There Is No "Far Right" In This Country

[flacaltenn]

The closest to a FAR right we've had in this country would be Pat Robertson running for Prez..

You must have forgotten Barry Goldwater or you're rather young! He was FAR RIGHT. The John Birch Society nominated that jackass for the presidency in 1964 and he ran against another jackass, LBJ!

No, Pat Robertson wasn't the only far right or the farthest right conservative candidate ever.

See: Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me - Commentary Magazine, William F. Buckley Jr.

Goldwater was a staunch anti-communist and actually Buckley went on in that article to laud him for that principled position. Goldwater was actually also a small government liberal when you come down to classifications. No where near an authoritarian on social issues.

SURE!

Obviously the Birchers didn't think so. I was growing up during time in my late teens. I think it absurd to consider Goldwater any sort of "small guv'mint liberal" (a contradiction in terms) since he wanted to repeal the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and significantly increase the size of our nuclear arsenal and grow the military industrial complex. He goal was to rid the world of the USSR! Would a "small guv'mint liberal" (again, a contradiction in terms) set that as a goal? Really?

And your 2nd misconception is that "small guvmint libural" is a contradiction in terms. That's the bulk of American voters actually. And it's ME in particular. And if you read my comments above on trying to smoke out the left/right wingers on a ONE DIMENSIONAL linechart that goes from Stalin to Hitler -- you're never getting your head above the weeds far enough to SEE the "radicals"... There are at LEAST 4 different classes of radicals. NOT just far right and far left..

 

[LeftofLeft]

The Left conjures and perpetuates myths about the Right. Take for example, The Tea Party. The Left will have you believe that The Tea Party is a threat. When their own brethren take up in Occupy and murder and rape occur, the Left tells us that we need to listen to the occupiers yet they cannot point to rapes and murders at Tea Party events.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Other than PC and Kosh, did we find anyone who thinks there's no such thing as the far right?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Other than PC and Kosh, did we find anyone who thinks there's no such thing as the far right?

Bernie Sanders is Far Left. You lose no matter how you defend that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Other than PC and Kosh, did we find anyone who thinks there's no such thing as the far right?

Bernie Sanders is Far Left. You lose no matter how you defend that.

And where do you put yourself on the political spectrum?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The closest to a FAR right we've had in this country would be Pat Robertson running for Prez..

You must have forgotten Barry Goldwater or you're rather young! He was FAR RIGHT. The John Birch Society nominated that jackass for the presidency in 1964 and he ran against another jackass, LBJ!

No, Pat Robertson wasn't the only far right or the farthest right conservative candidate ever.

See: Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me - Commentary Magazine, William F. Buckley Jr.

Really, you dope?

Let me smash another custard pie in you ugly kisser:

There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important when dealing with Leftists, Liberals.....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.

To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.


The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."



"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)

Let's see you come up with any radical positions by the individuals you've tried to smear.


Waiting.

William F. Buckley Jr, one to the founders of the "Conservative Movement" of today before whom you genuflect at their alter, came out and wrote this just before his death, "But it was inconceivable that an anti-establishment gadfly like Goldwater could be nominated as the spokesman-head of a political party. And it was embarrassing that the only political organization in town that dared suggest this radical proposal—the GOP’s nominating Goldwater for President—was the John Birch Society." < Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me - Commentary Magazine >

Clearly, Goldwater was a FAR RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE. Here is a LBJ TV ad from the 1964 election opposing Goldwater's desire to repeal and not replace the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Goldwater lost that election receiving less that 39% of the popular vote carrying only the five "Solid South" states and Arizona. The Nation was tired of the FAR RIGHT's desire to win the "Arms Race".


Your artificial construct that no far right exists was blown to bits in my post #649 on page 65, to which your didn't respond. You make an argument that defies logic, and the ONLY conclusion a reasonable person can draw from your contrived artifice is that conservatives are a monolithic block similar to your perfect "Soviet Man" you referenced earlier.

If there are only 10 conservative leaning persons represented within a given political spectrum and the same number of less conservative leaning persons in the data group, which group is further to the right within the data sample? Since there is a distribution along a statistical line measuring degree of conservative inclination there MUST be at least one data point of the 20 which holds the place farthest to the right; the conservative(s) of the FAR RIGHT!

Given that holds true with a data set of 20, it would hold true for a set of 20 million or even more. Now add those who are left leaning to the data set and there is a full spectrum of the population represented by their political leanings by degree of neutral to left and neutral to right. On the right of the plot, some will be further right than others, therefore those to the extreme right, would be by definition, the FAR RIGHT, and would have been a likely Goldwater voter in 1964.

