Definitions of left and right

[Moneyguy1]

Some of the recent threads got me thinking. Can we come up with a general description of the two ends of the political spectrum based on the posts we read here?

I will start the "discussion" (which, I am sure, wil quickly devolve):

The left:

A disorganized gang of ferociously independent raggedy-assed individualists incapable of mounting an organized position on just about everything because they are too busy examining and re-examining every possible outcome, leading to a form of intellectual shutdown. Too much analysis leads to paralysis.

The right:

More like an ant colony. Each member has the same purpose, is pre-programmed and individually incapable of original thought, able only to chant the colony mantra. However, they are effective at specific tasks which include obliterating any object in the way. No action is out of bounds as long as the goal is obtained.

As I said, just a beginning. And, of course, this does not address the more radical so far out of the mainstream members. Feel free to try to define the undefinable.

Have fun and play nice (Oh, yeah.....)

[lendaddy]

So in essence the left is too intelligent for its' own good and the Right is stupid enough to be herded like sheep. Neat.

[legion]

I would say a lot of the people on the right came to the same conclusions from similar experiences...not because of strict adherence to a master.

I would say a lot of people on the left simply lack those experiences, and substitute academic discussion for experience.

[Moses]

The Democratic party has been taken over by socialists.

The Rebublican party has been hijacked by religious wing nuts.

Leaving the rest of us with?....Fast Pat? (Oh, God!)

Nice choices, huh?

[Moneyguy1]

Moses: That is the sad part. Those of us more or less in the middle are getting squeezed.

Legion...respectfully....the current mantra of the right is a cult of personality more than it is of policy. The left has no core at this date. And yes, part of the left's problem is too much education. This leads to an information overload and intellectual paralysis.

If only the zealots from both sides could see how truly predictable and gullible they are to the rest of us. You can usually anticipate their responses.

[dafischer]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Moses: That is the sad part. Those of us more or less in the middle are getting squeezed.

There appears to be very little middle ground anymore, unfortunately.

Both sides are way too rabid for my liking.

[Icemaster]

You left out those of us in the middle...

[Icemaster]

Actually, re-reading your descriptions, they're interchangable.

[fastpat]

We libertarians prefer the political spectrum defined as totalitarianism on one end and anarchism on the other. Usually, of systems that have or do exist, communism is at the most totalitarian end of the spectrum, fascism a bit back from that, with the Democrats and Republicans back more, but no longer much and moving towards fascism or actually within it (each 'ism has a range not a single point), libertarians have always been thought to occupy the center of this spectrum, but I think most have always been much closer to the anarchic end on a personal level, but closer to the middle in public groups such as the Libertarian Party.

That's because, as has been demonstrated more than once in this forum, many if not most, can neither consceive of, or if they can are frightened of, anarchy as a viable form of government.

The more conventional left (socialist)-right (fascist) dichotomy was created by the Soviet Union's propaganda machine during their little dust up with the Germans in order to enable American liberals to ally themselves with them during World War Two. It was and always has been phony.

[aways]

The left:

A disorganized gang of ferociously independent...

That was as far as I got... ferociously independent?
LOL, talk about having it backwards! Geez!

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

Left = Idiots who mean well
Right = Well-meaning idiots

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Moses
The Rebublican party has been hijacked by religious wing nuts.

Little news for ya buddy, the Messiah came...Praise the Lord!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moses
The Democratic party has been taken over by socialists.

The Rebublican party has been hijacked by religious wing nuts.

Leaving the rest of us with?....Fast Pat? (Oh, God!)

Nice choices, huh?

The great thing about libertarianism is that you reach out and take it for yourself, you don't need indoctrination like the R's and D's do in government schools.

You definitely don't "get it from" anyone.

[Moses]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Little news for ya buddy, the Messiah came...Praise the Lord!

And you want that to be the basis for our government?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Moses
And you want that to be the basis for our government?

I am just teasing you, but I really think you are going off half-cocked imagining that the Republican party's problem is religious fundamentalism. I cannot recall a single piece of fundamentalist Christian legislation that Republicans have offered. In fact I think the brass is dominated by liberal Republicans and that is why they are corrupt and incompetent...It is socialism you should fear, not fundamentalist Christianity, especially in America...It is fundamentalist Christianity that made this country great and laid the foundation for you to have the freedoms and opportunities that you obviously enjoy...Thank a Christian at every opportunity, Moses...Your people never have had a better friend.

[Moneyguy1]

Yeah,yeah, sure sure.

Simple mind, simple solutions.

At least there is a degree of consistency!!

Religious fundamentalism is a "problem" in that government and religon are not compatable. Isn't that the primary problem in the Middle East?and the latest vote on gay marriage (What was the idea behind the defeated gay marriage motion if not to impress one religious point of view?) Wasn't it fundamental Christianity that caused early settlers in New England to burn people at the stake? Our founding fathers wisely used the common sense of established moral code in their thinking (don't kill or steal and such) but most wise of all did not choose a state religion since they did not want a system like Great Britain has. In fact, many were Dieists.

Some day, mul, a fact that does not align with your views will get beyond your defenses. It will sit there and eat away from the inside at your mind, silently, stealthily You will not know it is there until it is too late, and the result will not be pretty!!!

Beware!!!!!

It is out there....waiting....waiting....waiting....


Boo!!!

[Moses]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
...Thank a Christian at every opportunity, Moses...Your people never have had a better friend.

My people are Christians. Religion is a dangerous basis for government. Better if we stick to the ideals of liberty and freedom.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moses
My people are Christians. Religion is a dangerous basis for government. Better if we stick to the ideals of liberty and freedom.

Careful, you'll be seen as an extremist, dare I say it, like me.

[Moneyguy1]

Aha!!

And that is the key here!!

Anyone with whom I do not agree is an extremist!!

Problem solved.

[Hugh R]

Originally posted by Jared Fenton
Left = Idiots who mean well
Right = Well-meaning idiots

Jared, I like!