Defining the Left and Right

[Brian]

Well I am not sure yet but I do appreciate your post and will read the documents included. I was hoping for a list of right wing politicians at least that you believe are rule of law candidates. I have already said I see little difference in bill Clinton Obama and Bush. All right wingers to me.

I just gave them to you! <shrug> "Right wing"? I fundamentally reject the spectrum as I believe it is Kabuki theater but I gave you the names of several government officials who attempt to embody conservative and constitutional principles as well as contrasting politicians who seem to reject those principles.

 

BTW, and I've told you this before -- I think your concept of "left-wing" and "right-wing" is completely fabricated and self-serving, allowing you to proclaim yourself (and truly believe yourself) to be "good" and everyone who disagrees with your ideology or your proposed solutions to be "bad" people who are abhorrent and unnatural sociopaths who want to slaughter people. Know where I got that idea???

[blackstar212]

I just gave them to you! <shrug> "Right wing"? I fundamentally reject the spectrum as I believe it is Kabuki theater but I gave you the names of several government officials who attempt to embody conservative and constitutional principles as well as contrasting politicians who seem to reject those principles.

 

BTW, and I've told you this before -- I think your concept of "left-wing" and "right-wing" is completely fabricated and self-serving, allowing you to proclaim yourself (and truly believe yourself) to be "good" and everyone who disagrees with your ideology or your proposed solutions to be "bad" people who are abhorrent and unnatural sociopaths who want to slaughter people. Know where I got that idea???

you are mistaken. I will read over the material.

 

There is a difference between economics and type of government. I believe capitalism to be abhorrent and unnatural. Next thing you will tell me is left wing progressives killed the native americans.

[Brian]

you are mistaken. I will read over the material.

 

There is a difference between economics and type of government. I believe capitalism to be abhorrent and unnatural. Next thing you will tell me is left wing progressives killed the native americans.

Yet you consistently conflate those two dimensions of society, and you go a step further by including militarism in the same generalization. You repeatedly and consistently identify "left" as consisting of all that is kind and gentle and collectivist (ignoring that virtually every example of collectivism beyond a couple dozen people in modern history has gone horribly wrong) and that "the left" has a monopoly on "peace love and harmony" and by reflection identify "right" as the opposite of all you consider "good" and yourself seemingly alone in the category of "left." (Well, you and an idealized Gandhi (and an idealized Mandela, IIRC)). You are certainly welcome to your own self-interest but that welcome ends when it extends to projecting your construct onto those around you (even if "around you" is only a virtual community).

[Brian]

For reference...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Indian_Wars

[blackstar212]

Yet you consistently conflate those two dimensions of society, and you go a step further by including militarism in the same generalization. You repeatedly and consistently identify "left" as consisting of all that is kind and gentle and collectivist (ignoring that virtually every example of collectivism beyond a couple dozen people in modern history has gone horribly wrong) and that "the left" has a monopoly on "peace love and harmony" and by reflection identify "right" as the opposite of all you consider "good" and yourself seemingly alone in the category of "left." (Well, you and an idealized Gandhi (and an idealized Mandela, IIRC)). You are certainly welcome to your own self-interest but that welcome ends when it extends to projecting your construct onto those around you (even if "around you" is only a virtual community).

The sad part is you have shown not one sample. Remember tribal anarchy. There are still tribes today functioning beautifully without the fails you speak of.

[ralis]

The sad part is you have shown not one sample. Remember tribal anarchy. There are still tribes today functioning beautifully without the fails you speak of.

 

If I might add, is that no one is a separate individual in a vacuum and we are all part of a collective whether we like it or not. The Western archetype of the rugged individualist is a myth based on faulty assumptions such as what I just stated.

[Apech]

[zerostao]

z

Edited February 20, 2018 by zerostao

[zerostao]

z

Edited February 20, 2018 by zerostao

[zerostao]

z. 

Edited February 20, 2018 by zerostao

[Stosh]

I was taught, that there was a definition to the left right polemic , that individuals would basically fit with varying degrees of adherence to the basic plan.

Left meaning, the person believes society is best off when the gov is lenient on social issues ,and dominant on economic ones, and on the right, the reverse trend would be the defined course.

But I dont really think that is the way it works out.

The left wants gov power to force All social behavior which they think is in the greatest good to that individuals sympathies. The Right thinks the Govt involvement should remain minimal though aggressively punative regarding the nations laws and defense.

These arent actually exactly opposite stances. Theyre just my opinions on what I think the people do think typical of their own affiliation by label.

[Stosh]

I dont remember these studies other than the conclusions, but, there is documentation that these two stances reflect a real mindset trend and this trend evolves with age and experience. That doest mean all young people are unrealistically idealistic, or that the older geneneration predominantly jaded. But if I flipped the labels it would look weird to have matched young with jaded , and old with idealistic , Right ?

The idea that political left and right are polemical ,is a problem. To see oneself as right and well-meaning, inherently suggests that the others are wrong and hostile, or at Least stupidly blind.