Since you ignored my post #649 that addressed your fallacy, I'll repost it here so you won't be able to dodge it again:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposition, vis-à-vis the political spectrum, that the far right of that political thought is void of all data points (conservatives) is a fallacy of an argument from ignorance. That type of argument is an assertion that X is true or false because it hasn't be proven.

So if there is only a SINGLE far right wacko, the proposition fails, is invalid, is a crackpot notion hatched by a far right wing propagandist. A statistical distribution of the data spectrum would provide the truth if all the data were collected, But a distribution with an effective step increase at the right extreme of the graph doesn't fly! Natural step increases do not and cannot occur in nature. Star Trek science doesn't work here as Einstein and others have proven, especially beyond the quantum level. Hell, Chica's bit on the Soviet Man explains why it is near impossible to herd cats, but she sees conservatives as a monolithic block. That's far from insightful.

To give a few examples of a sampling of conservatives is not proof for the argument because a few examples are not inclusive of ALL the data. For instance, the far right wing Ammon Bundy insurrectionists unlawfully occupying that Oregon wildlife refuge is enough to put the proposition there are no far right wing conservatives in the toilet. Nuff said!

Actually you fail on some comprehension issues. Buckley did not deride Goldwater for "being too far right".. He derided him because he was not a "loyal establishment" candidate. And BUCKLEY saw himself as a gate-keeper to the GOP at that time. Buckley went on in that article to PRAISE his hard line on USSR and anti-communism. That's NOT a token of being "far right" today.

Second misconception you have is that the political spectrum is ONE DIMENSIONAL. And that every politician that ever existed fits on a simple model of a LEFT - RIGHT line. YET --- I can point out at least TWO dimensions that separate politicians on a valuable scale of freedom... Axis 1 is the Economic scale where a politician views govt intervention in economic which affect personal freedom to choose on the marketplace and take financial risk. Axis 2 is the SOCIAL scale of freedom where politicians choose to interfere with all personal SOCIAL choices. You can have AUTHORITARIAN far leftists/rightists on Social issues that are freedom loving limited government advocates. OR you can AUTHORITARIANS trying to use the power of state to stunt economic freedom as in Socialists on the left -- or National Socialists (Nazis) on the right.

So ponder this. There are very few politicians that are RADICALLY FOR both economic and social freedom from govt intervention.. However, they make up a LARGE fraction of the electorate. Where are the middle ground representing them?

When you try to fit the "radical extremes" to this simple ass failed single axis scale -- the discussion just never goes anywhere. Because you can't even REPRESENT majority views of the public on that scale. That's why you flail away at "mean values" and who is the "median" candidates. And never really understand the MANY TYPES of wingers that are out there..

The comprehension issues are yours not mine. First, reread the Buckley quote I cited and note that its scope was very narrow and certainly no where near as expansive as you characterize it. Calling someone an anti-establishment gadfly is NOT PRAISE and being a gadfly may clearly imply, "...he was not a "loyal establishment" candidate". The point was Goldwater was so significantly aligned philosophically with the FAR RIGHT, like the Birchers.

As to you second misconception, who ever implied the political spectrum was ONE DIMENTIONAL? It certainly wasn't me, so that would leave your own comprehension of the defining words of spectrum, plot, degree, numbers, statistical, DISTRIBUTION, et al, it question. A distribution plot of degree on the X axis and distribution on the Y axis yields a statistical plot. I see that math and logic are not your strong suits!

So ponder this. There are very few politicians that are RADICALLY FOR both economic and social freedom from govt intervention.. However, they make up a LARGE fraction of the electorate. Where are the middle ground representing them?

There's nothing to ponder! One establishes the actual criteria to be examined, applies that criteria during the data gathering process, compiles the data and then plots the data to display the distribution of it. And the data would be displayed on a 2 axis graph of degree(X) vs. distribution (Y).

When you try to fit the "radical extremes" to this simple ass failed single axis scale -- the discussion just never goes anywhere. Because you can't even REPRESENT majority views of the public on that scale. That's why you flail away at "mean values" and who is the "median" candidates. And never really understand the MANY TYPES of wingers that are out there..

It really would have been better if you had comprehended what I wrote rather than derive the erroneously conclusion that ANYONE would could produce a single axis plot without a second axis to define each X/Y intercept, you know, the data!!!!

As to the other three post you queued up, they appear to be more of the same, so I'm not going to waste my time with someone who desires only to try sharp shooting with wet powder.

 

[Dragonlady]

I have noticed the bed wetters have almost entirely stopped making NAZI references towards conservatives, because the argument that the National Socialist Workers Party platform is far more like the DNC than anything a conservative would endorse has won.

On top of it, the moonbats are getting more antisemitic every day.

Conservatives keep trying to deny the Nazis are conservatives but that won't fly. Liberals don't compare conservatives to Hitlet because references and comparisons to Hitler are false, unless genocide is involved.

