The Real 'Far Right'

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, from a personal perspective - and this is gonna piss off and confuse pretty much everybody on here.... I don't see the DNC and the GOP as left or right... I see them both on the left side of the following line:

Totalitarianism...................................................................................................................Anarchy

If you were to put both parties somewhere along this line, both the DNC and the GOP would be "left" of center. Now, the problem that I really have is that the Founding Fathers (God Bless Them), wrote the Constitution to put us just on the safe side of anarchy.... Enough law and order to prevent chaos, but maximum freedom for the individual.

Contraversial, huh?

What??!!

lol, maybe you should read the instructions before you try out that thinking cap you apparently got for Christmas.

 

[L.K.Eder]

very high intelligence...................................................................................very stupid

where would you fall on this line, cally?

Well, I know where the dudes at MENSA put me. I guess I'm a far left radical after all!

it all depends on which arbitrary bullshit line you draw and you can put anyone anywhere, even anarchists on the extreme right.

 

[KYConservative]

very high intelligence...................................................................................very stupid

where would you fall on this line, cally?

You have the graph wrong! No worries, I'll correct it for you.

LEFT SIDE------------------------------------------------------------------ RIGHT SIDE
Very Stupid......................................-..........................................Very High Intelligence

 

[Truthmatters]

the far right can be seen on the Limbaugh thread were they are lying about people and defending a guy who played "Barack the magic Negro" on the air and thought it was great fun.

Our first black president is treated like this by the right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Well, I know where the dudes at MENSA put me. :

Are they good tippers?

 

[L.K.Eder]

very high intelligence...................................................................................very stupid

where would you fall on this line, cally?

You have the graph wrong! No worries, I'll correct it for you.

LEFT SIDE------------------------------------------------------------------ RIGHT SIDE
Very Stupid......................................-..........................................Very High Intelligence

clever, but it was my line, and i can decide how i design it to trap a vain phony prey.

 

[California Girl]

Actually, from a personal perspective - and this is gonna piss off and confuse pretty much everybody on here.... I don't see the DNC and the GOP as left or right... I see them both on the left side of the following line:

Totalitarianism...................................................................................................................Anarchy

If you were to put both parties somewhere along this line, both the DNC and the GOP would be "left" of center. Now, the problem that I really have is that the Founding Fathers (God Bless Them), wrote the Constitution to put us just on the safe side of anarchy.... Enough law and order to prevent chaos, but maximum freedom for the individual.

Contraversial, huh?

What??!!

lol, maybe you should read the instructions before you try out that thinking cap you apparently got for Christmas.

Which bit is too hard for you? One one extreme of the political spectrum is complete state control, on the other side is absolutely no law whatsoever. That's not hard. According to the Constitution, we are supposed to have minimal goverment control and maximum individual freedom - and responsibilty. Enough law to keep us from anarchy but that's about it.

Told ya it was contraversial. Didn't realize it was 'above your intellectual paygrade'.

 

[Dr.House]

Mud - I'm with you. Lumpy1 and I had this discussion about people in our real life. I have many Dem friends who share most of the same values as I but just have different ideas about how to achieve them. Its hard for me to imagine any terrorist sympathasizer or borderline communist eating lunch with normal co-workers or ever getting invited to a party. Do they just hang out on message boards and collect govt checks? I do not wish harm to anyone I disagree with either. However, wishing someone pain who just set his balls on fire in an attempt to blow up a plane, does not make one a "Nazi".There are posters on here that would rather see a radio host suffer than a terrorist. Reprehensible.

Actually, we'd like to see them both suffer.

And that's what makes you a far-left wackjob....

 

[Wry Catcher]

[
Well, I know where the dudes at MENSA put me. :

Are they good tippers?

lol (I actually did, glad I didn't have coffee in my mouth when I read your post)

 

[Bfgrn]

Dang it!!

Pick me, Pick me, Pick me!

I AM an "Radical Extremist Far -Right Winger" (according to some liberals anyway), I BELIEVE in the death and resurection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I believe every word of the Bible is inspired from God!

Do I qualify as "Radical Extremist Far -Right Winger"?

