Where are all the Left wings?

[happysack1]

It seems to me that today there don't seem to be any left wing people anywhere!

In the U.K. new labour traditional party of the working class has gone nazi on us suggesting special schools for the middle class and funding private health care. Nuclear power and restricted freedom seem to be the future but being the good citizen I am i am not alarmed by a police state what is alarming is that there is so little opposition to it.

In the United States Bush has been able to do pretty extravagent things and the democrats haven't even tried to stop him leaving it solely to Micheal Moore who at the moment seems to be the only sensible person on the political scene. Bush has channeled the fear and pain of the American people and given himself extreme power in the process.

But self-richeous old men have been around since the beggininng and most of the time they are beaten by the public amd forced to be more resonable.

So where the f**k are the public where are the hippys, where are the civil rights movement guys and why aren't they fighting the growing tide of facism and EVIL. Well I don't know you tell me they can''t all be gone can they. It was only forty years ago they were at their height and noew the "enlightened" youth of the 60s has been replaced by a generation of ikemans intent on profit and efficency. With O.K. magazine and lattes to go please for the love of god correct me show me that there are still some liberal out their, show me that not all the democrats are dead!!

[x-Toadenalin-x]

Socially I'd consider myself extremely Liberal, read some of my old posts

Economically, I'm more centeral

Just to ask for 'Liberals' is a bit of a blanket assertation, don't you think?

[happysack1]

Perhaps but what I really want to find out, and i apologize if the point didn't come across, what people think liberal is I think that liberal has been re-defined since the 70s.

Many now think that it is worth sacrificing some freedom for security against terrorists do you think it is

[x-Toadenalin-x]

At 2/18/06 09:11 AM, happysack1 wrote: Perhaps but what I really want to find out, and i apologize if the point didn't come across, what people think liberal is I think that liberal has been re-defined since the 70s.

Many now think that it is worth sacrificing some freedom for security against terrorists do you think it is

I don't believe so. But I do believe the definition of "freedom" has become warped. For example, here in the UK, we have free health care. Many people feel they are entitled to this, on the basis that they are UK citizens, even though there is no reason at all for this to be a "fundamental liberty"

For that reason, I am not opposed to giving up my privacy - I don't consider it worth defending, nor do I consider it a freedom I am entitled to. Sure, having privacy is nice, but only in the way having a girlfriend or a good steak is nice - I won't die if someone finds out I spend most of my time frequenting internet forums.

However, certain freedoms, such as freedom of speech, I would not sign away for any amount of security. I consider my freedom to critisise my piss-poor government about the only serious impact I can have on the democratic process. I'm not even sure I would be comfortable to give it up in war-time.

[happysack1]

I agree with you certain libertys are able to sacrifice for our own good but I have to say that this is very dangerous if we sacrifice our privacy twenty years down the line our children will have another freedom taken away from them and so on and so on until we live in a dictatorship. I know it is paranoid but that is the way it could turn out.

I wouldn't sacrifice all my privacy but ,maybe some of it and I don't think I'd sacrifice my girl friend!

On a different matter I think Orwell is a good comparison to America, Napoleon uses fear to increase his power just like Bush slowly taking away thew animals rights until he has all power, come to think of it isn't that what happens in Star Wars!

[x-Toadenalin-x]

At 2/18/06 09:34 AM, happysack1 wrote: I agree with you certain libertys are able to sacrifice for our own good but I have to say that this is very dangerous if we sacrifice our privacy twenty years down the line our children will have another freedom taken away from them and so on and so on until we live in a dictatorship. I know it is paranoid but that is the way it could turn out.

Possibly. I do worry about that, but I believe in freedom of speech not because it is a right given in the constitution, but because I believe it to be one of the most fundamental needs of the human condition. I also think a bill limiting freedom of speech would be the final nail of the coffin of democracy. It would be next to impossible to get a democratically elected congress to vote against freedoms like that. For those reasons, I was against the Religious Hatred Bill, pro the Danish cartoonist's right to draw the cartoons and generally err on the side of freedom whatever the topic. Admittedly one could use freedom of speech to hurt other, but the inverse, not using your freedom of speech to help others seems barbaric to me.

I wouldn't sacrifice all my privacy but ,maybe some of it and I don't think I'd sacrifice my girl friend!

I'd give up pretty much everything if the alternative was losing my freedom of speech.

[happysack1]

Your right freedom of speech is the backbone of democracy but where do we draw the line.