Conservatives are always seeking to claim liberals they like and deny extreme right wing atrocities were committed by conservatives.

Hitler was a right wing loony, as are Cruz, Santorum, Huckaby, and many of the posters here.

Even the Democrats, who many here castigate as "commies" are much further to the right than our Conservatives.

If you think being "far right" is a bad thing, perhaps you'd better take a close look at what constitutes right wing.

"Hitler was a right wing loony, as are Cruz, Santorum, Huckaby, and many of the posters here."

Hitler was Leftist, as much as Stalin.
Both learned at the feet of Karl Marx.


Watch me smash a custard pie in your kisser:


"Hitler and the socialist dream

He declared that 'national socialism was based on Marx' Socialists have always disowned him. But a new book insists that he was, at heart, a left-winger

. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit".

German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.

.....; though even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race - implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative. Without race, he went on, National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". Marxism was internationalist. The proletariat, as the famous slogan goes, has no fatherland. Hitler had a fatherland, and it was everything to him.

Yet privately, and perhaps even publicly, he conceded that National Socialism was based on Marx. On reflection, it makes consistent sense. The basis of a dogma is not the dogma, much as the foundation of a building is not the building, and in numerous ways National Socialism was based on Marxism." Hitler and the socialist dream



Pity you have no education, huh?
That's why you fall for every Leftist lie.

Lord but your education is limited. Hitler completely disavowed socialism, and only retained the National Socialist Party moniker on the advice of Goebbels who felt it necessary to the continued support of the working people.

 

[flacaltenn]

The closest to a FAR right we've had in this country would be Pat Robertson running for Prez..

You must have forgotten Barry Goldwater or you're rather young! He was FAR RIGHT. The John Birch Society nominated that jackass for the presidency in 1964 and he ran against another jackass, LBJ!

No, Pat Robertson wasn't the only far right or the farthest right conservative candidate ever.

See: Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me - Commentary Magazine, William F. Buckley Jr.

Really, you dope?

Let me smash another custard pie in you ugly kisser:

There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important when dealing with Leftists, Liberals.....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.

To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.


The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."



"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)

Let's see you come up with any radical positions by the individuals you've tried to smear.


Waiting.

William F. Buckley Jr, one to the founders of the "Conservative Movement" of today before whom you genuflect at their alter, came out and wrote this just before his death, "But it was inconceivable that an anti-establishment gadfly like Goldwater could be nominated as the spokesman-head of a political party. And it was embarrassing that the only political organization in town that dared suggest this radical proposal—the GOP’s nominating Goldwater for President—was the John Birch Society." < Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me - Commentary Magazine >

Clearly, Goldwater was a FAR RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE. Here is a LBJ TV ad from the 1964 election opposing Goldwater's desire to repeal and not replace the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Goldwater lost that election receiving less that 39% of the popular vote carrying only the five "Solid South" states and Arizona. The Nation was tired of the FAR RIGHT's desire to win the "Arms Race".


Your artificial construct that no far right exists was blown to bits in my post #649 on page 65, to which your didn't respond. You make an argument that defies logic, and the ONLY conclusion a reasonable person can draw from your contrived artifice is that conservatives are a monolithic block similar to your perfect "Soviet Man" you referenced earlier.

If there are only 10 conservative leaning persons represented within a given political spectrum and the same number of less conservative leaning persons in the data group, which group is further to the right within the data sample? Since there is a distribution along a statistical line measuring degree of conservative inclination there MUST be at least one data point of the 20 which holds the place farthest to the right; the conservative(s) of the FAR RIGHT!

Given that holds true with a data set of 20, it would hold true for a set of 20 million or even more. Now add those who are left leaning to the data set and there is a full spectrum of the population represented by their political leanings by degree of neutral to left and neutral to right. On the right of the plot, some will be further right than others, therefore those to the extreme right, would be by definition, the FAR RIGHT, and would have been a likely Goldwater voter in 1964.

Since you ignored my post #649 that addressed your fallacy, I'll repost it here so you won't be able to dodge it again:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposition, vis-à-vis the political spectrum, that the far right of that political thought is void of all data points (conservatives) is a fallacy of an argument from ignorance. That type of argument is an assertion that X is true or false because it hasn't be proven.

So if there is only a SINGLE far right wacko, the proposition fails, is invalid, is a crackpot notion hatched by a far right wing propagandist. A statistical distribution of the data spectrum would provide the truth if all the data were collected, But a distribution with an effective step increase at the right extreme of the graph doesn't fly! Natural step increases do not and cannot occur in nature. Star Trek science doesn't work here as Einstein and others have proven, especially beyond the quantum level. Hell, Chica's bit on the Soviet Man explains why it is near impossible to herd cats, but she sees conservatives as a monolithic block. That's far from insightful.