Hands pair left and right, but they are both hands, and in that agreeable comparison, the similarities far outweigh the teenie differences. Americans of all strains have much in common, and if one needs enemies, theres plenty of other people to pick o It is indeed possible to be be bolstered by the fact that other people have sentiments we dont share! That someone else is doing their part to keep the world both functional and compassionate , free and defended by indeed Being complementary to our own beliefs rather than be identical. Yes it is a thing you have to intentionally remind yourself of

Edited February 20, 2017 by Stosh

[blackstar212]

You are a resident of the State of Ohio so start here:

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/publications/election/Constitution.pdf

 

Read an understand your State Constitution -- this is "the law of the land" for the State of Ohio, the set of rules and list of powers the citizens of the sovereign State of Ohio have given to a limited governmental institution on their behalf. These authorities, powers and rights do not originate with the government and get handed down to the people but the other way around.

 

Next, read and understand the Constitution of the United States. You can find it in many places and formats but here's one of them: <link> Don't say "Oh, I read that one day in high school in a history class" because that isn't good enough. (Ask me why I say that?) Be sure to read each of the ratified Amendments to the Constitution, too. One of the things contained in the US Constitution is an enumeration of powers. This is critical because it lists a specific set of authorities delegated to the central government by the individual States and ratified by the citizens of those States. These authorities, powers and rights do not originate with the government and get handed down to the people but the other way around.

 

Any role or authority not specifically granted to the central government by the Constitution itself or by one of the specific Amendments thereto is not delegated to the central government. If that role or authority is specifically granted to an individual State by its own Constitution then that role or authority is delegated to the State government. If that role or authority is not specifically granted to the central government nor to the State then that role or authority is retained by the sovereign individual citizens of those States.

 

These documents mean exactly what they say.

 

At each level of government (and within each as divided and distributed according to the rules established for them), specific regulations and procedural documents are established to operationalize these roles and authorities. One of the primary responsibilities of the Courts is to adjudicate at the request of damaged plaintiffs and determine whether these operational documents and procedures are consistent with the principal documents as they are written and as their language was intended by those who composed them. If situations have changed or the will of the citizens have changed such that the rules as written are consistent with those foundational documents but no longer meet the needs of the civil society then it is appropriate for the relevant legislative body to alter those rules in accordance with the legal processes or, if the desired change would not be consistent with those foundational documents, to amend those foundational documents in accordance with the legal processes to delegate the role or authority needed to affect such a change in the rules.

 

This make sense?

 

Now, as to the specific question you asked -- who are some examples of current office holders? Well, Justice Scalia would have been a great example in the Judicial Branch but he is no longer with us. Justice Thomas isn't bad, though; I'd recommend reading some of their opinions from the bench. In the Senate, I would suggest that Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are pretty good examples and that Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are good counter-examples. In the House, I would offer Louie Gohmert on the one hand and Debbie Wasserman Schultz as good comparisons. In the State of Ohio, I would suggest contrasting Representative Jim Jordan with Representative Marcy Kaptur to see the stark difference in philosophies which exist between the two. None of these people would I consider idealized examples but they should help to illustrate the relevant philosophies.

 

This help?

They might as well tear up the US constitution LOL. They barely follow anything in it anymore.

[Brian]

They might as well tear up the US constitution LOL. They barely follow anything in it anymore.

Or we could start returning to it. Modern progressivism has made a mockery of it, though.

[Marblehead]

They might as well tear up the US constitution LOL. They barely follow anything in it anymore.

 

I was going to "Thank You" for that post but when I saw it was you I decided to just agree with you.

 

If we go back, only property owning White Men could vote.  Do you think Clinton would have stood even a snowballs chance in hell at winning the election?

[blackstar212]

I was going to "Thank You" for that post but when I saw it was you I decided to just agree with you.

 

If we go back, only property owning White Men could vote.  Do you think Clinton would have stood even a snowballs chance in hell at winning the election?

No way.

[Marblehead]

Your vision will likely happen after the next Big Bang.

[Brian]

Your vision will likely happen after the next Big Bang.

I'll keep my fingers crossed but I won't hold my breathe.

 

 

Actually, I think the struggle for freedom is over for this millennium and darkness will spread across the Earth again. I'm just hoping we can extend the glide path to avoid the crash until after my son's time is gone (and I am fairly ready for the likelihood that we can't). Sad, really. Liberty can be lost in a generation or two if we teach our children it is doesn't matter or doesn't exist.

[Marblehead]

I wish I could say something to reinforce what you said but it has all been said before.

 

Yes, the world could be headed toward a new Dark Age.  In stead of the Church this time it will be political money.

[blackstar212]

https://lifestyle9.org/worlds-best-country-to-live-in-2013/4/

 

 

Interesting.best places to live in the world

Edited February 21, 2017 by blackstar212

[Brian]

How Not to Welcome Refugees Edited February 21, 2017 by Brian

[dawei]

https://lifestyle9.org/worlds-best-country-to-live-in-2013/4/

 

 

Interesting.

 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/denmark-refugees-immigration-law/431520

 

 

I'd prefer to at least see a title and short comment or quote so folks understand the context.  

[Brian]

I'd prefer to at least see a title and short comment or quote so folks understand the context.

Fixed.

[blackstar212]

How Not to Welcome Refugees

I agree! How disappointing.

[blackstar212]

I'd prefer to at least see a title and short comment or quote so folks understand the context.

Fixed