Take that muslim clerik, I forget his name was he not excersising his right to free speech or was he insighting hatred.

[RedGlare]

At 2/18/06 10:12 AM, happysack1 wrote: Your right freedom of speech is the backbone of democracy but where do we draw the line.

Take that muslim clerik, I forget his name was he not excersising his right to free speech or was he insighting hatred.

You men Abu Hamza the hook handed one eyed pantomine reject?

[adamsaysmoesgay]

I ate them all for breakfeast.

[Bowski]

Growing middle-classes? Thus, people getting more awkward perhaps?

Pfft.

The Right is where the money is nowadays. Centre-right, rather. We don't want to go too far, do we?

[RedGlare]

At 2/18/06 10:36 AM, Bowski wrote:
The Right is where the money is nowadays. Centre-right, rather. We don't want to go too far, do we?

Yes we don't want to end up goose stepping Kilroy might get interested.

[GunCrave]

Meh, I don't feel like debating happysack1 considering he types like he just recently learned the English language.
So you all do it for me.

[happysack1]

Your right while the majority of right wing people can simply vote tory left wing people have a thousand groups to choose from. I don't know about America but if you click on the link posted above it gives the selection of the hundreds of organizations you can join and to be honest even though I am left wing I wouldn't even consider joining any of them.

I think the conservatives are taking advantage of people that would of voted labour twenty years ago (working class) just not caring any more

Also what do you mean I type like I've just learnt the English language?

[GunCrave]

At 2/18/06 02:40 PM, happysack1 wrote: Also what do you mean I type like I've just learnt the English language?

"In the United States Bush has been able to do pretty extravagent things and the democrats haven't even tried to stop him leaving it solely to Micheal Moore who at the moment seems to be the only sensible person on the political scene."

In that paragraph alone you demonstrate you do not know the usage of a comma, which seperates thoughts, ideas, and lists. Also, I could point out how you are not able to distinguish what is a run on or fragment sentence. You seem to try and pass off your adjectives as adverbs. I could go on for some time about your grammatical abilities, but you're a left winge, I would not expect any less.

[PharaohRamsesII]

There is still left wing whining communists alive?

[happysack1]

but you're a left winge, I would not expect any less.

I assume you meant I could not expect any more from a left winge.

You seem eager to attack my spelling and grammar ( I'll be the first to admit they suck) but you quiver from the point of this descussion. Please share your "enlightened views with us if your not to busy screwing the Brazilian boys!!

;)

[MoralLibertarian]

Maybe that's because no one wants the world to be equal. We want rich people, we want a middle class, and we want poor people. It's why online RPGs with socialist systems don't sell, while online RPGs with free market economies are wildly popular.

[Politics]

At 2/18/06 09:00 AM, happysack1 wrote: In the U.K. new labour traditional party of the working class has gone nazi on us suggesting special schools for the middle class and funding private health care. Nuclear power and restricted freedom seem to be the future but being the good citizen I am i am not alarmed by a police state what is alarming is that there is so little opposition to it.

When you compare somebody to nazis, you instantly lose the argument. It doesn't matter who it is. It could be Hitler, and you could be comparing him to himself, it doesn't matter, you lose. You lost because you even started. Shame on you.

In the United States Bush has been able to do pretty extravagent things and the democrats haven't even tried to stop him leaving it solely to Micheal Moore who at the moment seems to be the only sensible person on the political scene. Bush has channeled the fear and pain of the American people and given himself extreme power in the process.

Hahaha, Micheal Moore is just an attention whoring idiot. He makes his movies for his own profit, and the more controversial they are, the more money he makes. If you actually looked into it, Bush isn't such a bad president. Sure he says stupid things, and sometimes he acts or says something suspicious, but it's reasonable to think that he isn't a complete and utter failure, and not everything that ever went wrong with America was his fault. The best thing you can do is actually look into it and devolope your own opinions about politics instead of being a Conservative or Liberal sheep.

But self-richeous old men have been around since the beggininng and most of the time they are beaten by the public amd forced to be more resonable.

You're sounding a bit self-righteous yourself right now. People will be greedy, even the people at the top. Accept it.

So where the f**k are the public where are the hippys, where are the civil rights movement guys and why aren't they fighting the growing tide of facism and EVIL. Well I don't know you tell me they can''t all be gone can they. It was only forty years ago they were at their height and noew the "enlightened" youth of the 60s has been replaced by a generation of ikemans intent on profit and efficency. With O.K. magazine and lattes to go please for the love of god correct me show me that there are still some liberal out their, show me that not all the democrats are dead!!

