Westboro Baptist Church is a left-wing group, says FoxNews

[Deleted]

So what I am getting from the last few posts is that left-wing means everyone is equal, and it is enforced by the gov't like communists. And right-wing would be a dictator type gov't where people just do whatever the gov't orders them too.

Not at all, that's the problem. I think the old way of looking at it is completely outdated.

The most accurate way is one that distinguishes between being socially left or right and economically left or right.

---------- Post added 2012-12-26 at 12:51 PM ----------

I wouldn't say that's accurate. In fact, a dictatorship is rather contrary to conservative ideals. Conservatives want the government to stay out of their lives, while liberals tend to like it interwoven in to theirs.

I'll ask you what I asked Khoranth: If this is always true then why are the left almost always associated with homosexual rights, minority rights, reproductive rights, end of life rights and drug legalisation?

To oversimplify, imagine you have a problem. A liberal would tell you to seek help from the government for your problem. A conservative would tell you to be self-reliant and solve your own problem.

What about theocracies where the state is intertwined with God? Are they left-wing?

[Durandro]

I wouldn't say that's accurate. In fact, a dictatorship is rather contrary to conservative ideals. Conservatives want the government to stay out of their lives, while liberals tend to like it interwoven in to theirs.

Actually its more like the other way around.

Conservatives want the government to maintain a status quo, and to come down hard on anyone who wants to change thngs.

Liberals want the government to loosen restrictions on freedom while protecting the freedoms of as many people as possible.

Pure versions of both are impractical.

Of course, the main joke is both Republicans and Democrats are both right-wing. Republicans are just further to the right. Left wingers aren't taken seriously at all.

[Rommon64]

Actually its more like the other way around.

Conservatives want the government to maintain a status quo, and to come down hard on anyone who wants to change thngs.

Liberals want the government to loosen restrictions on freedom while protecting the freedoms of as many people as possible.

Pure versions of both are impractical.

Of course, the main joke is both Republicans and Democrats are both right-wing. Republicans are just further to the right. Left wingers aren't taken seriously at all.

You can thank a little man from Wisconsin named McCarthy for that.

[Kalyyn]

Not at all, that's the problem. I think the old way of looking at it is completely outdated.

The most accurate way is one that distinguishes between being socially left or right and economically left or right.

---------- Post added 2012-12-26 at 12:51 PM ----------


I'll ask you what I asked Khoranth: If this is always true then why are the left almost always associated with homosexual rights, minority rights, reproductive rights, end of life rights and drug legalisation?


What about theocracies where the state is intertwined with God? Are they left-wing?

Actually its more like the other way around.

Conservatives want the government to maintain a status quo, and to come down hard on anyone who wants to change thngs.

You guys are both confusing conservatives with the clergy. The clergy have hijacked the GOP for their own purposes, but they are by no means conservative.

As for the the comment about minority rights, consider this: To a true conservative, there are no minorities. Everyone is a human and everyone is treated exactly the same. If you, as an individual, want to discriminate against a certain type of humans, then that's your business. The government will neither support nor stop you. The government only exists to maintain order, protect our borders, and represent our people to the world.

Now I'm a bit more moderate than that, so I'm in favor of some of these measures. Where I think it goes too far, however, is when the government tries to force people to like each other. For example, the idea of a "hate crime" offends me. A court should not try you for murdering a "black man", they should try you for murdering a human. That isn't freedom. It's babysitting.

[Deleted]

You guys are both confusing conservatives with the clergy. The clergy have hijacked the GOP for their own purposes, but they are by no means conservative.

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about theocratic states or states where there is no secularism, or it is limited. Like Iran, Malaysia, Egypt.

As for the the comment about minority rights, consider this: To a true conservative, there are no minorities. Everyone is a human and everyone is treated exactly the same.

This is true to me, as well. Discrimination though, when ignored and even encouraged creates disenfranched minorities.

Now I'm a bit more moderate than that, so I'm in favor of some of these measures. Where I think it goes too far, however, is when the government tries to force people to like each other. For example, the idea of a "hate crime" offends me. A court should not try you for murdering a "black man", they should try you for murdering a human. That isn't freedom. It's babysitting.