To give a few examples of a sampling of conservatives is not proof for the argument because a few examples are not inclusive of ALL the data. For instance, the far right wing Ammon Bundy insurrectionists unlawfully occupying that Oregon wildlife refuge is enough to put the proposition there are no far right wing conservatives in the toilet. Nuff said!

Actually you fail on some comprehension issues. Buckley did not deride Goldwater for "being too far right".. He derided him because he was not a "loyal establishment" candidate. And BUCKLEY saw himself as a gate-keeper to the GOP at that time. Buckley went on in that article to PRAISE his hard line on USSR and anti-communism. That's NOT a token of being "far right" today.

Second misconception you have is that the political spectrum is ONE DIMENSIONAL. And that every politician that ever existed fits on a simple model of a LEFT - RIGHT line. YET --- I can point out at least TWO dimensions that separate politicians on a valuable scale of freedom... Axis 1 is the Economic scale where a politician views govt intervention in economic which affect personal freedom to choose on the marketplace and take financial risk. Axis 2 is the SOCIAL scale of freedom where politicians choose to interfere with all personal SOCIAL choices. You can have AUTHORITARIAN far leftists/rightists on Social issues that are freedom loving limited government advocates. OR you can AUTHORITARIANS trying to use the power of state to stunt economic freedom as in Socialists on the left -- or National Socialists (Nazis) on the right.

So ponder this. There are very few politicians that are RADICALLY FOR both economic and social freedom from govt intervention.. However, they make up a LARGE fraction of the electorate. Where are the middle ground representing them?

When you try to fit the "radical extremes" to this simple ass failed single axis scale -- the discussion just never goes anywhere. Because you can't even REPRESENT majority views of the public on that scale. That's why you flail away at "mean values" and who is the "median" candidates. And never really understand the MANY TYPES of wingers that are out there..

The comprehension issues are yours not mine. First, reread the Buckley quote I cited and note that its scope was very narrow and certainly no where near as expansive as you characterize it. Calling someone an anti-establishment gadfly is NOT PRAISE and being a gadfly may clearly imply, "...he was not a "loyal establishment" candidate". The point was Goldwater was so significantly aligned philosophically with the FAR RIGHT, like the Birchers.

As to you second misconception, who ever implied the political spectrum was ONE DIMENTIONAL? It certainly wasn't me, so that would leave your own comprehension of the defining words of spectrum, plot, degree, numbers, statistical, DISTRIBUTION, et al, it question. A distribution plot of degree on the X axis and distribution on the Y axis yields a statistical plot. I see that math and logic are not your strong suits!

So ponder this. There are very few politicians that are RADICALLY FOR both economic and social freedom from govt intervention.. However, they make up a LARGE fraction of the electorate. Where are the middle ground representing them?

There's nothing to ponder! One establishes the actual criteria to be examined, applies that criteria during the data gathering process, compiles the data and then plots the data to display the distribution of it. And the data would be displayed on a 2 axis graph of degree(X) vs. distribution (Y).

When you try to fit the "radical extremes" to this simple ass failed single axis scale -- the discussion just never goes anywhere. Because you can't even REPRESENT majority views of the public on that scale. That's why you flail away at "mean values" and who is the "median" candidates. And never really understand the MANY TYPES of wingers that are out there..

It really would have been better if you had comprehended what I wrote rather than derive the erroneously conclusion that ANYONE would could produce a single axis plot without a second axis to define each X/Y intercept, you know, the data!!!!

As to the other three post you queued up, they appear to be more of the same, so I'm not going to waste my time with someone who desires only to try sharp shooting with wet powder.

Au contraire.. My career is in math and science and engineering.. So when I saw you struggling with trying to find the mean political philosophy on a one dimensional array of

If there are only 10 conservative leaning persons represented within a given political spectrum and the same number of less conservative leaning persons in the data group, which group is further to the right within the data sample? Since there is a distribution along a statistical line measuring degree of conservative inclination there MUST be at least one data point of the 20 which holds the place farthest to the right; the conservative(s) of the FAR RIGHT!

....... I thought I'd step in help you set up the problem with more chance of success.

My other question is -- did you ever read MORE of that Buckley than you quoted -- because it appears you didn't.. Farther on Buckley outlines the agreement he GOT with Goldwater to alienate the John Birchers from his campaign...

