Mr. Paul's got my vote.

[Project972]

Vote Ron.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

It's Doctor Paul. He didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called "mister", thank you very much.

 

[Spot Me 2]

That is my point, a lot of people do. They are not as far right of center as you are. So Paul has to be thinking what if "Romney were gone?" You stand those two next to each other and left of center independent women will vote Romney.

It is like 10 little Indians and Paul is still going. What if Romney were out of the way? What if?

Left of center will continue to vote BO.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the Republican nominee. The dems already have there candidate. I am SICK of having to choose from the lesser of 2 evils. I will no longer accept that choice. We used to have a choice between left and right. Now we have a choice of FAAAAAAR left or left of center??? I am raising the B.S. flag on that one. Paul has my vote!

 

[whoismunky]

Paul's got my vote, that's for sure

 

[BillyT]

You stand those two next to each other and left of center independent women will vote Romney.

What do you base this on? Ron Paul would equal more freedom for those neohippies less govt tyranny. Commie rommy represents failure.

 

[88GT]

What do you base this on? Ron Paul would equal more freedom for those neohippies less govt tyranny. Commie rommy represents failure.

People who lean left don't want freedom. They want what they want. If that means the freedom to do it, that's just an added bonus. But if they need to use government coercion to get it, they're just as happy with that.

 

[rambone]

People who lean left don't want freedom.

A lot of them do.

That's the problem with the Left-Right Paradigm. Its a bogus way to label people.

Someone like George W. Bush labels themselves as "Right" and it sends people running for their lives to the "Left." With good cause!

That doesn't mean that they hate freedom. A lot of people are alienated by a party that supports things like the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, torture, indefinite detention, endless wars, and the rest of the neo-conservative platform.

Add in the media manipulation to corral people into "Left" and "Right" and you get the phenomenon that happens today.

 

[88GT]

A lot of them do.

No, by definition, they don't.

That's the problem with the Left-Right Paradigm. Its a bogus way to label people.

Then what paradigm do you suggest?

Someone like George W. Bush labels themselves as "Right" and it sends people running for their lives to the "Left." With good cause!

Why? Why is it a good thing that people are too stupid to evaluate someone critically based on principles and positions rather than labels. You want me to toss the labels because people are too stupid to understand their limited purpose and/or others use them incorrectly. I'm not going to do that. Words have meaning. If the behaviors or thoughts don't fit the words, then someone needs to check his premises because the meanings haven't changed.

That doesn't mean that they hate freedom. A lot of people are alienated by a party that supports things like the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, torture, indefinite detention, endless wars, and the rest of the neo-conservative platform.

Add in the media manipulation to corral people into "Left" and "Right" and you get the phenomenon that happens today.

What else is there? Up? Down? Do you realize the historical premise behind the labels? It's not some fabricated storyline made up to manipulate people. There is only one axis. You either support freedom or you don't. People who openly advocate for the coercive use of government to achieve their own desires by controlling the behavior of others don't love freedom. Period.

 

[rambone]

No, by definition, they don't.

I guess we need to define Left & Right then. Care to go first?

 

[PINski1015]

Well, duh. That's all Huntsman or Bachman needs as well.

Man your cold.

 

[Lex Concord]

No, by definition, they don't.



Then what paradigm do you suggest?


Why? Why is it a good thing that people are too stupid to evaluate someone critically based on principles and positions rather than labels. You want me to toss the labels because people are too stupid to understand their limited purpose and/or others use them incorrectly. I'm not going to do that. Words have meaning. If the behaviors or thoughts don't fit the words, then someone needs to check his premises because the meanings haven't changed.



What else is there? Up? Down? Do you realize the historical premise behind the labels? It's not some fabricated storyline made up to manipulate people. There is only one axis. You either support freedom or you don't. People who openly advocate for the coercive use of government to achieve their own desires by controlling the behavior of others don't love freedom. Period.

You often talk (write) with a fair amount of sense, but being religious about the left-right paradigm is just [strike]off the hook[/strike] a bit much.

Now, it seems you are implying a left-right to statist-liberty equivalency, which has some merit, but a definition of terms is definitely in order.

The Stalinists are consistently labeled as "left", and the Nazis as "right"...this is true during much of history since their existence...yet, this doesn't fit the left-right = statism(tyranny, if you prefer)-liberty paradigm. It seems there is at least one example where the left-right paradigm, as commonly understood by millions, doesn't jibe with your take. I don't disagree that there is a tyranny to freedom continuum, but it doesn't necessarily equate with "left right" without definition of terms.

Yours seems to be left=tyranny, right=liberty. If that is a correct assessment, I would love to hear who you consider to be on the "right".