Sure.

Why are the left almost always associated with homosexual rights, reproductive rights, end of life rights and drug legalisation?

[Slummish]

To be fair... the world is round. These guys are so far to the right you can see them out of your left eye.

Ha! That's pretty clever.

[Kalyyn]

Sure.

Why are the left almost always associated with homosexual rights, reproductive rights, end of life rights and drug legalisation?

I'm a conservative. I support everything you just listed. So where does that leave us?

[Rommon64]

I'm a conservative. I support everything you just listed. So where does that leave us?

Maybe it's actually the middle that supports those (after all, you said you were moderate-right), and your political (by that I mean elected officials) have been moved so far right that those things appear to be 'of the left'?

[Khoranth]

Not at all, that's the problem. I think the old way of looking at it is completely outdated.

The most accurate way is one that distinguishes between being socially left or right and economically left or right.

---------- Post added 2012-12-26 at 12:51 PM ----------




I'll ask you what I asked Khoranth: If this is always true then why are the left almost always associated with homosexual rights, minority rights, reproductive rights, end of life rights and drug legalisation?


What about theocracies where the state is intertwined with God? Are they left-wing?

My whole point is that the terms left and right wing are not used correctly. Same sex rights, libertarian philosophies, capitalism, and freedom in general are clearly not right or left wing, they are something different all together.

The US media is using the terms dishonestly to lump US political groups in with groups most people tend to hate.

[Deafknight]

I'm a conservative. I support everything you just listed. So where does that leave us?

its super simple:

negative: politically conservative
positive: homosexual rights, reproductive rights, end of life rights and drug legalisation

+*- = -

Your conservative !

[Deleted]

I'm a conservative. I support everything you just listed. So where does that leave us?

Nowhere. I was just wondering why if your statements on left-right differences are true that the left are now currently associated with advancing social freedom and the conservatives are not?

[Kalyyn]

Maybe it's actually the middle that supports those (after all, you said you were moderate-right), and your political (by that I mean elected officials) have been moved so far right that those things appear to be 'of the left'?

I think you hit the nail right on the head there.

[Rommon64]

I think you hit the nail right on the head there.

It's something that needs to be 'fixed' (technically, freedom of democracy and all that) about your elected. But, and getting back to the original topic, when you have at least one of your major media sources broadcasting 'Anything left of you is bad', it'll be hard.

[Kalyyn]

Nowhere. I was just wondering why if your statements on left-right differences are true that the left are now currently associated with advancing social freedom and the conservatives are not?

Again, because the clergy stole our political party.

The civil rights movement happened literally less than 60 years ago. It baffles me that people have already forgotten that it was the Republican party who lead the initiative in Washington. The Republican party used to be the party that stood for equal rights and liberty for all men. The the religious zealots hijacked it and perverted it in to a shell of it's former existence. The GOP you know today is an authoritarian party. It is not the Republican party we once knew. Real Republicans are men like Barry Goldwater, champions of personal freedom and self-reliance.

And know this: Everything you've stated to be uniquely Republican was once, in very recent history, the domain of the Democratic party. Things change.

[Trunksee]

Nowhere. I was just wondering why if your statements on left-right differences are true that the left are now currently associated with advancing social freedom and the conservatives are not?

I think it has more to due with both parties extremes that throw people off. Im conservative on most things, except homosexual rights and drug laws, but i think its come down to ecconomics now for people selecting which party they arr. Im staunchly against socialism. Hense i lean to the right. I dont want to pay for someone elses mistakes and have to support them while i work and they dont. I enjoy my sense of protection by a strong military. Most conservatives arent even close to the extremist. I think thats most peoples problem. They only see the outliers and not the norm.

[Deleted]

Again, because the clergy stole our political party.

These things happen in Europe as well, by the way though not as prominently as it does in America.

What do you think is the affiliation of the clergy?