OP CIT

In response, National Review received the explicit endorsement of Senator Goldwater himself, who wrote a letter we published in the following issue:

I think you have clearly stated the problem which Mr. Welch’s continued leadership of the John Birch Society poses for sincere conservatives. . . . Mr. Welch is only one man, and I do not believe his views, far removed from reality and common sense as they are, represent the feelings of most members of the John Birch Society. . . . Because of this, I believe the best thing Mr. Welch could do to serve the cause of anti-Communism in the United States would be to resign. . . . We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner.​

The wound we Palm Beach plotters delivered to the John Birch Society proved fatal over time. Barry Goldwater did not win the presidency, but he clarified the proper place of anti-Communism on the Right, with bright prospects to follow.

I think you just grabbed the grabbed the first Google citation that you THOUGHT proved Goldwater was "an extreme rightwinger".. In reality -- the 2 of them, Buckley and Goldwater had a lot in common and that was their "libertarian" views on Conservatism... You'd have to do better than that...

 

[flacaltenn]

The closest to a FAR right we've had in this country would be Pat Robertson running for Prez..

You must have forgotten Barry Goldwater or you're rather young! He was FAR RIGHT. The John Birch Society nominated that jackass for the presidency in 1964 and he ran against another jackass, LBJ!

No, Pat Robertson wasn't the only far right or the farthest right conservative candidate ever.

See: Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me - Commentary Magazine, William F. Buckley Jr.

Really, you dope?

Let me smash another custard pie in you ugly kisser:

There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important when dealing with Leftists, Liberals.....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.

To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.


The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."



"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)

Let's see you come up with any radical positions by the individuals you've tried to smear.


Waiting.

William F. Buckley Jr, one to the founders of the "Conservative Movement" of today before whom you genuflect at their alter, came out and wrote this just before his death, "But it was inconceivable that an anti-establishment gadfly like Goldwater could be nominated as the spokesman-head of a political party. And it was embarrassing that the only political organization in town that dared suggest this radical proposal—the GOP’s nominating Goldwater for President—was the John Birch Society." < Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me - Commentary Magazine >

Clearly, Goldwater was a FAR RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE. Here is a LBJ TV ad from the 1964 election opposing Goldwater's desire to repeal and not replace the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Goldwater lost that election receiving less that 39% of the popular vote carrying only the five "Solid South" states and Arizona. The Nation was tired of the FAR RIGHT's desire to win the "Arms Race".


Your artificial construct that no far right exists was blown to bits in my post #649 on page 65, to which your didn't respond. You make an argument that defies logic, and the ONLY conclusion a reasonable person can draw from your contrived artifice is that conservatives are a monolithic block similar to your perfect "Soviet Man" you referenced earlier.

If there are only 10 conservative leaning persons represented within a given political spectrum and the same number of less conservative leaning persons in the data group, which group is further to the right within the data sample? Since there is a distribution along a statistical line measuring degree of conservative inclination there MUST be at least one data point of the 20 which holds the place farthest to the right; the conservative(s) of the FAR RIGHT!

Given that holds true with a data set of 20, it would hold true for a set of 20 million or even more. Now add those who are left leaning to the data set and there is a full spectrum of the population represented by their political leanings by degree of neutral to left and neutral to right. On the right of the plot, some will be further right than others, therefore those to the extreme right, would be by definition, the FAR RIGHT, and would have been a likely Goldwater voter in 1964.

Since you ignored my post #649 that addressed your fallacy, I'll repost it here so you won't be able to dodge it again:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposition, vis-à-vis the political spectrum, that the far right of that political thought is void of all data points (conservatives) is a fallacy of an argument from ignorance. That type of argument is an assertion that X is true or false because it hasn't be proven.

So if there is only a SINGLE far right wacko, the proposition fails, is invalid, is a crackpot notion hatched by a far right wing propagandist. A statistical distribution of the data spectrum would provide the truth if all the data were collected, But a distribution with an effective step increase at the right extreme of the graph doesn't fly! Natural step increases do not and cannot occur in nature. Star Trek science doesn't work here as Einstein and others have proven, especially beyond the quantum level. Hell, Chica's bit on the Soviet Man explains why it is near impossible to herd cats, but she sees conservatives as a monolithic block. That's far from insightful.

To give a few examples of a sampling of conservatives is not proof for the argument because a few examples are not inclusive of ALL the data. For instance, the far right wing Ammon Bundy insurrectionists unlawfully occupying that Oregon wildlife refuge is enough to put the proposition there are no far right wing conservatives in the toilet. Nuff said!

Actually you fail on some comprehension issues. Buckley did not deride Goldwater for "being too far right".. He derided him because he was not a "loyal establishment" candidate. And BUCKLEY saw himself as a gate-keeper to the GOP at that time. Buckley went on in that article to PRAISE his hard line on USSR and anti-communism. That's NOT a token of being "far right" today.

