Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Lol. i'm saying that there's no specific meaning. It's you who's asking people to "kow-tow" to your specific definition.

"Left and right mean what they mean, and if you choose to purposefully misunderstand the terms in their context that is your right. I am still going to use the terms though." as YOU said.

You can use them, they "mean what they mean" to you, and means something else to other people.

[Durin]

.... Since what i said was a belief that the left isn't even a thing.

It's not a thing, the Democrats are not a left-wing party by any stretch of the imagination. That's going by standard definitions of socialist. The Democrats push free markets same as the Republicans.

Band-aids to help the poor / welfare etc get pushed by both conservatives and progressive elements in capitalist societies. Those are not part of socialist doctrine itself (they are appeasement to stop rebellions and "opiates of the masses" in an elite heirarchial system).

20th century "socialist" nations push 100% direct employment programs, not "welfare". In 20th century communist countries, you didn't eat if you didn't work. Everybody worked - or else. Very different to a capitalist nation applying welfare (which is a stop-gap measure meant to deal with under employment due to a labor market system). Now that China's moving to a capitalist system, I wouldn't be surprised if they're having to implement direct welfare programs for excess workers.

You can argue about political relativism, then any nation can be said to have a "left" and a "right" side. But that doesn't make the Republicans = Nazis and the Democrats = Stalinists. So the terms don't have any straight meaning.

I kind of like the idea of a 100% employment policy, and am disappointed that U.S. policy makes that more difficult for nations that choose to pursue it.

Nevertheless, I am not going to kowtow to your demand that we use terms as you dictate. Left and right mean what they mean, and if you choose to purposefully misunderstand the terms in their context that is your right. I am still going to use the terms though.

I never said leftists are running the show. Please go back and read my post and stop this. I know exactly what I posted and why. The point is that we cannot continue to use massive resources while expecting developing nations to cut back. Sadly, only one of the three people who responded seems to have read my post, and all I could think of to reply to them was, "Yeah, so let's all get to work on that."

[mainiac]

There is a reasonable middle ground that can solve global warming without causing global poverty.  There are tons of international bodies that have laid out such plans.  The third war is largely on board.  This whole debate was kinda amusing for a while but rapidly becoming even more pointless then the horrific morass that started this thread.

[Durin]

Lol. i'm saying that there's no specific meaning. It's you who's asking people to "kow-tow" to your specific definition.

"Left and right mean what they mean, and if you choose to purposefully misunderstand the terms in their context that is your right. I am still going to use the terms though." as YOU said.

You can use them, they "mean what they mean" to you, and means something else to other people.

Interestingly, you will hardly ever hear anyone on the right complain about being labelled as part of the political right. They complain about policies they do not support being attached to "the right".

Yours is a game of semantics that is based on the fact that leftist politics have been fairly negatively portrayed. I would submit to you that "the left" is making a come back, but it is not going to do them much good to then abandon such a well established brand.

I myself personally do not have a party or a "side" any more, so I can sympathize with the concept you are trying to put forward. However, it is just as easy for me to say, "I share some issues with the left, and some with the right," as it is for me to try to disassemble a century or more of political jargon. I just will not engage in that sort of thing. I prefer to speak to people in common terms.

[Durin]

There is a reasonable middle ground that can solve global warming without causing global poverty.  There are tons of international bodies that have laid out such plans.  The third war is largely on board.  This whole debate was kinda amusing for a while but rapidly becoming even more pointless then the horrific morass that started this thread.

The third world is on board? Why would they not be. I would be on board for the great powers of this earth to stop treating me like crap as well.

What I SAID was that in order to make these changes, we in the west are going to have to get very serious about holding our leadership accountable. 

Go ahead. Go back and read what I wrote. I triple dog dare you...

What is your issue?

[Glowcat]

If that was your point then

If fossil fuels are as bad for the environment as the left says, then we really have almost no choice but to go to war with China and then suffocate the developing world. I somehow doubt that is the appropriate way forward. I suspect the real issue is that the rich in America and Europe are going to have to start sacrificing a lot of their affluence in order to share clean energy with the rest of the world and help build the worldwide energy infrastructure. Places like China and India also need help with other industries as their agricultural practices are part of what make them such horrific places for the environment compared to western countries.

I'm talking about leftist politicians. The scientific community is pretty leftist, sorry to disturb your world view, but I am specifically talking about leftist politicians scare tactics on the issue. If we are inches from global disaster, and China is a gigantic source of the kinds of environmental damage that is leading us there, whereas the U.S.  and other western nations mitigate a lot of their CO2 footprint with more modern practices in fuel consumption and agriculture, then we need a war with China.

was a horrible way to argue it.

You do know that there's an edit button, right? You don't have to double post, especially when you're just quoting yourself for emphasis.

[Leafsnail]

Are we gonna let Durin sink another thread?