Could it be they realized that love and flower power can't save starving children in Ethiopia? The people you discribed aren't real Liberals, they're leeches and extremists, pretending to be left-wing to feed off the intelligance of actual Liberals so they don't look like complete asses, but they just make all left-wingers look bad. Also; the Democratic party is not all Liberal, they have a few Conservatives, just like the Republicans have Liberals. Get with the times, man.
----------

At 2/18/06 03:25 PM, 1WingedDragon wrote: I could go on for some time about your grammatical abilities, but you're a left winge, I would not expect any less.

I shall return with an equally intelligent argument:

Fuck you, asshole.

[Shadic-1]

YOu're entire argument was obliverated with the mention of Micheal Moore being of sane mind. This is coming from a socialist, so don't even try to say STFU U CONSERVUTIEV MIKUL MOORE ROXORZ HE R SHOW HOW AMERICA FUXED UP WIT STATISTICZ ADN HOW MUCH BIG CORPORATIUN R ASSHOLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At 2/18/06 04:38 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Maybe that's because no one wants the world to be equal. We want rich people, we want a middle class, and we want poor people. It's why online RPGs with socialist systems don't sell, while online RPGs with free market economies are wildly popular.

I like how you try to compare reality with a fantasy, one that has infinite resources for the taking, an anarchist system, and a larger percentage of morons to take advantage of with no moral guilt.

[Shifty55]

Why do the political debatess come to a war on the opposer's grammer.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/18/06 08:30 PM, Shifty55 wrote: Why do the political debatess come to a war on the opposer's grammer.

I'm sorry, what are "debatess"? What is "grammer"?

[Jerconjake]

At 2/18/06 09:00 AM, happysack1 wrote: But self-richeous old men have been around since the beggininng and most of the time they are beaten by the public amd forced to be more resonable.

That right there is the most ridiculous part of your argument. Since when has the public had any power over the government?

The best thing about the left is that the stronger they get, the stronger the right gets in response. The stronger the right gets, the more the left relents. It's a very good system.

[Kieland]

The sad truth is that the Democrats in Washington aren't fighting as hard as they could. As a liberal I cringed when I watched clips of the Sam Alito hearings. The democrats rambled on and on instead of asking pressing-matter questions. They would ask a direct question and then apologize and say that they didn't want Alito to think they were trying to offend him.

We need more Democratic government officials with back bones.

But not Hillary Clinton.... never Hillary (cringe).

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/19/06 12:41 PM, Kieland wrote: The sad truth is that the Democrats in Washington aren't fighting as hard as they could. As a liberal I cringed when I watched clips of the Sam Alito hearings. The democrats rambled on and on instead of asking pressing-matter questions. They would ask a direct question and then apologize and say that they didn't want Alito to think they were trying to offend him.

I cringed as well. The liberals were pricks during the Alito hearings.

We need more Democratic government officials with back bones.

Liberalism is dead. No one wants to be a liberal anymore. Maybe in another 40 years they'll get back in power.

[Kieland]

At 2/19/06 02:49 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Liberalism is dead. No one wants to be a liberal anymore. Maybe in another 40 years they'll get back in power.

I'm afraid the liberals are a dying breed. I am one of the last of a dying race.... Shit.

[MoralLibertarian]

Another thing is, the ideas of the left nowadays are unattractive no matter how you slice it. I think that most people are starting to see the conservative interventionist foreign policy as unattractive, but you guys have the worst ideology to explain to people.

Here are some of the things that the American people don't like about liberals:
They are for higher taxes and class warfare.
Liberal politicians are deceptive: when they campaign, they go hunting, pretend to be pro-war, pretend that they are religious, etc.
The Democratic party show a chilling desire to extend the bill of rights to terrorists and enemy fighters for Al-Qaeda and Al-Zawahri, whether they be at home or abroad.
They support partial birth abortion, even if it has nothing to do with the health of the mother.
The rhetoric of the Democratic Party is so kooky and extreme that it turns the average American off.
The Democratic Party is almost completely made up of special interests.
Their priorities are out of whack. They prefer to attack Wal-mart, which brings jobs and low prices to communities and offers a reasonably affordable healthcare plan for 12 bucks a month, rather than terrorists.
Liberals will call successful black leaders Uncle Toms or Oreos.

