All Things Considered

[Chris]

Happened to stop at NPR on the radio dial, All Things Considered, and the woman who co-hosts with Ira took the lead story on what was the Governor of Az going to do now that McCain has died. He's in a bind she said, should he appoint the moderate right, someone like McCain, or the far right led by Trump.

What? McCain, moderate, OK, but Trump far right? What in God's name has gotten into the media to use a term like far right no more meaning than a slur like fascist or racist? When they use words like that they make them all but meaningless.

Sure, Trump's a Republican but he's always been buddies with liberals and Democrats. He's a progressive with little ideological creds to his name.

But the media finds it useful to use the slur words why? It's nuts.

[nathanbforrest45]

The left has destroyed the meaning of every word they get their hands on. To them things only mean what they want them to mean and if changing the accepted meaning furthers their agenda they will gladly do so.

[Crepitus]

Happened to stop at NPR on the radio dial, All Things Considered, and the woman who co-hosts with Ira took the lead story on what was the Governor of Az going to do now that McCain has died. He's in a bind she said, should he appoint the moderate right, someone like McCain, or the far right led by Trump.

What? McCain, moderate, OK, but Trump far right? What in God's name has gotten into the media to use a term like far right no more meaning than a slur like fascist or racist? When they use words like that they make them all but meaningless.

Sure, Trump's a Republican but he's always been buddies with liberals and Democrats. He's a progressive with little ideological creds to his name.

But the media finds it useful to use the slur words why? It's nuts.

I don't see what your problem is with it. He believes Alex Jones, supports white supremacists, draws half his cabinet from fuax news...

tRump is the alt right personified.

[Dr. Who]

Happened to stop at NPR on the radio dial, All Things Considered, and the woman who co-hosts with Ira took the lead story on what was the Governor of Az going to do now that McCain has died. He's in a bind she said, should he appoint the moderate right, someone like McCain, or the far right led by Trump.

What? McCain, moderate, OK, but Trump far right? What in God's name has gotten into the media to use a term like far right no more meaning than a slur like fascist or racist? When they use words like that they make them all but meaningless.

Sure, Trump's a Republican but he's always been buddies with liberals and Democrats. He's a progressive with little ideological creds to his name.

But the media finds it useful to use the slur words why? It's nuts.
Because Trump is still a TV personality, now imitating a further right leaning politician. His actual politics (such as they are) are irrelevant as they only come out when he hasn't got the time and coaching to prepare a response that would appeal to his fans. He learned to play a role after many years on TV. His fans liked him best when he was unmerciful, rude and dismissive. They still like it.

[nathanbforrest45]

Wow, its good to know the Founding Fathers were all alt right white supremacist.

[Chris]

I don't see what your problem is with it. He believes Alex Jones, supports white supremacists, draws half his cabinet from fuax news...

tRump is the alt right personified.


Ok, then tell me what far right means.

I doubt very much you can.

[Chris]

Because Trump is still a TV personality, now imitating a further right leaning politician. His actual politics (such as they are) are irrelevant as they only come out when he hasn't got the time and coaching to prepare a response that would appeal to his fans. He learned to play a role after many years on TV. His fans liked him best when he was unmerciful, rude and dismissive. They still like it.

I see my point blew right past you.

The point is not Trump and his populist role.

The point is the media turning words into meaningless mush. Much the way you often do, like in the last thread where you and safety reduced racism and racist to black and white.

[waltky]

Dey's some things Granny won't consider...

... like votin' fer a lib'ral.

[Mister D]

I have often asked what exactly the term "far right" means but no one here seems to know.

I'm becoming convinced that progressives get their political vocabulary from op eds. Witness the use of the term "alt right". Honestly, I doubt they even realize the "alt" is short for alternative. Morons.

[Mister D]

Because Trump is still a TV personality, now imitating a further right leaning politician. His actual politics (such as they are) are irrelevant as they only come out when he hasn't got the time and coaching to prepare a response that would appeal to his fans. He learned to play a role after many years on TV. His fans liked him best when he was unmerciful, rude and dismissive. They still like it.

Honestly, whatever it is I think you like it more than they do.

[Dr. Who]

I see my point blew right past you.

The point is not Trump and his populist role.

The point is the media turning words into meaningless mush. Much the way you often do, like in the last thread where you and safety reduced racism and racist to black and white."What in God's name has gotten into the media to use a term like far right no more meaning than a slur like fascist or racist? When they use words like that they make them all but meaningless."

He is such an opportunist that he doesn't eschew the far right and his promises and actions are so appealing to the far right - hence if the shoe fits he must wear it. That is the image that he is projecting and that the majority of the people on both sides of the political divide are perceiving. His followers are as opportunistic as he is. They say they don't like how he behaves, but since he is giving them what they want, it doesn't matter. Well, I guess those who see his behavior as problematic in many ways are just as entitled to take exception as those who disregard it are entitled to feel that nothing matters other than getting what they want.

[Dr. Who]

Honestly, whatever it is I think you like it more than they do.
I only watched his show a couple of times. I couldn't stand it. I have read about it more often including from the producers and what they encouraged. People seem to like the obnoxious. -

[Mister D]

I only watched his show a couple of times. I couldn't stand it. I have read about it more often including from the producers and what they encouraged. People seem to like the obnoxious. -

I'm not talking about his show.

[MisterVeritis]

"What in God's name has gotten into the media to use a term like far right no more meaning than a slur like fascist or racist? When they use words like that they make them all but meaningless."

He is such an opportunist that he doesn't eschew the far right and his promises and actions are so appealing to the far right - hence if the shoe fits he must wear it. That is the image that he is projecting and that the majority of the people on both sides of the political divide are perceiving. His followers are as opportunistic as he is. They say they don't like how he behaves, but since he is giving them what they want, it doesn't matter. Well, I guess those who see his behavior as problematic in many ways are just as entitled to take exception as those who disregard it are entitled to feel that nothing matters other than getting what they want.

A far right politician is someone who supports and defends the Constitution.

[Dr. Who]

I'm not talking about his show.
Having an adverse opinion about Trump is not about enjoyment. It's about seeing Nero fiddle while Rome burns. It's about having America governed by a man who is completely incompetent and worse, someone whose only reason for running for President is to feed his desire for attention and whose ego is so enormous that he ignores the advice of those who actually know more about politics than he does. If the members of his party could push a button and make him disappear, most of them would. He embarrasses them and he frightens them. He is entirely unpredictable and ignorant. This impresses his followers and irritates the rest of the world. He thinks he has the skills to be a peace maker, but he doesn't understand the game. Worse still, he is liable to be led down the garden path by those who would truly love to make war. From his perspective, either way, he wins. A war-time President would still put him in the history books and the historical "cleaners" would find a way to justify his actions.

[MisterVeritis]

Having an adverse opinion about Trump is not about enjoyment. It's about seeing Nero fiddle while Rome burns. It's about having America governed by a man who is completely incompetent and worse, someone whose only reason for running for President is to feed his desire for attention and whose ego is so enormous that he ignores the advice of those who actually know more about politics than he does. If the members of his party could push a button and make him disappear, most of them would. He embarrasses them and he frightens them. He is entirely unpredictable and ignorant. This impresses his followers and irritates the rest of the world. He thinks he has the skills to be a peace maker, but he doesn't understand the game. Worse still, he is liable to be led down the garden path by those who would truly love to make war. From his perspective, either way, he wins. A war-time President would still put him in the history books and the historical "cleaners" would find a way to justify his actions.
As John McCain might exclaim, "Whacko Bird!"

[Dr. Who]

As John McCain might exclaim, "Whacko Bird!"
McCain would probably agree with me.

[Tahuyaman]

I don't see what your problem is with it. He believes Alex Jones, supports white supremacists, draws half his cabinet from fuax news...

tRump is the alt right personified.

Trump is not at all a right winger.

[Common Sense]

Lol...yeah, Trump is a progressive. That's why he's supporting right wing candidates, nominating right wing judges, cutting social programs, increasing military spending and implementing a massive tax cut...because he's a progressive. Good one.

[Chris]

I have often asked what exactly the term "far right" means but no one here seems to know.

I'm becoming convinced that progressives get their political vocabulary from op eds. Witness the use of the term "alt right". Honestly, I doubt they even realize the "alt" is short for alternative. Morons.