Second misconception you have is that the political spectrum is ONE DIMENSIONAL. And that every politician that ever existed fits on a simple model of a LEFT - RIGHT line. YET --- I can point out at least TWO dimensions that separate politicians on a valuable scale of freedom... Axis 1 is the Economic scale where a politician views govt intervention in economic which affect personal freedom to choose on the marketplace and take financial risk. Axis 2 is the SOCIAL scale of freedom where politicians choose to interfere with all personal SOCIAL choices. You can have AUTHORITARIAN far leftists/rightists on Social issues that are freedom loving limited government advocates. OR you can AUTHORITARIANS trying to use the power of state to stunt economic freedom as in Socialists on the left -- or National Socialists (Nazis) on the right.

So ponder this. There are very few politicians that are RADICALLY FOR both economic and social freedom from govt intervention.. However, they make up a LARGE fraction of the electorate. Where are the middle ground representing them?

When you try to fit the "radical extremes" to this simple ass failed single axis scale -- the discussion just never goes anywhere. Because you can't even REPRESENT majority views of the public on that scale. That's why you flail away at "mean values" and who is the "median" candidates. And never really understand the MANY TYPES of wingers that are out there..

The comprehension issues are yours not mine. First, reread the Buckley quote I cited and note that its scope was very narrow and certainly no where near as expansive as you characterize it. Calling someone an anti-establishment gadfly is NOT PRAISE and being a gadfly may clearly imply, "...he was not a "loyal establishment" candidate". The point was Goldwater was so significantly aligned philosophically with the FAR RIGHT, like the Birchers.

As to you second misconception, who ever implied the political spectrum was ONE DIMENTIONAL? It certainly wasn't me, so that would leave your own comprehension of the defining words of spectrum, plot, degree, numbers, statistical, DISTRIBUTION, et al, it question. A distribution plot of degree on the X axis and distribution on the Y axis yields a statistical plot. I see that math and logic are not your strong suits!

So ponder this. There are very few politicians that are RADICALLY FOR both economic and social freedom from govt intervention.. However, they make up a LARGE fraction of the electorate. Where are the middle ground representing them?

There's nothing to ponder! One establishes the actual criteria to be examined, applies that criteria during the data gathering process, compiles the data and then plots the data to display the distribution of it. And the data would be displayed on a 2 axis graph of degree(X) vs. distribution (Y).

When you try to fit the "radical extremes" to this simple ass failed single axis scale -- the discussion just never goes anywhere. Because you can't even REPRESENT majority views of the public on that scale. That's why you flail away at "mean values" and who is the "median" candidates. And never really understand the MANY TYPES of wingers that are out there..

It really would have been better if you had comprehended what I wrote rather than derive the erroneously conclusion that ANYONE would could produce a single axis plot without a second axis to define each X/Y intercept, you know, the data!!!!

As to the other three post you queued up, they appear to be more of the same, so I'm not going to waste my time with someone who desires only to try sharp shooting with wet powder.

Let me help you with this smokescreen of math hash ...

the defining words of spectrum, plot, degree, numbers, statistical, DISTRIBUTION, et al, it question. A distribution plot of degree on the X axis and distribution on the Y axis yields a statistical plot.

Because contrary to your fears for my math abilities -- I've made a career in math and science and could help you out without all the ad homs..

Lets' start easy with Wikipedia..

Political spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ............. and I'll help you find what you call the "data axis"...

The Wiki page gives a number of variations. The one I prefer is labeled slightly differently from any of them...

Although I take great issue with making Populist = Totalitarian. I just prefer Authoritarian. On this chart --- you can CLEARLY find your prototypical WINGERS.. The RW loons are in the lower right corner enjoying MAX economic freedom but not digging the personal freedom so much. And the LW loons are flying up there in the upper left left with their zero risk, economic paradise of MIN economic freedom, but just swinging with the breeze on social issues no matter how stinky.

Now we know --- that OUR set of RW loons are not REALLY all about economic freedom fighters because they love them some authoritarian govt power to manipulate the markets. So they MOVE a bit into Authoritarian space. And likewise, most REAL LW leftists get Authoritarian side-effects on their attempts to change morality as well. So the ENTIRE 2D space can hold a lot more views and positions than trying to visualize this on a single linear left-right scale.

And here's WHY this is important. Our broken political system is based on just 2 dysfunctional parties. But in a place like the UK --- you couldn't tell the players WITHOUT a multi-dimensional scorecard..

We may not have the number of parties that MOST Western democracies have --- so our thinking about placing political in multi-space is pretty infantile. But it's time to start thinking BEYOND the simplistic..

That's from the previous election cycle. Make your own and toss in Hillary and Trump. Peg the chart with Bernie. Toss in the milquetoast Jeb and Christy and tell me that's not a better way to find the WINGERS... Pretty sure Trump would be all alone in "populist" authoritarian territory..

