- 06 Jul 2010 20:25
#13438219
Well, yes, and Russia was headed by an authoritarian dictator. Imperialism is not left-wing.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
How is the DNC socially conservative? By what standards?
So, we have two centrist parties with neither one being Liberal or Conservative?
Imperialism is not left-wing.
Well, yes, and Russia was headed by an authoritarian dictator. Imperialism is not left-wing.Thank you for clarifying that Stalin and Hitler were political equals on the same wing.
More or less. We have two centrist parties that differ slightly on various issues consistently that more or less align them with "liberal" and "conservative" ideologies. Haven't you ever heard of the "race to the middle"?
Thank you for clarifying that Stalin and Hitler were political equals on the same wing.
Neither is it "right wing". It's not even really on the scale we commonly use to determine "left" and "right". It's a foreign policy issue, and can be used in both leftist and right-wing ideologies.
Well, yes, and Russia was headed by an authoritarian dictator. Imperialism is not left-wing.
Thank you for clarifying that Stalin and Hitler were political equals on the same wing.
I believe they were both authoritarians and in that sense not very different. In another sense, they are.And what sense is that that would make them polar opposites?
The race to the middle only exists in good times, which is kind of something that people who know what they're talking about have known for years.
I don't think American imperialism can be considered anything but right-wing, honestly. We've forcibly supported what we desired, which has tended to be authoritarian leaders who are beholden to American interests.
Again, it really depends on how we're defining "left" and "right". Are we talking about the act of imperialism itself, or the specific implementation of AMERICAN imperialism?
And what sense is that that would make them polar opposites?
Well, can you give me an example of a more ambiguous type of imperialism?
Both candidates raced to the middle in 2008, hardly what could be considered "good times". The only difference was that the "middle" in 2008 was a bit more to the "left" than it was in 2004 or 2000.
Well, the most direct would be the Soviet imperialism with regards to the Communist rebels in both North Korea and Afghanistan, certainly analogous to our funding of the opposite sides of those respective wars.
My point is that forceful interventionion in other nations' affairs can be done by both "left wing" and "right wing" governments, at least as we define the terms commonly in American nomenclature. As it stands we have majorly interventionist wars started by both the left wing (Bosnia, Serbia) and right wing (Iraq, Iraq again) in the last 25 years. If we were to define one side as specifically isolationist or non-interventionist, then that's different.
Yah, like I said - you don't know what you're talking about. Psephologist (the people who spend their time studying voting and election systems) have known for years that in bad times, people race to extremes (proportional to the situational).
Ah, the old "I'll repeat my claim again without any proof" technique. A Wolfman specialty.
Again, how do you explain that both McCain and Obama "raced to the middle" in 2008 following taking more hardline positions during their respective primaries?
Further, how does any of this justify your idiotic notion that "American liberal = DNC = Social Conservative"?
Wolfman wrote:That's an even more idiotically simple system which will never work in reality.
Wolfman wrote:The DNC isn't 'Liberal' or 'Left wing' (if those terms are going to be used).
Wolfman wrote:And these quizzes are basically unable to tell the difference between a far Leftist and a Socialist.
Todd D. wrote:My point is that forceful interventionion in other nations' affairs can be done by both "left wing" and "right wing" governments, at least as we define the terms commonly in American nomenclature. As it stands we have majorly interventionist wars started by both the left wing (Bosnia, Serbia) and right wing (Iraq, Iraq again) in the last 25 years. If we were to define one side as specifically isolationist or non-interventionist, then that's different.
So, a system with two axis and five options is more simplistic than one along a line with only three, right.
First, you can't talk about the Democrats and Republicans as only two parties - they're actually 100 parties, united into two coalitions. The old joke is that a Utah Democrat is a Republican anywhere else.
Todd D. wrote:Further, how does any of this justify your idiotic notion that "American liberal = DNC = Social Conservative"?
Wolfman wrote:The idiotic notion is yours.
Wolfman wrote:American Liberal = DNC; DNC = Social Conservative; therefor, American Liberal = Social Conservative.
I can't see Youtube from my ISP at this time, but it looks as though you are comparing McCain's campaign ads (or, as you so eloquently put them, "adds") to Obama's in tone and message. Do you even know what the "race to the middle" is? It's where both candidates try their hardest to appeal to the middle-voters, the centrists that are on the fence, so they moderate the previously hardline messages that they made during the primaries (when they had to appeal to the dye-in-the-wool hardcores of their party in order to get nominated). This happens in Every. Single. Election. Good times or bad. Period.
Uh, no. Here's YOUR quote
I'm still waiting for the justification for this one.
Actually, I'm not. I'm comparing Obama's 2008 campaign ads to Kerry's 2004 ads, and McCain's to Bush's in tone and message. 2004 was a good time with ads that reflected that, and 2008 was not a good time, with ads that reflect that.
No, the idiotic position is that both parties are Centrists, which is yours.
Major General Harri Ohra-Aho on Russia's decision […]
Uh...there isn't an 'England gene'...if that is w[…]
Back on topic , here are my results . Care-85 […]