I could think of more, and I could think of a list of things people don't like about conservatives, but the American people see the Democratic Party and liberals and this is what they see, and they don't like it. At least the moderates don't.

[Kieland]

At 2/19/06 03:36 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: They are for higher taxes and class warfare.

We just don't want countless tax cuts for the rich. And we don't want class warfare, that's a generalization. Its facts, the poor are suffering man. I'll level with you though, there are SOME out there who believe that the rich should always give to the poor, but that's not the feelings of all democrats, just a few. If you're rich and have money, I think you should keep it. I just don't think the government should cater to the rich and leave the poor out in the cold.

Liberal politicians are deceptive: when they campaign, they go hunting, pretend to be pro-war, pretend that they are religious, etc.

Republicans are just as bad. The entire anti-John Kerry ad campagin is an example. John Kerry DID fight in Vietnam. George Bush said that Kerry was a braver man than he in an interview with Matt Lauer. (I think it was Lauer). However, conservatives made it sound as if Kerry didn't fight in Vietnam and if he did it wasn't courageous. Well in my opinion, anyone who went to Vietnam was courageous.

The Democratic party show a chilling desire to extend the bill of rights to terrorists and enemy fighters for Al-Qaeda and Al-Zawahri, whether they be at home or abroad.

Actually, we just hate the Patriot Act since its landed many in jail in Guantanmo Bay without proper trials. Sure you can argue that we're stopping terrorism but are you completely sure that everyone in Guantanmo is a terrorist?

The rhetoric of the Democratic Party is so kooky and extreme that it turns the average American off.

Your proof? We're not kooky as you call us, we're just disorganized right now. We need to get our shit together. But I don't know where you get kooky from.

The Democratic Party is almost completely made up of special interests.

Both parties are partisan these days. Everything is white or black to both sides, neither is looking at the grey.

Their priorities are out of whack. They prefer to attack Wal-mart, which brings jobs and low prices to communities and offers a reasonably affordable healthcare plan for 12 bucks a month, rather than terrorists.

Wal-mart and terrorism have nothing in common and we aren't choosing Wal-mart over terrorsim that's way out there man.

Liberals will call successful black leaders Uncle Toms or Oreos.

What the hell is this? Do you have any proof? Or are you just pulling that one out of your ass? Can you find me a quote? And even if you can, it's probably one dumbass' opinion and doesn't reflect the opinions of every Democrat in Washington. That's out there man.

I could think of more, and I could think of a list of things people don't like about conservatives, but the American people see the Democratic Party and liberals and this is what they see.

I think you've listed things you've seen. For example, I've never heard of anyone calling blacks Uncle Tom's or Oreos in recent news. Maybe back in the segregation days, but not recently. It sounds as if you're generalizing. Do all Republicans condone slavery because the majority of slave holding states in the past were Southern States which are predominately Republican? I could, but it wouldn't be true. You need to calm it down there.

[MoralLibertarian]

Keep in mind this is how the American people see you. You may not think you deserve it. Personally I think you all do.

At 2/19/06 04:13 PM, Kieland wrote:

At 2/19/06 03:36 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: They are for higher taxes and class warfare.

We just don't want countless tax cuts for the rich. And we don't want class warfare, that's a generalization. Its facts, the poor are suffering man.

Don't start with that nonsense rhetoric. If you believe that, you don't know how taxation in this country works. 44% of the people in this country don't pay taxes. And anytime you say, "tax cuts for the rich" you are partaking in class warfare.

Liberal politicians are deceptive: when they campaign, they go hunting, pretend to be pro-war, pretend that they are religious, etc.

Republicans are just as bad. The entire anti-John Kerry ad campagin is an example.

They don't pretend like they are liberals though. No one questioned the fact that John Kerry went and fought in Vietnam. They questioned his biographical account, which he changed after the attacks, and they mostly questioned his anti-war activity afterwards, which was fair game since we are in wartime.

The Democratic party show a chilling desire to extend the bill of rights to terrorists and enemy fighters for Al-Qaeda and Al-Zawahri, whether they be at home or abroad.

Actually, we just hate the Patriot Act since its landed many in jail in Guantanmo Bay without proper trials. Sure you can argue that we're stopping terrorism but are you completely sure that everyone in Guantanmo is a terrorist?