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. There is no "far right" in this country.
Yet....the very same folks who poke fun at religious Americans, by comparing God with Santa Claus, go on and on.....

"F**k the far right."
MARCO RUBIO: I 'Absolutely' Support Tuition Breaks For Illegal Aliens

'Or Sanders, who does even better against the far right tard candidates'
BUSTED ! – Republican State of Union Response Carried Amnesty Pledge in Spanish Version…

'I bet this will drive the far right loons insane:'
Nikki Haley rebukes Trump in State of the Union rebuttal

'Uh.. there is very much a "far right" in this country.'
The Delusional Candidate

'... what the far right reactionaries are posting.'
Another reason Americans WANT to see Obama and Obamacare GO!!!

'...for some time now the most and loudest noise has come from the Far Right.'
Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"...how insane the far right is."
Yes, You're A Communist





2. There is no "far right" in this country. So... how to explain the constant reference to this meme by Leftists?

One fact of life is that hearing a phrase often enough, one tends to accept it without spending the effort of examining same. The term "Far Right," used in a cavalier yet effective manner by the Left, is one of those terms.

Yet...upon examination....it proves to be imaginary, very much like the benefits of communism....or ObamaCare.




3. It is a well know axiom that, to see what the Left is doing, note what they are blaming the other side of doing.
One regularly sees the Leftists, Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, whatever....railing against the "Far Right," using "Far Right" as a pejorative, an imprecation.
And....BTW.....there certainly is a Far Left.


But I'll prove that "Far Right" doesn't exist.

Do you not know of people like Stephen "Don" Black, Preston Wigginton, David Duke then? They're in the US and they're far right. The former was a member of the US Nazi Party.. just in case you think he's not far right.

He runs Stormfront, you can find a lot of far right racists hanging out there.

They are neither right nor left. Its called third position.

They are "far". But there's a difference between far right and far left. The ideologies are different, they might have some similarities, which make them both "far" though.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Other than PC and Kosh, did we find anyone who thinks there's no such thing as the far right?

Bernie Sanders is Far Left. You lose no matter how you defend that.

And where do you put yourself on the political spectrum?

Conservative Capitalist that believes in limited Socialism and that this nation was founded as a Christian nation with tolerance for all religions and non religions. I believe in non-violent, non-smearing, non-ridicule debate of ideas. I believe that the American vote is a privilege and a right reserved solely for American Citizens and a right that must be preserved and devoid of corruption.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no such thing as the 'Far Left'.

Because to the liberals and progressives there are no boundaries or limits to their political delusions. ......

Conservative political delusions are limited by the will of the People.

You mean what you morons call mob rule when it's something you oppose. California voted with Prop 8 the will of the people. Those like you opposed that will. So much for your argument.

You like the power of the popular vote when you like the outcome. You like the power of the infamous 'unelected' judges when you like the outcome of their decisions. IOW, you have no principles on the matter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 'far right' is whatever and whoever is the most conservative on any given political spectrum.

Oh now, come on, you know she means that the only angels on Earth are the GOP....

Everything is relative.

Which makes you relatively stupid, even amongst your likeminded pals on the far right. At least they have the brains and observational powers to discern their own existence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Other than PC and Kosh, did we find anyone who thinks there's no such thing as the far right?

Bernie Sanders is Far Left. You lose no matter how you defend that.

And where do you put yourself on the political spectrum?

Conservative Capitalist that believes in limited Socialism and that this nation was founded as a Christian nation with tolerance for all religions and non religions. I believe in non-violent, non-smearing, non-ridicule debate of ideas. I believe that the American vote is a privilege and a right reserved solely for American Citizens and a right that must be preserved and devoid of corruption.

So you wish to categorize yourself as a moderate conservative, i.e. somewhere in the middle of the Right.

So who's to your right? PoliticalChic claims there' no one to your right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[



Hitler, Mussolini...and their pal, Franklin Roosevelt.......Leftists all.

That's what a Big Lie looks like.

 

[protectionist]

. I believe that the American vote is a privilege, and a right reserved solely for American Citizens, and a right that must be preserved and devoid of corruption.

That calls for the elimination of illegal immigration, visa granting, and in particular, sanctuary cities.

 

[Camp]

. I believe that the American vote is a privilege, and a right reserved solely for American Citizens, and a right that must be preserved and devoid of corruption.

That calls for the elimination of illegal immigration, visa granting, and in particular, sanctuary cities.

Eliminating visa granting is pretty right wing. So is eliminating sanctuary cities.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have noticed the bed wetters have almost entirely stopped making NAZI references towards conservatives, because the argument that the National Socialist Workers Party platform is far more like the DNC than anything a conservative would endorse has won.