The bottom line is their are people in society that are lunatics, their mentally challenged and/or demonically controled that will murder others. Timothy McVeigh comes to mind, Uday Hussein, the 911 terrorist, and Jim Jones are ALL MURDERS.

People attempt to put labels on these people equating them to whatever group is in opposition the ones own ideology, be they liberal minded or conservative minded.

My personal opinion we have conservatives, centrist aka moderates, and liberals defined as:

CONSERVATIVES - believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.
Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

LIBERALS - believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.
Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people's problems.

CENTRIST/MODERATES - believes that parts of both sides are correct however most centrist/ moderates don't agree on which parts. They seek a middle road between liberal and conservative and frequently change opinions based upon which side is publically louder. Centrist/moderates desire to be on the "winning" side regardless of principles.

Everyone falls into one of the three catagories, in some way.

I am a liberal that is a Christian. I was raised Catholic and witnessed first hand the Catholic Church's form of authoritarianism. It motivated me to became an Episcopalian, which offers a mix of Catholic tradition and Protestant tradition.

I can agree with much of your categorization, but one paramount priority that was also Jesus' was empathy and caring about His children or our fellow man... I really don't see much empathy or caring from today's right. There are too many authoritarian personalities in the Republican Party today.

Read up on The Family...Sen. Ensign, Coburn, DeMint, Inhofe, Thune etc... The Family likes to call itself a "Christian Mafia"... they believe they are 'chosen' Christians that were picked to lead the little sheep (you and me). Their heroes are despots. Douglas Coe is the reclusive leader and "first brother" of The Fellowship also known as The Family.

Coe offers Pol Pot and Osama bin Laden as men whose commitment to their causes is to be emulated. Preaching on the meaning of Christ's words, he says, "You know Jesus said 'You got to put Him before mother-father-brother sister? Hitler, Lenin, Mao, that's what they taught the kids. Mao even had the kids killing their own mother and father. But it wasn't murder. It was for building the new nation. The new kingdom."

 

[California Girl]

very high intelligence...................................................................................very stupid

where would you fall on this line, cally?

You have the graph wrong! No worries, I'll correct it for you.

LEFT SIDE------------------------------------------------------------------ RIGHT SIDE
Very Stupid......................................-..........................................Very High Intelligence

clever, but it was my line, and i can decide how i design it to trap a vain phony prey.

The words 'EPIC FAIL' will not be foreign to you, I suspect. You're such a whiny liberal. I don't mind liberals, it's the whining I dislike.

 

[L.K.Eder]

You have the graph wrong! No worries, I'll correct it for you.

LEFT SIDE------------------------------------------------------------------ RIGHT SIDE
Very Stupid......................................-..........................................Very High Intelligence

clever, but it was my line, and i can decide how i design it to trap a vain phony prey.

The words 'EPIC FAIL' will not be foreign to you, I suspect. You're such a whiny liberal. I don't mind liberals, it's the whining I dislike.

your post makes even less sense than your other posts. but it makes a whining sound.

 

[Dr.House]

Except for the fact that there are groups that are actively promoting secession. It's not a large group, but it is a very vocal one.

Talk is cheap... I don't see any of them putting their words into actions, do you?...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dang it!!

Pick me, Pick me, Pick me!

I AM an "Radical Extremist Far -Right Winger" (according to some liberals anyway), I BELIEVE in the death and resurection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I believe every word of the Bible is inspired from God!

Do I qualify as "Radical Extremist Far -Right Winger"?

The bottom line is their are people in society that are lunatics, their mentally challenged and/or demonically controled that will murder others. Timothy McVeigh comes to mind, Uday Hussein, the 911 terrorist, and Jim Jones are ALL MURDERS.

People attempt to put labels on these people equating them to whatever group is in opposition the ones own ideology, be they liberal minded or conservative minded.

My personal opinion we have conservatives, centrist aka moderates, and liberals defined as:

CONSERVATIVES - believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.
Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

LIBERALS - believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.
Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people's problems.

CENTRIST/MODERATES - believes that parts of both sides are correct however most centrist/ moderates don't agree on which parts. They seek a middle road between liberal and conservative and frequently change opinions based upon which side is publically louder. Centrist/moderates desire to be on the "winning" side regardless of principles.