Actually, there is another axis, and up and down are on it; I think it does a much better job explaining positions. I can't imagine as well read as you seem to be that you haven't heard of the Nolan Chart.

 

[rambone]

Do you realize the historical premise behind the labels? It's not some fabricated storyline made up to manipulate people.

It was inspired because of that song by Stealers Wheel, "...Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you." And so a political system was born.

No, that's not it.

Left-Right politics comes from the French Revolution, 1789. People stood on opposite sides of a room. The people on the "Right" wanted to be ruled in autocratic fashion under King Louis XVI. The people on the "Left" wanted revolution like their American cousins. The French Revolution commenced, and 4 years later, they had their first constitutional republic that allowed radical new freedoms that the King and his followers suppressed, like universal male suffrage and right of assembly.

And today the paradigm is a tool used to keep people polarized and corralled in neat little categories, easily controlled and always bickering. Both sides stand for some liberties and stand against others. If you don't support socialism on one side, you are left to support fascism on the other side. The whole paradigm has been distorted to equate to statism on both sides. That's no model that I can define myself with anymore.

Then what paradigm do you suggest?

What else is there? Up? Down?

There is only one axis. You either support freedom or you don't. People who openly advocate for the coercive use of government to achieve their own desires by controlling the behavior of others don't love freedom. Period.

Coercive use of government to control behavior... that sounds like Drug Prohibition. Bans on same-sex marriage. Legislated morality (pushing "Family Values" in the law).

These things are inextricably tied to the "Right" as we know it today. I argue that the things I mentioned are all examples of anti-freedom positions. Would you make the argument that these things are "Left" wing stances? You could try, but it wouldn't make any sense in terms of the actual way the Left-Right paradigm is used in practice in the United States today.

And if you can cross that bridge, then you can understand my sentiments about the hijacked Left-Right paradigm.

 

[smokingman]

It was inspired because of that song by Stealers Wheel, "...Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you." And so a political system was born.

No, that's not it.

Left-Right politics comes from the French Revolution, 1789. People stood on opposite sides of a room. The people on the "Right" wanted to be ruled in autocratic fashion under King Louis XVI. The people on the "Left" wanted revolution like their American cousins. The French Revolution commenced, and 4 years later, they had their first constitutional republic that allowed radical new freedoms that the King and his followers suppressed, like universal male suffrage and right of assembly.

And today the paradigm is a tool used to keep people polarized and corralled in neat little categories, easily controlled and always bickering. Both sides stand for some liberties and stand against others. If you don't support socialism on one side, you are left to support fascism on the other side. The whole paradigm has been distorted to equate to statism on both sides. That's no model that I can define myself with anymore.







Coercive use of government to control behavior... that sounds like Drug Prohibition. Bans on same-sex marriage. Legislated morality (pushing "Family Values" in the law).

These things are inextricably tied to the "Right" as we know it today. I argue that the things I mentioned are all examples of anti-freedom positions. Would you make the argument that these things are "Left" wing stances? You could try, but it wouldn't make any sense in terms of the actual way the Left-Right paradigm is used in practice in the United States today.

And if you can cross that bridge, then you can understand my sentiments about the hijacked Left-Right paradigm.

Great post.
“Monarchy first changes into its vicious allied form, tyranny; and next, the abolishment of both gives birth to aristocracy. Aristocracy by its very nature degenerates into oligarchy; and when the commons inflamed by anger take vengeance on this government for its unjust rule, democracy comes into being; and in due course the licence and lawlessness of this form of government produces mob-rule to complete the series.” -The Histories 6.4.7-13
The only reason democracy has been allowed,indeed promoted by elite is credit.Loan money to a king,and he dies you do not get paid.Loan money to a democracy,where the citizens are responsible for the debt and your debt is much more secure.
The founders knew this.They set up rules to try and prevent democracy and oligarchy.The left right political system that has developed in the United States turned us into a socialist democratic oligarchy.The constitution has been ignored,abused,and twisted to fit the needs bankers.Our government,laws,and citizens are under control of a central bank NEVER intended in the constitution with good reason.

In my mind the whole left right argument is a distraction.Both sides look more alike each day.They each have talking points and party lines.But what purpose do they serve?While divided we will never take back control of our political system where only millionaires and billionaires can hold public office.Where the influence of bankers and corporation trumps the public good.Where freedom is sacrificed by both parties,to the benefit of who?

Our country is in deep trouble.The left right argument is allowing it to be controlled by distracting the public from the true rulers.

Our republic can never be restored with out ending private control of our money supply.

End the FED.And you can actually start to establish the rule of law again.

Left right left right....is exactly where they want you to be.

This is why I no longer fit into either.