On top of it, the moonbats are getting more antisemitic every day.

Conservatives keep trying to deny the Nazis are conservatives but that won't fly. Liberals don't compare conservatives to Hitlet because references and comparisons to Hitler are false, unless genocide is involved.

Conservatives are always seeking to claim liberals they like and deny extreme right wing atrocities were committed by conservatives.

Hitler was a right wing loony, as are Cruz, Santorum, Huckaby, and many of the posters here.

Even the Democrats, who many here castigate as "commies" are much further to the right than our Conservatives.

If you think being "far right" is a bad thing, perhaps you'd better take a close look at what constitutes right wing.

"Hitler was a right wing loony, as are Cruz, Santorum, Huckaby, and many of the posters here."

Hitler was Leftist, as much as Stalin.
Both learned at the feet of Karl Marx.


Watch me smash a custard pie in your kisser:


"Hitler and the socialist dream

He declared that 'national socialism was based on Marx' Socialists have always disowned him. But a new book insists that he was, at heart, a left-winger

. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit".

German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.

.....; though even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race - implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative. Without race, he went on, National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". Marxism was internationalist. The proletariat, as the famous slogan goes, has no fatherland. Hitler had a fatherland, and it was everything to him.

Yet privately, and perhaps even publicly, he conceded that National Socialism was based on Marx. On reflection, it makes consistent sense. The basis of a dogma is not the dogma, much as the foundation of a building is not the building, and in numerous ways National Socialism was based on Marxism." Hitler and the socialist dream



Pity you have no education, huh?
That's why you fall for every Leftist lie.

Lord but your education is limited. Hitler completely disavowed socialism, and only retained the National Socialist Party moniker on the advice of Goebbels who felt it necessary to the continued support of the working people.

And you....a sucker.

You've accepted the propaganda....seems it's indelible in the less intuitive.

Nazis, Communists, Marxist, Democrats, Progressives Socialists...and Liberals..all play in the very same league.
With the very same ultimate goals.


See if you can put the pieces of the puzzle together:
"Bernie Sanders Makes His Pitch for Socialism" Bernie Sanders Outlines A Vision for Fixing American Society


"Writing in the radical (and Democratic Socialists of America connected) Chicago magazine In These Times, in March 2008, Joel Bleifuss asserted;
In particular, Obama can be linked to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the Democratic Party-oriented organization that is a member of the Socialist International

While not overtly so, Democratic Socialists of America is essentially a Marxist organization.
In an article in DSA's Democratic Left, Spring 2007, DSA National political Committee memberDavid Green of Detroit wrote in support of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)-or "card check".[1]
What distinguishes socialists from other progressives is the theory of surplus value. According to Marx, the secret of surplus value is that workers are a source of more value than they receive in wages. The capitalist is able to capture surplus value through his ownership of the means of production, his right to purchase labor as a commodity, his control over the production process, and his ownership of the final product. Surplus value is the measure of capital’s exploitation of labor
Green went on to write;
Our goal as socialists is to abolish private ownership of the means of production. Our immediate task is to limit the capitalist class’s prerogatives in the workplace..."
Barack Obama and Democratic Socialists of America/Socialism - KeyWiki


Putting the Cards on the Table

The Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA. remains the principle branch of the Socialist International, whose primary goal is global governance under worldwide socialism.
a. The SI boasts it is successor to the First International of Karl Marx, 1864. “Ever since its inception in 1951, the Socialist International has made cosmetic efforts to distance itself from communist socialists.”
Congressional Socialists No Longer in the Marxist Closet 1
and
The Grasp of Socialist International



1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian



And every one was Leftwing.....none were Rightwing.

 

[Conservative65]

There is no such thing as the 'Far Left'.

Because to the liberals and progressives there are no boundaries or limits to their political delusions. ......

Conservative political delusions are limited by the will of the People.

You mean what you morons call mob rule when it's something you oppose. California voted with Prop 8 the will of the people. Those like you opposed that will. So much for your argument.

You like the power of the popular vote when you like the outcome. You like the power of the infamous 'unelected' judges when you like the outcome of their decisions. IOW, you have no principles on the matter.

In YOUR words, you have no principles as you practice that very thing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no such thing as the 'Far Left'.

Because to the liberals and progressives there are no boundaries or limits to their political delusions. ......

Conservative political delusions are limited by the will of the People.

You mean what you morons call mob rule when it's something you oppose. California voted with Prop 8 the will of the people. Those like you opposed that will. So much for your argument.

You like the power of the popular vote when you like the outcome. You like the power of the infamous 'unelected' judges when you like the outcome of their decisions. IOW, you have no principles on the matter.

In YOUR words, you have no principles as you practice that very thing.

. "Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter