The Founders knew freedom was most often taken from people by their own governments.
Not by invading armies.
If right is wanting less government, then I'm there.
If left is wanting more personal freedom (legalization), then I'm there.
If right is for fiscal responsibility, then I am there.
If left is anti-war then, I am there.
See it does not cut plain left right that is an illusion.
Here is the worlds smallest political quiz.
To help you understand your own political stance.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
The goal of our constitution was to limit the scope of government.
The Founders knew freedom was most often taken from people by their own governments.
Not by invading armies.
If right is wanting less government, then I'm there.
If left is wanting more personal freedom (legalization), then I'm there.
If right is for fiscal responsibility, then I am there.
If left is anti-war then, I am there.
See it does not cut plain left right that is an illusion.
Here is the worlds smallest political quiz.
To help you understand your own political stance.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
K
Keenly
Guest
manlookingj
Active Member
Living in the US is getting more and more like a police state. Either the liberals want you firmly entrench in their programs so they can run your life, or the conservatives kick down your door and though your ass in jail, and your civil right out the window. I could go swiss.
ViRedd
New Member
On the left we have totalitarians of every stripe. That would include Marxists, fascists, Nazis, Progressives and Socialists.
On the far right we have anarchists.
Where are these "conservatives" you speak of and where and when are they kicking down doors in the midle of the night?
If there are state laws that outlaw civil rights and cause the police to kick down your door applying unconstitutional law, these are not conservatives ... they are statists, and statists live on the far left of the spectrum.
Like Keenly said: It's not about right vs left, its about liberty vs tyranny.
Jddownsouth
Member
All my life I have considered myself a Republican and am still registered as such. But both sides today are full of it! My main problem with the "liberal" point of view is what I would call wishfull thinking. Many of their ideas sound brilliant to me until I remember how the world actually works from day to day. It would be wonderfull if everyone in the world had access to all the wonderful things that upper-class people in developed nations take for granted. It would be wonderful if war was not necessary and everyone got along. But in the real world there just isnt enough money, resources, or goodwill to make it possible.
ataxia
Well-Known Member
sorry to have upset ya buddy.. was just a bored question after reading alot of posts.. I understand there is a WAY bigger spectrum than just left and right.. but it was just a simple question. Opinions are like assholes, EVERYBODY has one.. even though it isn't the most complex poll. It still holds values. even though there's a HUGE grey area... the colors are still Black and white.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
the false paradigms of right vs. left and liberal vs. conservative carry far too much baggage and should probably be abandoned in favor of new terminology. the best ones i have been able to come up with are the material vs. the intangible or possibly force vs. nature.
what we consider the liberal left seems concerned mainly with the material, attaining a stable amount of wealth spread evenly throughout the population and the control of that population through means of government's verifiable force. for them it is all about the things that society provides and how it is allotted. they are concerned more with the easily quantifiable aspects of life such as the amounts in a man's pocketbook, the number of possessions in a household and the length of a lifespan. their attacks on opponents reflect that obsession with accusations of greed and unfair distribution of wealth.
the conservative right seems to concern itself with the more ethereal aspects of society. freedom, charity, individualism, morality and the less quantifiable attributes of civilization are their bailiwick. being more a matter of quality, these things depend less upon the gauge of reasoned inquiry than on tradition and are often considered relics. this gives those at that end of the spectrum the appearance of being stuck in the past and against change, when the change that they advocate is merely of a slower sort and more in tune with the nature of their values. their attacks on opponents also reflect their attitude, claiming the destruction of cherished traditions and enslavement by the state as the end result of the opposing agenda.
though there is a certain amount of overlapping between the two, it seems that the opposing sides are trapped in this paradigm. one dependent on the numbers and cold hard facts, the other dwelling on the possibilities of human nature. while the materialists may claim they are about improving the quality of life, their deeds show them to be more concerned with totals and percentages. while those whose interests are less tangible may spout endless columns of figures to support their positions and seem to concern themselves with day to day reality, their entire philosophy is dependent on their unquantifiable virtues.
what we consider the liberal left seems concerned mainly with the material, attaining a stable amount of wealth spread evenly throughout the population and the control of that population through means of government's verifiable force. for them it is all about the things that society provides and how it is allotted. they are concerned more with the easily quantifiable aspects of life such as the amounts in a man's pocketbook, the number of possessions in a household and the length of a lifespan. their attacks on opponents reflect that obsession with accusations of greed and unfair distribution of wealth.
the conservative right seems to concern itself with the more ethereal aspects of society. freedom, charity, individualism, morality and the less quantifiable attributes of civilization are their bailiwick. being more a matter of quality, these things depend less upon the gauge of reasoned inquiry than on tradition and are often considered relics. this gives those at that end of the spectrum the appearance of being stuck in the past and against change, when the change that they advocate is merely of a slower sort and more in tune with the nature of their values. their attacks on opponents also reflect their attitude, claiming the destruction of cherished traditions and enslavement by the state as the end result of the opposing agenda.
though there is a certain amount of overlapping between the two, it seems that the opposing sides are trapped in this paradigm. one dependent on the numbers and cold hard facts, the other dwelling on the possibilities of human nature. while the materialists may claim they are about improving the quality of life, their deeds show them to be more concerned with totals and percentages. while those whose interests are less tangible may spout endless columns of figures to support their positions and seem to concern themselves with day to day reality, their entire philosophy is dependent on their unquantifiable virtues.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
all government must resort to force to maintain their hold on the population. with that in mind, only the individual can afford the materialistic views of liberalism without danger of a totalitarian shift. the closer a governmental body is to the people the less fear we need have of that possibility, but even municipal government is capable of instating such a regime if higher authorities are unwilling to enforce the rights of the individual.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
though i will admit to being a borderline schizophrenic (who among us that has ingested untold amounts of hallucinogens and lived to tell the tale can claim otherwise?), can it really be called paranoia if they really are out to get you? the goal of government is the control of the people and any other claim is too naive to be considered.
Murfy
Well-Known Member
the potential for misuse of our legislation by the fed makes me paranoid
if they didn't intend on using it then why put it into law?
in america we DO NOT need to run a social experiment
especially since we've spent so much effort combating it
it is my belief that we are the experiment every one else needs!
life liberty and the pursuit of happiness-not dependance,ignorance and greed
if they didn't intend on using it then why put it into law?
in america we DO NOT need to run a social experiment
especially since we've spent so much effort combating it
it is my belief that we are the experiment every one else needs!
life liberty and the pursuit of happiness-not dependance,ignorance and greed