No, nor do I have to be. Why should enemy combatants have a trial under US law when they aren't even US citizens? I suppose you'd like the American tax-payer to foot the bill for all those trials too? Even if they aren't terrorists, oh well. Better safe than sorry these days.

The rhetoric of the Democratic Party is so kooky and extreme that it turns the average American off.

Your proof? We're not kooky as you call us, we're just disorganized right now. We need to get our shit together. But I don't know where you get kooky from.

"Extreme right," "Culture of corruption." It's over the top to call a mainstream conservative justice a member of the extreme right. It's also over the top to say that the Republicans are corrupt when Democrats easily make more money from lobbyists and special interests anyway. Calling right-wingers racist? Oh please. No one believes that anymore. It's all 40 year old rhetoric, and it's stupid. You need to stop talking like that if you want people to listen.

Their priorities are out of whack. They prefer to attack Wal-mart, which brings jobs and low prices to communities and offers a reasonably affordable healthcare plan for 12 bucks a month, rather than terrorists.

Wal-mart and terrorism have nothing in common and we aren't choosing Wal-mart over terrorsim that's way out there man.

Yes, liberals are. They think more harm is done from Wal-mart than from Islamic terrorists.

Liberals will call successful black leaders Uncle Toms or Oreos.

What the hell is this? Do you have any proof? Or are you just pulling that one out of your ass? Can you find me a quote? And even if you can, it's probably one dumbass' opinion and doesn't reflect the opinions of every Democrat in Washington. That's out there man.

Michael Steele, Condi Rice, Walter Williams, Colin Powell. All successful men or women treated like traitors to their race because of their political affiliation. Do your own research, look up some of the shit they've had done to them by liberals of either color.

I could think of more, and I could think of a list of things people don't like about conservatives, but the American people see the Democratic Party and liberals and this is what they see.

I think you've listed things you've seen.

I suppose I should have added that liberals don't mind successful black men as long as they stay liberal. If they become conservative, they are pelted by oreos or the victims of cruel caricatures.

[Politics]

At 2/19/06 03:36 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Another thing is, the ideas of the left nowadays are unattractive no matter how you slice it. I think that most people are starting to see the conservative interventionist foreign policy as unattractive, but you guys have the worst ideology to explain to people.

Unfortunitly, MoralLibertarian, you're right. But at the same time, you, and the conservatives you're arguing for are subject to your own devices:

They are for higher taxes and class warfare.

Recent events (over the last 6 years) have shown that the Rebublicans aren't immune to high spending amounts either, only for different reasons. The idea that rapid spending is only a Liberal thing is ignorant of the fact that all politicians like throwing money around, no-matter what idealogical background they're from.

Liberal politicians are deceptive: when they campaign, they go hunting, pretend to be pro-war, pretend that they are religious, etc.

In the last Canadian election, the vast majority of smear ads came from the Conservatives, and in the last American election, it was the same thing (though due to campaigning rules, it was claimed that the ads weren't directly from the President). Just like in my last argument, all politicians are subject to deception.

The Democratic party show a chilling desire to extend the bill of rights to terrorists and enemy fighters for Al-Qaeda and Al-Zawahri, whether they be at home or abroad.

Yes, it's a shame they took the opposite stance on this as the Conservatives, because exteme answers aren't the solution. Both parties are mistaken.

They support partial birth abortion, even if it has nothing to do with the health of the mother.

You assume that those are their only reasons, when it's possible they only said that for PR. In reality, it's possible that their reasons are more similar to mine; at a point of pre-neural devolopement, the fetus is no more alive than the cells in a human hair, and so abortion is morally okay if the fetus hasn't begun to devolope a brain.

The rhetoric of the Democratic Party is so kooky and extreme that it turns the average American off.

That's your point of view. I think your rhetoric is just as bad, and that's my opinion.

The Democratic Party is almost completely made up of special interests.

Their priorities are out of whack. They prefer to attack Wal-mart, which brings jobs and low prices to communities and offers a reasonably affordable healthcare plan for 12 bucks a month, rather than terrorists.

A special interest is a person or political organisation established to influence governmental policy or legislators in a specific area of policy.

Liberals will call successful black leaders Uncle Toms or Oreos.

Howard Coble is one example that comes to mind, to represent to Republicans here.

[Politics]

At 2/19/06 06:07 PM, Captn_ wrote: A special interest is a person or political organisation established to influence governmental policy or legislators in a specific area of policy.

I forgot to add "That sounds like a politician or a political party, to me."