All Evil is on the Left

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I can't help but feel a bit relieved that some thinkers remain on the right.

Unfortunately after reading your post and the OP's post it's very evident that you and Sociopath aren't among them.

:laugh:

Well, Socio has proven to be an ideological hack from day one, but I wouldn't give up on Atreus so fast. He couldn't have been thinking straight when he posted that, and I've been guilty of posting without completely thinking things through either, or muddling my words so that someone utterly misunderstands me.

Anyhow .. great post though, I lol'ed. :light:

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Socio
This is a real good article that goes into some historical detail about the true Left and the ?mythical? far right in the US.

With the relentless, far more often unfounded than not Right bashing going on this might offer some insight as to what it really means to be Left and what it really means to be Right, which just might wake some people up around here;

All Evil is on the Left

Some snipits;

When men like Senator McCain, who I give the benefit of doubt in his moral seriousness, seeks a moderate position, when anyone seeks the ?middle ground? in political debate, it is clear that the old bogeyman of evil on the ?Far Right? and evil on the ?Far Left? has enthralled them.

Let us be clear at the outset: there is no ?Far Right? at all. Those handful of nutty and dangerous separatist groups have no connection with what are called conservatives at all. They resemble, in fact, much more the very real Far Left. Recall that Jim Jones, the suicide-murderer minister, was a radical Leftist who supported ?social justice? and Democrat politics before he convinced his Jonestown thralls to drink poison Kool-Aid.

In politics, there is some goodness on what we call the Left; there is some goodness on what we call the Right; but there is no evil on the Right: all evil is on the Left. Before delving into the historical basis for this position, consider today what the Right and Left are supposed to represent. The Right is accused, essentially, of doing little or nothing about our social and economic problems. Those on the mythical Right are not accused of trying to impose enslavement on others ? Leftism, and Marxism, simply assume that in the absence of government such enslavement will occur in free markets. The position of the mythical Right represents the first rule of medicine: First, do no harm.

Racism was opposed in America by the Republican Party, which was expressly founded upon the rights of blacks not only to freedom but to equality.

Who, then, supported racism in America? The Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party in the post-bellum South. Their outrages were not committed so much against blacks as against Republicans, both black and white.

Reading through this article unless you are in complete denial it is not hard to put into perspective that there really is no "Far Right", the Right are not "monsters?, and the Left historically have serious issues.

Something perhaps for those on the Left to remember the next time you want to bash the Right

I see you have found a site where the people not only think their shit don't stink, but use it to write their manifesto on the bathroom wall. Better find a site that won't feed your biasses.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Socio

With the relentless, far more often unfounded than not Right bashing going on...

At the risk of sounding repetitious, how does any rational American NOT bash the traitorous, murdering jackasses who gave us a war based entirely on lies that, as of 6/16/2008 has killed 4,101 American troops and wounded tens of thousands more and has shredded the Constitutional rights of every American citizen and committed torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity in pursuit of that war and publicly humiliated our nation in the eyes of the world?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

How is McCain telling gays that they can't marry and telling women that they can't have an abortion seeking a moderate position?

McCain's gay marriage concern seems justified... isn't it obvious that for every Californian gay couple that gets married, God floods another midwestern town?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: bamacre
Looking at other articles and op-eds on that website, I'm not surprised by the OP. In one article, they called Ron Paul a left-winger.

I hate to refer to someone's 'level of ignorance' but a fair number of uniformed right-wing loons consider libertarians as leftists. Goes to show they are all about the personal attack as opposed to the substance of the debate.

Take away the anger, personal attacks, misdirection and obfuscation of the right and all you are left with is an empty suit which panders to the lowest common denominator - fear.