The civil rights movement happened literally less than 60 years ago. It baffles me that people have already forgotten that it was the Republican party who lead the initiative in Washington. The Republican party used to be the party that stood for equal rights and liberty for all men. The the religious zealots hijacked it and perverted it in to a shell of it's former existence. The GOP you know today is an authoritarian party. It is not the Republican party we once knew. Real Republicans are men like Barry Goldwater, champions of personal freedom and self-reliance.

And know this: Everything you've stated to be uniquely Republican was once, in very recent history, the domain of the Democratic party. Things change.

I know. I'm not talking about them though. You didn't mention Republican or Democrat you said left and right and you associated the left with wanting the government interwoven with people's lives and yet it seems far more common to have the left associated with advocating social liberty and the right not so much (barring libertarian movements). Have the definitions of left and right changed?

[Kalyyn]

These things happen in Europe as well, by the way though not as prominently as it does in America.

What do you think is the affiliation of the clergy?

The clergy serve their god. Or their idea of what god is. I was raised as a Christian and I can tell you that a lot of what they preach does not come from the Christian god. It comes from their own prejudices.

I know. I'm not talking about them though. You didn't mention Republican or Democrat you said left and right and you associated the left with wanting the government interwoven with people's lives and yet it seems far more common to have the left associated with advocating social liberty and the right not so much (barring libertarian movements). Have the definitions of left and right changed?

I don't think they've changed so much as they're just complicated. On the linear left to right scale, it's hard to figure out who stands where. In some places the Republicans are liberal, and in some the Democrats are conservative. It gets a bit crazy. However, if you use this scale:


Things become a lot more clear. I'm somewhere between a liberal democrat and a libertarian, depending on what day of the week it is. I value economic freedom and personal freedom. The clergy that we're speaking of are at best democratic republicans, and at worst fascists.

Now I just got called in to work, so I'll be back in a few hours. I love to continue this when I get back, though.

[Booshman]

You guys are both confusing conservatives with the clergy. The clergy have hijacked the GOP for their own purposes, but they are by no means conservative.

As for the the comment about minority rights, consider this: To a true conservative, there are no minorities. Everyone is a human and everyone is treated exactly the same. If you, as an individual, want to discriminate against a certain type of humans, then that's your business. The government will neither support nor stop you. The government only exists to maintain order, protect our borders, and represent our people to the world.

Now I'm a bit more moderate than that, so I'm in favor of some of these measures. Where I think it goes too far, however, is when the government tries to force people to like each other. For example, the idea of a "hate crime" offends me. A court should not try you for murdering a "black man", they should try you for murdering a human. That isn't freedom. It's babysitting.

All this belief does is say that "because conservatives don't like it" (debatable) that race and racism won't exist as concepts in society if they choose not to acknowledge it while the rest of us do. (They shouldn't, but they do.) Which is denying reality, for their crafted feel good version of it, because race often comes into play with many things. This belief is nothing more than escapism and lying to yourself and choosing cowardice; because instead of actually working to remove these labels, you just pretend that the current ones don't exist altogether.

[Trunksee]

All this belief does is say that "because conservatives don't like it" (debatable) that race and racism won't exist as concepts in society if they choose not to acknowledge it. Which is denying reality, for their crafted feel good version of it, because race often comes into play with many things. It's lying to yourself and choosing cowardice, because instead of actually working to remove these labels, they pretend that the current ones just don't exist altogether.

As long as people look or act different from one another you will never weed out predjudice. Its a fact that we attack the different always. Nerds vs jocks, black white, gay straight, the minority will always be shunned. You can try to sweep it under the rug with rules and regulations but it wont change. Id reather just deal with it as society sees fit.

[Booshman]

As long as people look or act different from one another you will never weed out predjudice. Its a fact that we attack the different always. Nerds vs jocks, black white, gay straight, the minority will always be shunned. You can try to sweep it under the rug with rules and regulations but it wont change. Id reather just deal with it as society sees fit.

Oh, I should have worded that better. I meant the stigma attached to those labels. Not the labeled themselves. Stigmas change more easily than labels.