Everyone falls into one of the three catagories, in some way.

Start by naming conservatives. A couple of names will suffice with a bit of historical evidence showing how s/he/they governed within the scope of your definition.
Next, who are the liberals. Please provide the same evidence.
And, finally, the C/M's - who are they and what have they done?

Your definitions are an attempt to define people in terms of ideological archetypes - real people don't fit so well into such boxes.

 

[Vast LWC]

The words 'EPIC FAIL' will not be foreign to you, I suspect. You're such a whiny liberal. I don't mind liberals, it's the whining I dislike.

Hmm, I wonder if California Girl has me on Iggie?

LOL.

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually, from a personal perspective - and this is gonna piss off and confuse pretty much everybody on here.... I don't see the DNC and the GOP as left or right... I see them both on the left side of the following line:

Totalitarianism...................................................................................................................Anarchy

If you were to put both parties somewhere along this line, both the DNC and the GOP would be "left" of center. Now, the problem that I really have is that the Founding Fathers (God Bless Them), wrote the Constitution to put us just on the safe side of anarchy.... Enough law and order to prevent chaos, but maximum freedom for the individual.

Contraversial, huh?

What??!!

lol, maybe you should read the instructions before you try out that thinking cap you apparently got for Christmas.

Which bit is too hard for you? One one extreme of the political spectrum is complete state control, on the other side is absolutely no law whatsoever. That's not hard. According to the Constitution, we are supposed to have minimal goverment control and maximum individual freedom - and responsibilty. Enough law to keep us from anarchy but that's about it.

Told ya it was contraversial. Didn't realize it was 'above your intellectual paygrade'.

Is understanding the ramifications of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) and the fact it is the antithesis of the views of our founders 'above your intellectual pay-grade'.

 

[nodoginnafight]

What??!!

lol, maybe you should read the instructions before you try out that thinking cap you apparently got for Christmas.

Which bit is too hard for you? One one extreme of the political spectrum is complete state control, on the other side is absolutely no law whatsoever. That's not hard. According to the Constitution, we are supposed to have minimal goverment control and maximum individual freedom - and responsibilty. Enough law to keep us from anarchy but that's about it.

Told ya it was contraversial. Didn't realize it was 'above your intellectual paygrade'.

Is understanding the ramifications of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) and the fact it is the antithesis of the views of our founders 'above your intellectual pay-grade'.

Translation: If you don't buy into what I was told to believe about this particular case AND what I believe to have been the intent of "our founders", then you are stupid.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Bfgrn]

Which bit is too hard for you? One one extreme of the political spectrum is complete state control, on the other side is absolutely no law whatsoever. That's not hard. According to the Constitution, we are supposed to have minimal goverment control and maximum individual freedom - and responsibilty. Enough law to keep us from anarchy but that's about it.

Told ya it was contraversial. Didn't realize it was 'above your intellectual paygrade'.

Is understanding the ramifications of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) and the fact it is the antithesis of the views of our founders 'above your intellectual pay-grade'.

Translation: If you don't buy into what I was told to believe about this particular case AND what I believe to have been the intent of "our founders", then you are stupid.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Really? It's not arbitrary, it's called history, ever hear of it? Tell me when I get to a part that resembles today's corporations, OK?

A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people.

Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process.

Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years.

But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge.

And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Is understanding the ramifications of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) and the fact it is the antithesis of the views of our founders 'above your intellectual pay-grade'.

Translation: If you don't buy into what I was told to believe about this particular case AND what I believe to have been the intent of "our founders", then you are stupid.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Really? It's not arbitrary, it's called history, ever hear of it? Tell me when I get to a part that resembles today's corporations, OK?

A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people.

Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process.

Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years.

But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge.

And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

When you stop posting someone's opinion on history (just because you happen to agree with the opinion doesn't magically transform that opinion into historical fact) and claiming it is historical fact ... then I'll comment. Until then, I'll just keep disagreeing with your opinion.

 

[nodoginnafight]

But I do agree with the opinion that corporate participation in the political process is a mistake.