All authoritarian ideologies, right or left, use fear as their primary motivator and propaganda tool. If an ideological agenda tells you to be fearful, to hate some group, and to be pessimistic, then you are being manipulated by authoritarianism. It's how they get you to buy what they're selling, for lack of a better way to put it. Even Socio isn't so stupid as to give up his rights for nothing, but he will easily if he can made to believe that they are being threatened.
It seems ironic, but it's why Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

And BTW, libertarianism is neither a rightist or leftist ideology, but can be either. Authoritarianism is the same way.


edit: and the argument that the KKK were leftists because they were the terrorist wing of the Democratic party 140 years ago is about as stupid as I have ever read anywhere. Do those authors ever know how right wing and left wing is defined? The Dems were the right wing party back then, and the Republicans were the fire-breathing progressive lefties.

 

[Arkaign]

Good post Vic, and with that, I think this flamebait thread needs a lock. There's absolutely zero logic to this ridiculous notion of all evil being on the left (or the right).

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: bamacre
Looking at other articles and op-eds on that website, I'm not surprised by the OP. In one article, they called Ron Paul a left-winger.

I hate to refer to someone's 'level of ignorance' but a fair number of uniformed right-wing loons consider libertarians as leftists. Goes to show they are all about the personal attack as opposed to the substance of the debate.

Take away the anger, personal attacks, misdirection and obfuscation of the right and all you are left with is an empty suit which panders to the lowest common denominator - fear.

All authoritarian ideologies, right or left, use fear as their primary motivator and propaganda tool. If an ideological agenda tells you to be fearful, to hate some group, and to be pessimistic, then you are being manipulated by authoritarianism. It's how they get you to buy what they're selling, for lack of a better way to put it. Even Socio isn't so stupid as to give up his rights for nothing, but he will easily if he can made to believe that they are being threatened.
It seems ironic, but it's why Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

And BTW, libertarianism is neither a rightist or leftist ideology, but can be either. Authoritarianism is the same way.


edit: and the argument that the KKK were leftists because they were the terrorist wing of the Democratic party 140 years ago is about as stupid as I have ever read anywhere. Do those authors ever know how right wing and left wing is defined? The Dems were the right wing party back then, and the Republicans were the fire-breathing progressive lefties.

Great post. Hopefully, the OP read it. For his sake at least.

 

[JD50]

Looks like Socio is Craigs alter ego.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JD50
Looks like Socio is Craigs alter ego.

Hardly, but he's your twin.

These amateurish polemics (still far above JD50 posts) are notable for their embarrassing overstepping, such as the KKK smear on Truman, without mention of Truman's courageous efforts at times for advancing black rights, from the integration of the military (over the same objections we hear today about gays in the military), to his aggressively appointing the first black federal district judge, with a recess appointment to overcome southern opposition.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The article in the OP is so full of distortions, half-truths, and outright lies, that I would find it laughable, except that it appears that there are people that would believe it.

My guess is that such BS writing only seems plausible to those who are ignorant of history and too lazy to actually learn on their own. Anyone who excepts the content of the article as valid shines a glaring light on their ignorance.

 

[BoberFett]

Is the OP serious?

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Deeko
haha this has to be the biggest flamebait thread I've ever seen.

Ah, then may I direct you to almost any post by Techs (though this is flamebait )

 

[m1ldslide1]

Well, if the goal of this thread was to make the other conservative posters seem rational and fair-minded, good job Socio. This is the most retarded thing I've seen since Rachel Ray's scarf.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The article in the OP is so full of distortions, half-truths, and outright lies, that I would find it laughable, except that it appears that there are people that would believe it.

My guess is that such BS writing only seems plausible to those who are ignorant of history and too lazy to actually learn on their own. Anyone who excepts the content of the article as valid shines a glaring light on their ignorance.

Oh come on!

I have read it though twice and while you could argue a couple of possible historical inconsistencies, or even some semantics of the article whether you like it or not the author does provide a both strong and compelling case for his/her position regarding the history of the Left. I mean you would have to be pretty fraught with denial not to concede that many points she/he makes are indeed valid.


I like this part best;

What is true about American politics is just as true about world politics. If the Far Right did not exist, if liberty was not extremism at all, if a private commitment to genuine Judeo-Christian moral traditions is the best choice a morally serious person can make, then all evil would reside on the Far Left. The mythical Far Right would be the rhetorical equivalent of Kulaks in Stalinist Russia or Jews in Hitlerite Germany ? an innocent scapegoat; an illusionary enemy of the people; a needed sham.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Socio
Oh come on!

I have read it though twice and while you could argue a couple of possible historical inconsistencies, or even some semantics of the article whether you like it or not the author does provide a both strong and compelling case for his/her position regarding the history of the Left. I mean you would have to be pretty fraught with denial not to concede that many points she/he makes are indeed valid.


I like this part best;

What is true about American politics is just as true about world politics. If the Far Right did not exist, if liberty was not extremism at all, if a private commitment to genuine Judeo-Christian moral traditions is the best choice a morally serious person can make, then all evil would reside on the Far Left. The mythical Far Right would be the rhetorical equivalent of Kulaks in Stalinist Russia or Jews in Hitlerite Germany ? an innocent scapegoat; an illusionary enemy of the people; a needed sham.

This is your brain on drugs.

Any questions?

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: bamacre
Looking at other articles and op-eds on that website, I'm not surprised by the OP. In one article, they called Ron Paul a left-winger.

I hate to refer to someone's 'level of ignorance' but a fair number of uniformed right-wing loons consider libertarians as leftists. Goes to show they are all about the personal attack as opposed to the substance of the debate.

Take away the anger, personal attacks, misdirection and obfuscation of the right and all you are left with is an empty suit which panders to the lowest common denominator - fear.

For the record, there's a fair number of uniformed left-wing loons that consider moderates to be neocons. The door swings both ways.

QFT.

If I had a dollar for everytime I got that label around here then I'd pay for Iraq or something.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

How is McCain telling gays that they can't marry and telling women that they can't have an abortion seeking a moderate position?

McCain's gay marriage concern seems justified... isn't it obvious that for every Californian gay couple that gets married, God floods another midwestern town?

Why do we let them re-build, again? God will merely flood them again until gay marriage is abolished, right?

 

[miketheidiot]

roflcoptor

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Deeko
haha this has to be the biggest flamebait thread I've ever seen.

Ah, then may I direct you to almost any post by Techs (though this is flamebait )

this would be bad even for the most outrageous liberals around here.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The article in the OP is so full of distortions, half-truths, and outright lies, that I would find it laughable, except that it appears that there are people that would believe it.

My guess is that such BS writing only seems plausible to those who are ignorant of history and too lazy to actually learn on their own. Anyone who excepts the content of the article as valid shines a glaring light on their ignorance.

Oh come on!

I have read it though twice and while you could argue a couple of possible historical inconsistencies, or even some semantics of the article whether you like it or not the author does provide a both strong and compelling case for his/her position regarding the history of the Left. I mean you would have to be pretty fraught with denial not to concede that many points she/he makes are indeed valid.


I like this part best;

What is true about American politics is just as true about world politics. If the Far Right did not exist, if liberty was not extremism at all, if a private commitment to genuine Judeo-Christian moral traditions is the best choice a morally serious person can make, then all evil would reside on the Far Left. The mythical Far Right would be the rhetorical equivalent of Kulaks in Stalinist Russia or Jews in Hitlerite Germany ? an innocent scapegoat; an illusionary enemy of the people; a needed sham.

a couple historical inconsistancies, you mean like the entire article? Thats ignoring the relentless logical fallacies as well.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Deeko
haha this has to be the biggest flamebait thread I've ever seen.

169 days out

Get ready for a whole lot more

 

[Martin]

Yes, that is a marvellous article, only evil people could argue otherwise.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The mention of "Judeo-Christian moral traditions" by Socio is some kind of joke right? After all, Jesus was pretty far left by any measure.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Martin
Yes, that is a marvellous article, only evil people could argue otherwise.

:laugh: Perfect.