Alt right is another slur word.

[Safety]

I don't see what your problem is with it. He believes Alex Jones, supports white supremacists, draws half his cabinet from fuax news...

tRump is the alt right personified.

It’s nothing more than his supporters being upset because the person they support says and does things the self proclaimed alt-right does, says white supremacists are very fine people, and denigrates minorities. Instead of focusing on self reflection on why they could support such a person, they instead want to change the meanings of words and whine that the original definition fits not only Trump, but their mindset.

[MisterVeritis]

McCain would probably agree with me.
LOL. No doubt. But he is not in a position to agree any longer. I, for one, am grateful.

[Chris]

"What in God's name has gotten into the media to use a term like far right no more meaning than a slur like fascist or racist? When they use words like that they make them all but meaningless."

He is such an opportunist that he doesn't eschew the far right and his promises and actions are so appealing to the far right - hence if the shoe fits he must wear it. That is the image that he is projecting and that the majority of the people on both sides of the political divide are perceiving. His followers are as opportunistic as he is. They say they don't like how he behaves, but since he is giving them what they want, it doesn't matter. Well, I guess those who see his behavior as problematic in many ways are just as entitled to take exception as those who disregard it are entitled to feel that nothing matters other than getting what they want.



Again? You quote me directly and then change the topic back to Trump in your response.

Just like with these slur words you distract and dissemble in order to avoid discussion and debate.

Nothing you say means anything because you're incapable of defining far right. It's just a virtue-signaling slur word to avoid discussion.

[Chris]

Having an adverse opinion about Trump is not about enjoyment. It's about seeing Nero fiddle while Rome burns. It's about having America governed by a man who is completely incompetent and worse, someone whose only reason for running for President is to feed his desire for attention and whose ego is so enormous that he ignores the advice of those who actually know more about politics than he does. If the members of his party could push a button and make him disappear, most of them would. He embarrasses them and he frightens them. He is entirely unpredictable and ignorant. This impresses his followers and irritates the rest of the world. He thinks he has the skills to be a peace maker, but he doesn't understand the game. Worse still, he is liable to be led down the garden path by those who would truly love to make war. From his perspective, either way, he wins. A war-time President would still put him in the history books and the historical "cleaners" would find a way to justify his actions.


TDS. Completely, utterly incapable of addressing the topic.

[MisterVeritis]

Lol...yeah, Trump is a progressive. That's why he's supporting right wing candidates, nominating right wing judges, cutting social programs, increasing military spending and implementing a massive tax cut...because he's a progressive. Good one.
This is why we voted for him.
Uh, which social programs has he cut? I must send him an email thanking him.

[Chris]

Lol...yeah, Trump is a progressive. That's why he's supporting right wing candidates, nominating right wing judges, cutting social programs, increasing military spending and implementing a massive tax cut...because he's a progressive. Good one.

Another one who just tosses around these words as mere slurs, devoid of any meaning.

[MisterVeritis]

It’s nothing more than his supporters being upset because the person they support says and does things the self proclaimed alt-right does, says white supremacists are very fine people, and denigrates minorities. Instead of focusing on self reflection on why they could support such a person, they instead want to change the meanings of words and whine that the original definition fits not only Trump, but their mindset.
Do you know you could make your case against President Trump without lying? I admit it would take some work. oh, nevermind.

[Chris]

It’s nothing more than his supporters being upset because the person they support says and does things the self proclaimed alt-right does, says white supremacists are very fine people, and denigrates minorities. Instead of focusing on self reflection on why they could support such a person, they instead want to change the meanings of words and whine that the original definition fits not only Trump, but their mindset.

You're the worst of the bunch tossing these slurs around, pretending to be saying something meaningful.

The topic is not Trump.

[Safety]

Do you know you could make your case against President Trump without lying? I admit it would take some work. oh, nevermind.You know you could try using the English language without trying to change the meanings of words. Obviously you choosing to use term lying was either a mistake or a case of autocorrect on your device, why don't you try again.

[Chris]

You know you could try using the English language without trying to change the meanings of words. Obviously you choosing to use term lying was either a mistake or a case of autocorrect on your device, why don't you try again.

How about you use the English language with meaning?

[MisterVeritis]

You know you could try using the English language without trying to change the meanings of words. Obviously you choosing to use term lying was either a mistake or a case of autocorrect on your device, why don't you try again.
I was clear. You lie so easily. Has it become a habit?

[Common Sense]

How about you use the English language with meaning?

Practice what you preach.

[Safety]

You're the worst of the bunch tossing these slurs around, pretending to be saying something meaningful.

The topic is not Trump.Sorry, you don't get to tell anyone they are tossing slurs around, when you are on record of calling everyone you don't agree with SJWs, progressive, or trolls.

The topic includes Trump, just because you don't like the negative things you see, doesn't mean it is off topic.

[Chris]

For a long time now I've through the left, standing for nothing, lost it. Now I begin to realize the left doesn't even know what they stand against--other than a slur of slur words like alt-right, far right, fascist, racist, white supremacist. The left seems bound together by slurs, empty, meaningless slurs.

[Safety]

I was clear. You lie so easily. Has it become a habit?Point out the lie, or apologize.

[Chris]

Practice what you preach.

I'm not the one tossing slurs around. You did. Tossing around slurs you cannot even begin to define.

[Safety]

For a long time now I've through the left, standing for nothing, lost it. Now I begin to realize the left doesn't even know what they stand against--other than a slur of slur words like alt-right, far right, fascist, racist, white supremacist. The left seems bound together by slurs, empty, meaningless slurs.Sounds like you don't like the medicine you dish out for others to take.

[Chris]

Sorry, you don't get to tell anyone they are tossing slurs around, when you are on record of calling everyone you don't agree with SJWs, progressive, or trolls.

The topic includes Trump, just because you don't like the negative things you see, doesn't mean it is off topic.


Would you like for me to define what I mean by those words? Just ask, I'll be glad to define them in detail.

But you cannot. Over the weekend we had a long discussion of race and racism and you could not in 10s of pages give us a definition of either.

[Common Sense]

Sorry, you don't get to tell anyone they are tossing slurs around, when you are on record of calling everyone you don't agree with SJWs, progressive, or trolls.

The topic includes Trump, just because you don't like the negative things you see, doesn't mean it is off topic.
Apparently a statement he made in the op is not part of the topic.

Ironically he labels Trump a progressive in an op that criticizes using using labels incorrectly and as slurs.

Its like an Onion piece.

[Chris]

Sounds like you don't like the medicine you dish out for others to take.

Nice try but you're still failing to demonstrate you have any meaning beyond slurs for the words you so lightly toss around.

[Common Sense]

I'm not the one tossing slurs around. You did. Tossing around slurs you cannot even begin to define.

What slurs did I use? Be specific.

Right wing is a slur, but your constant use of "the left" and progressives isn't?

Is this a joke?

[Chris]

Apparently a statement he made in the op is not part of the topic.

Ironically he labels Trump a progressive in an op that criticizes using using labels incorrectly and as slurs.

Its like an Onion piece.


English sort of escapes you and the others. You seem to have no idea what a topic is.

What I mean by Trump is a progressive is many of his policies are progressive bread and butter, like his protectionism. He is friends with the Clintons, the epitome of liberal progressivism. See, I can explain to you what I mean by the words I use.

That is the difference. You have no clue what it means to say far right.

[Safety]

Would you like for me to define what I mean by those words? Just ask, I'll be glad to define them in detail.

But you cannot. Over the weekend we had a long discussion of race and racism and you could not in 10s of pages give us a definition of either.

Because it is a waste of time and energy to define words that a middle schooler knows the definition to. For someone that quotes Adam Smith, swears that he knows the true mindset of Lincoln, but has to have someone give him the definition of racism or define race, is laughable. No, you damn well know the definition, but wants someone to fetch for you so you can argue against that as well.

[Safety]

Nice try but you're still failing to demonstrate you have any meaning beyond slurs for the words you so lightly toss around.

Let me know which “slur” I tossed around that was not 100% accurate.

[Chris]

What slurs did I use? Be specific.

Right wing is a slur, but your constant use of "the left" and progressives isn't?

Is this a joke?


The point of the thread is the left uses words like far right as slurs without substantial meaning.

Do you want me to define the left for you? I will. And that's the difference. I can and I will if challenged. But here you lefties are challenged to define the words you use and you do everything to avoid doing so.

[Safety]

^^ gets mad and calls the alt-right/far-right, slurs...proceeds to call those he disagrees with lefties....

:biglaugh:

[Chris]

Let me know which “slur” I tossed around that was not 100% accurate.

You like the other lefties miss the point which is that you use terms like far right, fascist, racist merely as slurs. Challenged to define such words, you cannot. We know this based on the weekend discussion with you and Who neither of which could define race or racism beyond such superficialities as black and white. You don't want to discuss or debate, you just want to make accusations and insunuations--slurs.

[Dr. Who]

Again? You quote me directly and then change the topic back to Trump in your response.

Just like with these slur words you distract and dissemble in order to avoid discussion and debate.

Nothing you say means anything because you're incapable of defining far right. It's just a virtue-signaling slur word to avoid discussion.
Sorry, since the media has been primarily focused on Trump, I thought that he fit the bill. Far-right = extremist. What else is there to say? They have much in common with irrational fundamentalists. They are incapable of compromise. They side with other extremists as long as they are right-leaning.

[Chris]

^^ gets mad and calls the alt-right/far-right, slurs...proceeds to call those he disagrees with lefties....

:biglaugh:


A lefty is one who wants to undermine traditional values, customs and associations in order to usher in ever bigger government and redesign society.

I can define what I mean.

You cannot.

[Common Sense]

English sort of escapes you and the others. You seem to have no idea what a topic is.

What I mean by Trump is a progressive is many of his policies are progressive bread and butter, like his protectionism. He is friends with the Clintons, the epitome of liberal progressivism. See, I can explain to you what I mean by the words I use.

That is the difference. You have no clue what it means to say far right.

Really? So when you said "he is a progressive", you meant many of his policies are? ...and you have the nerve to question my grasp of the language??? Seriously?

Some great friend of the Clintons. I guess lock her up is a term of endearment.

Where did I say far right?

[Chris]

Sorry, since the media has been primarily focused on Trump, I thought that he fit the bill. Far-right = extremist. What else is there to say? They have much in common with irrational fundamentalists. They are incapable of compromise. They side with other extremists as long as they are right-leaning.

That was circular, Who. Far means extreme. Right means right. It goes nowhere. I don't think you have a clue.

[Safety]

You like the other lefties miss the point which is that you use terms like far right, fascist, racist merely as slurs. Challenged to define such words, you cannot. We know this based on the weekend discussion with you and Who neither of which could define race or racism beyond such superficialities as black and white. You don't want to discuss or debate, you just want to make accusations and insunuations--slurs.

You don’t want a discussion or debate either, you want carte blanche permission to tailor responses to guidelines that will make it easier for you to argue.

[Chris]

Really? So when you said "he is a progressive", you meant many of his policies are? ...and you have the nerve to question my grasp of the language??? Seriously?

Some great friend of the Clintons. I guess lock her up is a term of endearment.

Where did I say far right?


Still, I am able to define what I mean by the words I use.

You so far are not.

[Common Sense]

The point of the thread is the left uses words like far right as slurs without substantial meaning.

Do you want me to define the left for you? I will. And that's the difference. I can and I will if challenged. But here you lefties are challenged to define the words you use and you do everything to avoid doing so.
Maybe they should take a page out of your book and change definitions to suit their views.

This thread is comical. You should probably stop digging.

[Dr. Who]

The point of the thread is the left uses words like far right as slurs without substantial meaning.

Do you want me to define the left for you? I will. And that's the difference. I can and I will if challenged. But here you lefties are challenged to define the words you use and you do everything to avoid doing so.

LOL - and the right doesn't refer to the "hard" left or the "far" left with the same intent? I will suggest that those accused of being far-left are often far closer to moderate than those that the left accuses of being far-right.

[Chris]

You don’t want a discussion or debate either, you want carte blanche permission to tailor responses to guidelines that will make it easier for you to argue.

I start a topic on the left's use of slurs but don't want to discuss it? I'm not the one resisting discussion. You are, just as you did in the thread on race and racism. You're the one constantly calling members racist but never demonstrating what you mean or how they are. Racist is just a meaningless slur.

[Chris]

LOL - and the right doesn't refer to the "hard" left or the "far" left with the same intent? I will suggest that those accused of being far-left are often far closer to moderate than those that the left accuses of being far-right.

I imagine some do but in order to find out if they use such words meaningfully or merely as slurs you'd have to challenge them. I've been challenged and met each challenge by defining the words I use. None of you has even tried--well, you did give that circular definition, lol.

[Chris]

Maybe they should take a page out of your book and change definitions to suit their views.

This thread is comical. You should probably stop digging.


People define words all the time. Have you ever looked at the Oxford Dictionary, the one that gives the historically changing meanings of words? Meanings are negotiated in communication in context.

What's comical is you four lefties avoiding the topic.

[Chris]

If far right is not merely a lefty slur, then define it meaningfully.

[Safety]

A lefty is one who wants to undermine traditional values, customs and associations in order to usher in ever bigger government and redesign society.

I can define what I mean.

You cannot.

A racist is someone that believes their race or status is superlative to others. Either direct (active) or indirect (defending). They can also be someone that gives the extra effort to defend the status quo, while staying silent when the status quo denigrates other groups.

If the shoe fits, lace that bitch up and wear it.

[Safety]

I start a topic on the left's use of slurs but don't want to discuss it? I'm not the one resisting discussion. You are, just as you did in the thread on race and racism. You're the one constantly calling members racist but never demonstrating what you mean or how they are. Racist is just a meaningless slur.

Oh no, it’s not a meaningless slur, only those that espouse the tendencies and then get called out on it, consider it meaningless. It must be some sort of phenomenon, tens of millions of people are able to not have the label attached to them, I wonder what their secret is....

[Common Sense]

Those darn lefties and their slurs!

[Dr. Who]

For a long time now I've through the left, standing for nothing, lost it. Now I begin to realize the left doesn't even know what they stand against--other than a slur of slur words like alt-right, far right, fascist, racist, white supremacist. The left seems bound together by slurs, empty, meaningless slurs.
Just once I wish you would proofread your posts so that I don't have to guess what your typos mean. Do you want me to offer the RW slurs against the left? How about "hard-left", "alt-left", "racist", "SJW", "snowflake" and drum roll .... "Marxist"? Do you really want to go there because I can retrieve hundreds of your posts that use any number of those terms.

[Safety]

Just once I wish you would proofread your posts so that I don't have to guess what your typos mean. Do you want me to offer the RW slurs against the left? How about "hard-left", "alt-left", "racist", "SJW", "snowflake" and drum roll .... "Marxist"? Do you really want to go there because I can retrieve hundreds of your posts that use any number of those terms.

That’s what makes this entire argument ridiculous. There is no other explanation for his constant whining about slurs, when he has a posting history full of them. There is no etch-a-sketch feature in life.

[Dr. Who]

That’s what makes this entire argument ridiculous. There is no other explanation for his constant whining about slurs, when he has a posting history full of them. There is no etch-a-sketch feature in life.
All I can say is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If one constantly labels/slurs others, one has no credibility to stand on a pulpit and accuse others of labelling/slurring. It's pure hypocrisy. Does such a person believe that their political opposites suffer from short and long-term memory loss?

[Safety]

24197

[Ethereal]

Lol...yeah, Trump is a progressive. That's why he's supporting right wing candidates, nominating right wing judges, cutting social programs, increasing military spending and implementing a massive tax cut...because he's a progressive. Good one.

Teddy Roosevelt, the original "progressive" politician, would be considered an ultra "right-wing" candidate by modern "liberal" standards.

[Chris]

A racist is someone that believes their race or status is superlative to others. Either direct (active) or indirect (defending). They can also be someone that gives the extra effort to defend the status quo, while staying silent when the status quo denigrates other groups.

If the shoe fits, lace that bitch up and wear it.


At least an attempt at defining racist, in that first sentence, but all without defining race, so it remains somewhat circular. The rest is pretty much unintelligible, direct, indirect? Status quo? Then you skip to shoes.

But at least you tried and that, we'll see, might open up discussion of the terms race and racist.

[Chris]

Oh no, it’s not a meaningless slur, only those that espouse the tendencies and then get called out on it, consider it meaningless. It must be some sort of phenomenon, tens of millions of people are able to not have the label attached to them, I wonder what their secret is....

Ah, so it's a label attached to others. Huh? Again, you drift into meaninglessness.

[Chris]

Those darn lefties and their slurs!

You're usual mockery. Unsurprising you can't contribute by defining any of the slurs mentioned.

[stjames1_53]

I only watched his show a couple of times. I couldn't stand it. I have read about it more often including from the producers and what they encouraged. People seem to like the obnoxious. -

Is that a reason for us to like you and your ilk?

[Chris]

Just once I wish you would proofread your posts so that I don't have to guess what your typos mean. Do you want me to offer the RW slurs against the left? How about "hard-left", "alt-left", "racist", "SJW", "snowflake" and drum roll .... "Marxist"? Do you really want to go there because I can retrieve hundreds of your posts that use any number of those terms.

Oh, my, a typo! You're so easily distracted.

You can offer right-wing slurs all day long and I can define what they mean. An SJW is one who pretends to seek justice for an identity group but is merely virtue signalling. I could define each of those terms easily as I use them, as I intend them--and have often done so in the past.

The challenge to you all lefties is for you to define the words you use in some meaningful way. So far we've gotten circular definitions for far right and racist.

If you can't define the words you use then they are great candidates as mere slurs.

[stjames1_53]

Having an adverse opinion about Trump is not about enjoyment. It's about seeing Nero fiddle while Rome burns. It's about having America governed by a man who is completely incompetent and worse, someone whose only reason for running for President is to feed his desire for attention and whose ego is so enormous that he ignores the advice of those who actually know more about politics than he does. If the members of his party could push a button and make him disappear, most of them would. He embarrasses them and he frightens them. He is entirely unpredictable and ignorant. This impresses his followers and irritates the rest of the world. He thinks he has the skills to be a peace maker, but he doesn't understand the game. Worse still, he is liable to be led down the garden path by those who would truly love to make war. From his perspective, either way, he wins. A war-time President would still put him in the history books and the historical "cleaners" would find a way to justify his actions.
How is Trump burning down America, in your own words...short and succinct. As far as justifying his actions, you've pretty much given Obama and Clinton a pass for their crimes.
We get it, you want your own brand of criminal in the WH..................

[stjames1_53]

Oh, my, a typo! You're so easily distracted.

You can offer right-wing slurs all day long and I can define what they mean. An SJW is one who pretends to seek justice for an identity group but is merely virtue signalling. I could define each of those terms easily as I use them, as I intend them--and have often done so in the past.

The challenge to you all lefties is for you to define the words you use in some meaningful way. So far we've gotten circular definitions for far right and racist.

If you can't define the words you use then they are great candidates as mere slurs.

She attacks style and spelling when she doesn't have anything else to attack with. She's done it to me.

[Chris]

That’s what makes this entire argument ridiculous. There is no other explanation for his constant whining about slurs, when he has a posting history full of them. There is no etch-a-sketch feature in life.

I've never mentioned slurs before this thread. I raised it because I don't think some of the terms the left uses so commonly really have meaning to them, that they are used just as slurs.

A word in and of itself is not a slur. A word becomes a slur by how its used. The example in the OP was calling Trump far right when obviously he's not in any sense other than as a slur. Far right has just become a slur the left uses unthinkingly.

[stjames1_53]

For a long time now I've through the left, standing for nothing, lost it. Now I begin to realize the left doesn't even know what they stand against--other than a slur of slur words like alt-right, far right, fascist, racist, white supremacist. The left seems bound together by slurs, empty, meaningless slurs.
here's the real cool thing...they haven't given one thought as to what comes next. Not one...............and they cannot say where their hatred comes from. It comes from msm as it shows everyday they post those same talking points at least 3 times a day in every thread.
the names they like to use that have become meaningless even to themselves.

[Chris]

How is Trump burning down America, in your own words...short and succinct. As far as justifying his actions, you've pretty much given Obama and Clinton a pass for their crimes.
We get it, you want your own brand of criminal in the WH..................

Still, the question here is not whether Trump is burning down America in some sense, but how that can be called far right.

[stjames1_53]

What slurs did I use? Be specific.

Right wing is a slur, but your constant use of "the left" and progressives isn't?

Is this a joke?

you actually think progressives is a slur?
what other name do you prefer to be called when lumped into a group? Socialist?
We cannot refer to you as an American.

[Chris]

Teddy Roosevelt, the original "progressive" politician, would be considered an ultra "right-wing" candidate by modern "liberal" standards.


Now, this does offer a different interpretation of words like far right, fascist, racist, not as mere slurs, but labels identifying what liberals oppose, even if that opposition is itself liberal/progressive.

[stjames1_53]

Sorry, since the media has been primarily focused on Trump, I thought that he fit the bill. Far-right = extremist. What else is there to say? They have much in common with irrational fundamentalists. They are incapable of compromise. They side with other extremists as long as they are right-leaning. now, substitute far-left and you have an accurate description of the left side of the equation. Far-Left=extremist. It suits them better because they are violent and publically aggressive towards the other side. How would you like it if you were thrown out of a restaurant, followed, jeered, and threatened? How many leftist have threatened children of politicians? Or stated they'd like to blow up the WH with Trump in it? You're so full of it....................

needed to check spelling. Wouldn't want Who to condemn me to Hell for a typo..a usual tactic used by Who. suffer the gods.........

[stjames1_53]

I start a topic on the left's use of slurs but don't want to discuss it? I'm not the one resisting discussion. You are, just as you did in the thread on race and racism. You're the one constantly calling members racist but never demonstrating what you mean or how they are. Racist is just a meaningless slur.
and has lost its impact.............

[stjames1_53]

Those darn lefties and their slurs!

well, we could call them murderers..............and that can be proven

[Chris]

now, substitute far-left and you have an accurate description of the left side of the equation.
Far-Left=extremist. It suits them better because they are violent and publically aggressive towards the other side.
How would you like it if you were thrown out of a restaurant, followed, jeered, and threatened? how many leftist have threatened children of politicians? Or stated they'd like to blow up the WH with Trump in it?
You're so full of it....................


If that's all far left meant but it's easy to give it meaning in light of recent events where people were confronted in restaurants and shouted down and chased out simply because they exercise their rights to political free speech.

[Chris]

and has lost its impact.............

Hah! That is precisely what I'm getting at. The repeated use of terms like far right, fascist, racist without meaning but as mere slurs results eventually in their losing all impact. Those words become utterly meaningless.

[stjames1_53]

Hah! That is precisely what I'm getting at. The repeated use of terms like far right, fascist, racist without meaning but as mere slurs results eventually in their losing all impact. Those words become utterly meaningless.
They only use words they cannot define for the sole purpose of picking a fight. Guess that only adds to the proof that they are indeed violence driven when they don't get a reaction.

[Chris]

They only use words they cannot define for the sole purpose of picking a fight. Guess that only adds to the proof that they are indeed violence driven when they don't get a reaction.

From slurs to violence, the aim is to avoid dialog, the aim is to shut down discussion.

[donttread]

Happened to stop at NPR on the radio dial, All Things Considered, and the woman who co-hosts with Ira took the lead story on what was the Governor of Az going to do now that McCain has died. He's in a bind she said, should he appoint the moderate right, someone like McCain, or the far right led by Trump.

What? McCain, moderate, OK, but Trump far right? What in God's name has gotten into the media to use a term like far right no more meaning than a slur like fascist or racist? When they use words like that they make them all but meaningless.

Sure, Trump's a Republican but he's always been buddies with liberals and Democrats. He's a progressive with little ideological creds to his name.

But the media finds it useful to use the slur words why? It's nuts.

Great point. Left and right. Con and Lib have become more useful as insults that descriptions. That's why I think we need to rank politicians on a "controllist scale" based on how controlling of others their policies are. We could easily see a "hard right" and "hard left" candidate with the same ranking. Thjey would simply be trying to control different actions people take but the core component of controllism would be equal.

[Mister D]

From slurs to violence, the aim is to avoid dialog, the aim is to shut down discussion.
You know, I'm not sure I agree. In some cases I don't think this lack of clarity is intentional. I was reading part of this last night while lying in bed and the entire point seems to have been missed. The point isn't that progressives apply labels to other members or use terms like far-right, racist and fascist to describe perspectives and ideas. The point is that they don't have a clear idea of what they mean by these terms. I just shook my head when Dr. Who and ol' One Trick accused you of hypocrisy. Yes, you do call people and ideas "progressive" and Marxist". I doubt these are terms of endearment but you can explain exactly what you mean by these terms. That's the point.

[Mister D]

A racist is someone that believes their race or status is superlative to others. Either direct (active) or indirect (defending). They can also be someone that gives the extra effort to defend the status quo, while staying silent when the status quo denigrates other groups.

If the shoe fits, lace that $#@! up and wear it.
Now look at this definition of racism. Instead of stopping with the first sentence which captures the meaning of racism he has to go on to muddle the concept. Does he not realize he's making your point for you?

[Jets]

The problem is defining what “far right” means. It’s too subjective. If anything the term “reactionary” would be more accurate.

jmo

[Chris]

Great point. Left and right. Con and Lib have become more useful as insults that descriptions. That's why I think we need to rank politicians on a "controllist scale" based on how controlling of others their policies are. We could easily see a "hard right" and "hard left" candidate with the same ranking. Thjey would simply be trying to control different actions people take but the core component of controllism would be equal.


Agree, I won't say some on the right don't do the same.

[Chris]

You know, I'm not sure I agree. In some cases I don't think this lack of clarity is intentional. I was reading part of this last night while lying in bed and the entire point seems to have been missed. The point isn't that progressives apply labels to other members or use terms like far-right, racist and fascist to describe perspectives and ideas. The point is that they don't have a clear idea of what they mean by these terms. I just shook my head when Dr. Who and ol' One Trick accused you of hypocrisy. Yes, you do call people and ideas "progressive" and Marxist". I doubt these are terms of endearment but you can explain exactly what you mean by these terms. That's the point.


And that is precisely the point I'm trying to get across, "they don't have a clear idea of what they mean by these terms." I think that's been clearly demonstrated here, in circular definitions and in their trying to reframe and turn the topic in different directions.

[Chris]

The problem is defining what “far right” means. It’s too subjective. If anything the term “reactionary” would be more accurate.

jmo

But that can't be used as a slur. And it implies a position vis a vie a liberal one. And would likely lead to discussion of both positions.

I don't think subjectivity is a problem. Earlier I gave my meanings for several terms and was accused of trying to control discussion when, no, I'm just giving my opinion in order to open up discussion. Others are free to give their meanings of the terms--but then discussion would ensue. I think terms are used to stiffle discussion.

[Captdon]

Because Trump is still a TV personality, now imitating a further right leaning politician. His actual politics (such as they are) are irrelevant as they only come out when he hasn't got the time and coaching to prepare a response that would appeal to his fans. He learned to play a role after many years on TV. His fans liked him best when he was unmerciful, rude and dismissive. They still like it.

Still tired of him winning. Whine away for the next 6+ years while we reap the benefits.

[Captdon]

I see my point blew right past you.

The point is not Trump and his populist role.

The point is the media turning words into meaningless mush. Much the way you often do, like in the last thread where you and safety reduced racism and racist to black and white.

Chris, it didn't blow past her. She had no answer so she changed the subject. That's what she always does. Good thing she couldn't find her thesaurus.

[Captdon]

I have often asked what exactly the term "far right" means but no one here seems to know.

I'm becoming convinced that progressives get their political vocabulary from op eds. Witness the use of the term "alt right". Honestly, I doubt they even realize the "alt" is short for alternative. Morons.

I know what the "alt"means but not what it is supposed to be.

[Mister D]

And that is precisely the point I'm trying to get across, "they don't have a clear idea of what they mean by these terms." I think that's been clearly demonstrated here, in circular definitions and in their trying to reframe and turn the topic in different directions.
Safety's definition of racism is instructive. He gets it right but then he tries to cover his greatly expanded use of the term thus demonstrating your point.

[rcfieldz]

“McCain in a skirt”https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/OswIbMa1-JzOrhgHfiEJOp32LrU=/0x0:5568x3712/1200x800/filters:focal(2491x1262:3381x2152)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/61043153/GettyImages_915821738.0.jpg

[rcfieldz]

“McCain in a skirt”
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/28/17786532/arizona-senate-primary-mcsally-ward-arpaio-midterms (https://www.vox.com/2018/8/28/17786532/arizona-senate-primary-mcsally-ward-arpaio-midterms)

[Captdon]

"What in God's name has gotten into the media to use a term like far right no more meaning than a slur like fascist or racist? When they use words like that they make them all but meaningless."

He is such an opportunist that he doesn't eschew the far right and his promises and actions are so appealing to the far right - hence if the shoe fits he must wear it. That is the image that he is projecting and that the majority of the people on both sides of the political divide are perceiving. His followers are as opportunistic as he is. They say they don't like how he behaves, but since he is giving them what they want, it doesn't matter. Well, I guess those who see his behavior as problematic in many ways are just as entitled to take exception as those who disregard it are entitled to feel that nothing matters other than getting what they want.


All Presidents are oppurtunists. You think Obama appealed to the tribalism by accident?

Your ilk can't accept that we want results and not pretty words. We want the country to prosper and not settle. We want the country to lead not follow. We want to regain control not give it up.

There's your problem right there. You are willing to give control of your life to a politician in return for some kind of security. You don't care what the country becomes as long as you get what you want without having to do anything.

Now, get mad, change what I said, change what you said and we can go from there.

[Chris]

Safety's definition of racism is instructive. He gets it right but then he tries to cover his greatly expanded use of the term thus demonstrating your point.

That's because he wants, in his expansion, to use it as a slur, wants to use it against those he disagrees with but doesn't have the courage to debate--hence his usual response he doesn't have to explain himself.

[Chris]

“McCain in a skirt”
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/28/17786532/arizona-senate-primary-mcsally-ward-arpaio-midterms (https://www.vox.com/2018/8/28/17786532/arizona-senate-primary-mcsally-ward-arpaio-midterms)

That skirts the issue. :)

[Captdon]

Having an adverse opinion about Trump is not about enjoyment. It's about seeing Nero fiddle while Rome burns. It's about having America governed by a man who is completely incompetent and worse, someone whose only reason for running for President is to feed his desire for attention and whose ego is so enormous that he ignores the advice of those who actually know more about politics than he does. If the members of his party could push a button and make him disappear, most of them would. He embarrasses them and he frightens them. He is entirely unpredictable and ignorant. This impresses his followers and irritates the rest of the world. He thinks he has the skills to be a peace maker, but he doesn't understand the game. Worse still, he is liable to be led down the garden path by those who would truly love to make war. From his perspective, either way, he wins. A war-time President would still put him in the history books and the historical "cleaners" would find a way to justify his actions.

Having an adverse opinion of him is your rigth to be wrong.

[nathanbforrest45]

What slurs did I use? Be specific.

Right wing is a slur, but your constant use of "the left" and progressives isn't?

Is this a joke?

Are you trying to say "left" and "progressive" are not acceptable terms any longer? This is what the collectivist called themselves before they saw the excesses of the philosophy in Europe. Hitler and Mussolini were both collectivist and "progressives". When the intellectuals saw where that took them they distanced themselves from the ideology by simply rebranding it to "liberal".

Right Wing is a slur because you hurl it as an insult without knowing what it may mean if anything.

[nathanbforrest45]

because it is a waste of time and energy to define words that a middle schooler knows the definition to. For someone that quotes adam smith, swears that he knows the true mindset of lincoln, but has to have someone give him the definition of racism or define race, is laughable. No, you damn well know the definition, but wants someone to fetch for you so you can argue against that as well.
race
race
race
race
race
race
race
race
race
race

[Captdon]

Lol...yeah, Trump is a progressive. That's why he's supporting right wing candidates, nominating right wing judges, cutting social programs, increasing military spending and implementing a massive tax cut...because he's a progressive. Good one.

We like it. You don't have any reason to like or not like it.

[Captdon]

It’s nothing more than his supporters being upset because the person they support says and does things the self proclaimed alt-right does, says white supremacists are very fine people, and denigrates minorities. Instead of focusing on self reflection on why they could support such a person, they instead want to change the meanings of words and whine that the original definition fits not only Trump, but their mindset.

You are wrong. We don't need to reflect. He has gotten rid of the Obama legacy in a short time. He has passed bills we voted for him to get passed. We didn't like the spending bill and said so.

You are the one changing the meaning of words since you can't defend liberalism for what it is.

You think we are on the defensive when all we are doing is correcting your errors. You have the chance to learn or remain ignorant. It's up to you. I say you will choose ignorance.

[Captdon]

You know you could try using the English language without trying to change the meanings of words. Obviously you choosing to use term lying was either a mistake or a case of autocorrect on your device, why don't you try again.

Lying was the correct word.

[Captdon]

Sorry, since the media has been primarily focused on Trump, I thought that he fit the bill. Far-right = extremist. What else is there to say? They have much in common with irrational fundamentalists. They are incapable of compromise. They side with other extremists as long as they are right-leaning.

Name one compromise the left has agreed to? They agreed to one for the Dreamers and then took it back. The left are a disgrace. Don't, as a liberal, use extremist or irrational.That defines you.

I want to control my life while you lefties want to control it. Imagine my resistance to that.

[Captdon]

LOL - and the right doesn't refer to the "hard" left or the "far" left with the same intent? I will suggest that those accused of being far-left are often far closer to moderate than those that the left accuses of being far-right.

Of course you would. You would still be as wrong as always. Warren and Sanders are moderates makes me wonder what's wrong with you.

[Captdon]

I start a topic on the left's use of slurs but don't want to discuss it? I'm not the one resisting discussion. You are, just as you did in the thread on race and racism. You're the one constantly calling members racist but never demonstrating what you mean or how they are. Racist is just a meaningless slur.

Chris, the left is always going to go after Trump. They are crazy. Definition= unable to have rational thinking or understand simple words.

[Captdon]

A racist is someone that believes their race or status is superlative to others. Either direct (active) or indirect (defending). They can also be someone that gives the extra effort to defend the status quo, while staying silent when the status quo denigrates other groups.

If the shoe fits, lace that $#@! up and wear it.

A racist is anyone who disagrees with you or says that certain cultural things don't work in the real world.You are sensitive to slights that aren't there. You are the racist here. That's all you have... race-baiting.

[Captdon]

Oh, my, a typo! You're so easily distracted.

You can offer right-wing slurs all day long and I can define what they mean. An SJW is one who pretends to seek justice for an identity group but is merely virtue signalling. I could define each of those terms easily as I use them, as I intend them--and have often done so in the past.

The challenge to you all lefties is for you to define the words you use in some meaningful way. So far we've gotten circular definitions for far right and racist.

If you can't define the words you use then they are great candidates as mere slurs.

They can't define what they stand for. We have to do that for them as well. You aren't talking to the brightest people. That might be a slur or an insult. I don't care.

[Chris]

Having an adverse opinion of him is your rigth to be wrong.


I care less about the adverse opinion than I do what she means by it.

[Chris]

They can't define what they stand for. We have to do that for them as well. You aren't talking to the brightest people. That might be a slur or an insult. I don't care.

When it comes to finding a topic, I have to wonder. Not so much misunderstanding, but arguing the topic is not the topic.

[Robo]

Happened to stop at NPR on the radio dial, All Things Considered, and the woman who co-hosts with Ira took the lead story on what was the Governor of Az going to do now that McCain has died. He's in a bind she said, should he appoint the moderate right, someone like McCain, or the far right led by Trump.

What? McCain, moderate, OK, but Trump far right? What in God's name has gotten into the media to use a term like far right no more meaning than a slur like fascist or racist? When they use words like that they make them all but meaningless.

Sure, Trump's a Republican but he's always been buddies with liberals and Democrats. He's a progressive with little ideological creds to his name.

But the media finds it useful to use the slur words why? It's nuts.

I don't think Trump is a "progressive." Progressives are neo-socialist. I see Trump as a populace capitalist. I like the fact that he wants constitutionalist original-ist on the supreme court.

[Chris]

I don't think Trump is a "progressive." Progressives are neo-socialist. I see Trump as a populace capitalist. I like the fact that he wants constitutionalist original-ist on the supreme court.

Actually, I think I meant to type populist, as in "He's a progressive populist with little ideological creds to his name." His protectionist policies are progressive but framed in populist terms.

Malapropism.

[Standing Wolf]

While it would be fair and accurate to describe some of Trump's supporters as being "of the far right", Trump himself and many more of his followers are clearly right-wing populists.

By the way, considering some of the over-the-top disparaging language directed at any member expressing a "liberal" opinion on this forum, I find it sadly amusing that some of the same individuals who routinely engage in such are also the ones who like to make sanctimonious noises about how "liberals" are characterized by their tendency to insult people. Often in the same thread.

[Hoosier8]

I have often asked what exactly the term "far right" means but no one here seems to know.

I'm becoming convinced that progressives get their political vocabulary from op eds. Witness the use of the term "alt right". Honestly, I doubt they even realize the "alt" is short for alternative. Morons.
Anything right of the far left.

[Tahuyaman]

Having an adverse opinion about Trump is not about enjoyment. It's about seeing Nero fiddle while Rome burns. It's about having America governed by a man who is completely incompetent and worse, someone whose only reason for running for President is to feed his desire for attention and whose ego is so enormous that he ignores the advice of those who actually know more about politics than he does. If the members of his party could push a button and make him disappear, most of them would. He embarrasses them and he frightens them. He is entirely unpredictable and ignorant. This impresses his followers and irritates the rest of the world. He thinks he has the skills to be a peace maker, but he doesn't understand the game. Worse still, he is liable to be led down the garden path by those who would truly love to make war. From his perspective, either way, he wins. A war-time President would still put him in the history books and the historical "cleaners" would find a way to justify his actions.

Trump is not governing America. America is not governed by one single person. Our president is not a king or Emperor.

Personally, I believe that members of the political establishment should be both embarrassed and frightened. Their unchecked grip on power is being challenged and people are responding to that.


Much of the rest of the world has been getting a free ride from the US for generations. I’m sure it does irritate some that this looks to be coming to an end.

I don’t see Trump being led down a path to war. Just the opposite looks to be the case. I think he’s more inclined to be a practitioner of “peace through strength”.

[Tahuyaman]

Lol...yeah, Trump is a progressive. That's why he's supporting right wing candidates, nominating right wing judges, cutting social programs, increasing military spending and implementing a massive tax cut...because he's a progressive. Good one.. He’s supporting Republicans who are proponents of tax cuts. There’s far more to being a right winger than that. Trump is certainly not a small government Republican.

[nathanbforrest45]

While it would be fair and accurate to describe some of Trump's supporters as being "of the far right", Trump himself and many more of his followers are clearly right-wing populists.

By the way, considering some of the over-the-top disparaging language directed at any member expressing a "liberal" opinion on this forum, I find it sadly amusing that some of the same individuals who routinely engage in such are also the ones who like to make sanctimonious noises about how "liberals" are characterized by their tendency to insult people. Often in the same thread.

Define "far right"

[Chris]

While it would be fair and accurate to describe some of Trump's supporters as being "of the far right", Trump himself and many more of his followers are clearly right-wing populists.

By the way, considering some of the over-the-top disparaging language directed at any member expressing a "liberal" opinion on this forum, I find it sadly amusing that some of the same individuals who routinely engage in such are also the ones who like to make sanctimonious noises about how "liberals" are characterized by their tendency to insult people. Often in the same thread.


We agree on populist. But right wing? Do tell us how. What do you mean by right wing?


I don't see anyone here hurling insults so can we drop the defensive tu quoque.

[Tahuyaman]

Define "far right"

anyone who disagrees with a liberal on any issue.

[Chris]

anyone who disagrees with a liberal on any issue.

For many a liberal I don't think it goes any deeper than that.

[nathanbforrest45]

For many a liberal I don't think it goes any deeper than that.

To me "Far Right" means the guy in the outside lane of a multiple lane highway

[Tahuyaman]

For many a liberal I don't think it goes any deeper than that.
To be honest, there are some in the right who are the same way. For an example, I am a firm conservative, but I oppose the death penalty and I made it known that I was not going to vote for Trump. A nameless conservative here ( initials are MV ) called me a left wing Hillary Clinton supporter because of that.

[Chris]

To be honest, there are some in the right who are the same way. For an example, I am a firm conservative, but I oppose the death penalty and I made it known that I was not going to vote for Trump. A nameless conservative here ( initials are MV ) called me a left wing Hillary Clinton supporter because of that.


Agree, there are cons like libs.

[Mister D]

While it would be fair and accurate to describe some of Trump's supporters as being "of the far right", Trump himself and many more of his followers are clearly right-wing populists.

By the way, considering some of the over-the-top disparaging language directed at any member expressing a "liberal" opinion on this forum, I find it sadly amusing that some of the same individuals who routinely engage in such are also the ones who like to make sanctimonious noises about how "liberals" are characterized by their tendency to insult people. Often in the same thread.
You're all struggling with this.

It's not about insults in and of themselves, Wolf. It's about the terms used as insults. What do they really mean? Do any of you know?

[nathanbforrest45]

You're all struggling with this.

It's not about insults in and of themselves, Wolf. It's about the terms used as insults. What do they really mean? Do any of you know?
That's like the insult thrown by some unnamed Georgia Democrat who claimed his opponent's sister was a well known Thespian

[stjames1_53]

looks like Who and sense have fled the battlefield..............

[DGUtley]

GENERAL WARNING -- Please discuss post and not posters. Stay on topic and refrain from insults, bickering, personal insults, name-calling.

[Standing Wolf]

Define "far right"

I suppose since I did state that some - not all, certainly - of Trump's supporters fit that description, I am on the hook to do that. (Of course I reserve the right to ask you what a "left wing whackjob" is, at some later date.) I think that "far right" fairly describes folks like neo-nazis, white supremacists, and those who express the opinion that "all Muslims should be rounded up and deported" - that sort of thing. I'd say it's the ones who take conservative principles too far - often demonstrating a basic failure to understand those principles or a tendency to mischaracterize them - and, in doing so, advocate for actions that are unconstitutional, e.g., deporting citizens or others based on their religion.

[Chris]

I suppose since I did state that some - not all, certainly - of Trump's supporters fit that description, I am on the hook to do that. (Of course I reserve the right to ask you what a "left wing whackjob" is, at some later date.) I think that "far right" fairly describes folks like neo-nazis, white supremacists, and those who express the opinion that "all Muslims should be rounded up and deported" - that sort of thing. I'd say it's the ones who take conservative principles too far - often demonstrating a basic failure to understand those principles or a tendency to mischaracterize them - and, in doing so, advocate for actions that are unconstitutional, e.g., deporting citizens or others based on their religion.


All you've done to define one label is toss out other undefined labels, labels already listed as common slurs used by the left. You do mention conservative principles. Define those. Especially when you make the odd claim they can be stretched to all those labels.

[stjames1_53]

I suppose since I did state that some - not all, certainly - of Trump's supporters fit that description, I am on the hook to do that. (Of course I reserve the right to ask you what a "left wing whackjob" is, at some later date.) I think that "far right" fairly describes folks like neo-nazis, white supremacists, and those who express the opinion that "all Muslims should be rounded up and deported" - that sort of thing. I'd say it's the ones who take conservative principles too far - often demonstrating a basic failure to understand those principles or a tendency to mischaracterize them - and, in doing so, advocate for actions that are unconstitutional, e.g., deporting citizens or others based on their religion.

Left-wing whackjobs...I guess those are the ones that attack people going to restaurants, shooters who target baseball games, or folks like Waters. I know some left political-leaning people, but not all are calling to blow up the WH, or attacking Barron and Melania, or those reporters that can't tell the difference between facts and speculation to favor the Democrat Party.
AntiFa doesn't qualify for left-wing whackjobs since they are so far off the charts, but those who embrace them, like Pelosi and Waters, are definitely whackjobs.
Where do Socialists fall on the political line?

[Chris]

Left-wing whackjobs...I guess those are the ones that attack people going to restaurants, shooters who target baseball games, or folks like Waters. I know some left political-leaning people, but not all are calling to blow up the WH, or attacking Barron and Melania, or those reporters that can't tell the difference between facts and speculation to favor the Democrat Party.
AntiFa doesn't qualify for left-wing whackjobs since they are so far off the charts, but those who embrace them, like Pelosi and Waters, are definitely whackjobs.
Where do Socialists fall on the political line?


That's a good definition. It doesn't mean I agree with it but now I know what you mean by "Left-wing whackjobs."

Much earlier I was challenged and gave a definition of "Lefty": "A lefty is one who wants to undermine traditional values, customs and associations in order to usher in ever bigger government and redesign society."

No one need agree with that definition, it's not limiting or restrictive, it just gives some idea what I mean when I use the term.

Defining what you mean when challenged opens up discussion rather than close it down, which is what undefined slurs do.

[stjames1_53]

Alt-Left is still on the political line. We have a few in here that qualify for that place, but that doesn't mean they are violent or desire to do harm, otherwise.
What I don't get is that some of the progressives say that "progressive" is a slur, when in fact that is exactly what they are and they often come from the left side of the equation. But to refer to them as progressives is an insult?
What really gets it is that some of them have their foot planted in the past, sometimes as far back as the 17-1800's. How is that being "progressive"?

[Mister D]

This whole "alt" concept is retarded. There is so much conformity in North American political culture it's amazing there is so much perceived division.

[Chris]

This whole "alt" concept is retarded. There is so much conformity in North American political culture it's amazing there is so much perceived division.

Alt-left is a reaction to the media invention of alt-right which is nothing but a part of the left the media feels uneasy about.


More seriously, seeing how similar even left and right are in America requires some reading of political critics outside the US and I doubt other than accidental encounters there are very many here who seek out those critics.

[Standing Wolf]

As others have indicated throughout this thread and elsewhere - and as I've noted for a long, long time - "conservative" and "liberal", and for the most part "left" and "right", have become practically useless in terms of rational discussion, and more often than not are counterproductive and a barrier to such discussion. Every individual defines them differently and - more importantly - their application can be accurate under some circumstances and totally off the mark under others.

T-man mentioned that he'd been labeled by someone "a left wing Hillary Clinton supporter" for opposing the death penalty. I've been called a blatant racist for opposing racial preferences in hiring, promotion and school admissions. (The names I was called when I objected to the negative stereotyping of gun owners on a Democratic forum were off the charts.) Is there any serious doubt that the great majority of Americans, as individuals, represent a mix of traditionally "liberal" and "conservative" views? Does it make any sense to dismiss - let alone insult - someone as being this-or-that label when they probably agree with you on far more subjects than not?

Far, far too much time is spent these days not arguing the pros and cons, the logic or illogic, of this or that topic and instead just derailing or avoiding discussion by saying, in so many words, "Of course you think that - you're a [fill in the blank]."

[Chris]

As others have indicated throughout this thread and elsewhere - and as I've noted for a long, long time - "conservative" and "liberal", and for the most part "left" and "right", have become practically useless in terms of rational discussion, and more often than not are counterproductive and a barrier to such discussion. Every individual defines them differently and - more importantly - their application can be accurate under some circumstances and totally off the mark under others.

T-man mentioned that he'd been labeled by someone "a left wing Hillary Clinton supporter" for opposing the death penalty. I've been called a blatant racist for opposing racial preferences in hiring, promotion and school admissions. (The names I was called when I objected to the negative stereotyping of gun owners on a Democratic forum were off the charts.) Is there any serious doubt that the great majority of Americans, as individuals, represent a mix of traditionally "liberal" and "conservative" views? Does it make any sense to dismiss - let alone insult - someone as being this-or-that label when they probably agree with you on far more subjects than not?

Far, far too much time is spent these days not arguing the pros and cons, the logic or illogic, of this or that topic and instead just derailing or avoiding discussion by saying, in so many words, "Of course you think that - you're a [fill in the blank]."



You're catching onto the point of this thread. That all too often people use political terms without meaning, as mere slurs. But that doesn't mean you can assume all uses of political terms are so and that "for the most part "left" and "right", have become practically useless in terms of rational discussion, and more often than not are counterproductive and a barrier to such discussion."

That's the problem. The solution is defining what you mean by such terms when you use them, either by providing enough content and context to give them meaning or when challenged to define what you mean--and not with circular definitions as several have done or by throwing out additional slurs as you did.

[Standing Wolf]

"Additional slurs"?

[Chris]

I suppose since I did state that some - not all, certainly - of Trump's supporters fit that description, I am on the hook to do that. (Of course I reserve the right to ask you what a "left wing whackjob" is, at some later date.) I think that "far right" fairly describes folks like neo-nazis, white supremacists, and those who express the opinion that "all Muslims should be rounded up and deported" - that sort of thing. I'd say it's the ones who take conservative principles too far - often demonstrating a basic failure to understand those principles or a tendency to mischaracterize them - and, in doing so, advocate for actions that are unconstitutional, e.g., deporting citizens or others based on their religion.


Those additional slurs.

The left tends to equate all those things: far right = facsist (nazi) = racist.

They're meaningless as used.

[Standing Wolf]

Those additional slurs.

The left tends to equate all those things: far right = facsist (nazi) = racist.

They're meaningless as used.

Now I'm confused, Chris. Calling neo-nazis and white supremacists "neo-nazis" and "white supremacists" is a "slur"?

If you look for a definition of "far right" online, those are examples of the kinds of people the term is commonly applied to. What is your problem with that? Aren't you the one who is always starting threads explaining - usually with charts and graphs - how the Nazis were really "leftists"?

[Chris]

Now I'm confused, Chris. Calling neo-nazis and white supremacists "neo-nazis" and "white supremacists" is a "slur"?

If you look for a definition of "far right" online, those are examples of the kinds of people the term is commonly applied to. What is your problem with that? Aren't you the one who is always starting threads explaining - usually with charts and graphs - how the Nazis were really "leftists"?


Try and read what I post. I didn't say calling neonazis neonazis is a slur. I said calling the (far) right those things is merely using oft-used slurs to define a slur. None of it is defined.

My problem with that is they are used as slurs and have no meaning or intention other than to stop discussion and debate. What you just posted: "As others have indicated throughout this thread and elsewhere - and as I've noted for a long, long time - "conservative" and "liberal", and for the most part "left" and "right", have become practically useless in terms of rational discussion, and more often than not are counterproductive and a barrier to such discussion. Every individual defines them differently and - more importantly - their application can be accurate under some circumstances and totally off the mark under others. "

I thought you were catching on. Maybe not.

[stjames1_53]

Now I'm confused, Chris. Calling neo-nazis and white supremacists "neo-nazis" and "white supremacists" is a "slur"?

If you look for a definition of "far right" online, those are examples of the kinds of people the term is commonly applied to. What is your problem with that? Aren't you the one who is always starting threads explaining - usually with charts and graphs - how the Nazis were really "leftists"?

We take today's redefined words and apply them backwards, but how do we describe Nazis. I mean the real ones form 1943?
Even Mussolini described his policies and enforcement as Fascist.
....then we get back to that thing he said: We should call Communism, Corporate instead, to ease the taste in the mouth of those who are easily swayed. (not exact quote) but accurate in its intent................

[Chris]

I suppose since I did state that some - not all, certainly - of Trump's supporters fit that description, I am on the hook to do that. (Of course I reserve the right to ask you what a "left wing whackjob" is, at some later date.) I think that "far right" fairly describes folks like neo-nazis, white supremacists, and those who express the opinion that "all Muslims should be rounded up and deported" - that sort of thing. I'd say it's the ones who take conservative principles too far - often demonstrating a basic failure to understand those principles or a tendency to mischaracterize them - and, in doing so, advocate for actions that are unconstitutional, e.g., deporting citizens or others based on their religion.


All you've done to define one label is toss out other undefined labels, labels already listed as common slurs used by the left. You do mention conservative principles. Define those. Especially when you make the odd claim they can be stretched to all those labels.


Wolf, you could start defining those terms by answering the question above.

[Standing Wolf]

Try and read what I post. I didn't say calling neonazis neonazis is a slur. I said calling the (far) right those things is merely using oft-used slurs to define a slur. None of it is defined.

My problem with that is they are used as slurs and have no meaning or intention other than to stop discussion and debate. What you just posted: "As others have indicated throughout this thread and elsewhere - and as I've noted for a long, long time - "conservative" and "liberal", and for the most part "left" and "right", have become practically useless in terms of rational discussion, and more often than not are counterproductive and a barrier to such discussion. Every individual defines them differently and - more importantly - their application can be accurate under some circumstances and totally off the mark under others. "

I thought you were catching on. Maybe not.

As always, Chris, you twist yourself into knots in an attempt to make anyone whom you perceive as an adversary appear somehow deficient in understanding, and make yourself appear smarter. I keep forgetting what an utter waste of time it almost always is to try to discuss anything with you.

I was asked, by Nathan, to define "far right", and I did that. If that bothers you for whatever arcane, personal reason, so what? Had I demurred on the grounds that to do so would be to give in to the temptation to use words that we are all mostly agreed have become an impediment to rational discussion, you'd have faulted me for that. :rollseyes:

[Chris]

As always, Chris, you twist yourself into knots in an attempt to make anyone whom you perceive as an adversary appear somehow deficient in understanding, and make yourself appear smarter. I keep forgetting what an utter waste of time it almost always is to try to discuss anything with you.

I was asked, by Nathan, to define "far right", and I did that. If that bothers you for whatever arcane, personal reason, so what? Had I demurred on the grounds that to do so would be to give in to the temptation to use words that we are all mostly agreed have become an impediment to rational discussion, you'd have faulted me for that. :rollseyes:


I clearly said defining the slur "far right" with other slurs is the problem. You're the one twisted that into the misleading calling neonazis neonazis.

There's nothing smart about it.

And there's nothing smart about defining slurs with more slsurs.

But I can see you'd rather criticize me than address the question posed to you. It was a simple question.

[ripmeister]

This is silly. Right and left are continuums. Far right is just that, as is far left, farther from the center. Most people understand that. Perhaps we should use extreme right and extreme left to differentiate even further. Does it really matter though since they are relative terms?

[Standing Wolf]

This is silly. Right and left are continuums. Far right is just that, as is far left, farther from the center. Most people understand that. Perhaps we should use extreme right and extreme left to differentiate even further. Does it really matter though since they are relative terms?

It matters to people who are uncomfortable with the idea that the world isn't black and white and composed entirely of easily labeled and pigeonholed elements - that we live in a universe, a world, a society in which shades of grey, ambiguity and relativity do exist. It matters to people who want to attribute a refusal to accept their view of things to a flaw of character or a lack of intellect, and who therefore don't understand how a stupid person or a moral monster like that could ever agree with them about anything. It matters to people who always have to have an enemy to blame things on, and a close coterie of similar minded individuals to surround them and make them feel good about themselves. It matters to people who feel it necessary to view every struggle for a solution to any problem as a war between "sides".

[Mister D]

This is silly. Right and left are continuums. Far right is just that, as is far left, farther from the center. Most people understand that. Perhaps we should use extreme right and extreme left to differentiate even further. Does it really matter though since they are relative terms?
Continuums of what? The way these terms are used one would think libertarians, free marketers and neo-Nazis are on a shared continuum.

[Chris]

This is silly. Right and left are continuums. Far right is just that, as is far left, farther from the center. Most people understand that. Perhaps we should use extreme right and extreme left to differentiate even further. Does it really matter though since they are relative terms?

OK, they are continuums.

Earlier, Wolf posted this: "I think that "far right" fairly describes folks like neo-nazis, white supremacists, and those who express the opinion that "all Muslims should be rounded up and deported" - that sort of thing. 'd say it's the ones who take conservative principles too far - often demonstrating a basic failure to understand those principles or a tendency to mischaracterize them - and, in doing so, advocate for actions that are unconstitutional, e.g., deporting citizens or others based on their religion."

Now that implies a continuum from right to far right defined as taking conservative principles too far.

But wait, what are these principles? How are they taken so far along a continuum as to be principles the right generally rejects? I can't get an answer for that.

If "Perhaps we should use extreme right and extreme left to differentiate even further," there still remains a defining of what is being differentiated.

Also, there's more than one continuum. Besides left and right there's authoritarian and libertarian, and many more could be added.

[Chris]

Continuums of what? The way these terms are used one would think libertarians, free marketers and neo-Nazis are on a shared continuum.

That's what tends to happen when you collapse different continuums. In that world's smallest political quiz I end up on the far right, low libertarian quadrant. I'm sure many read that as being far right politically when I see myself as far right socially, as something of a traditionalist (no matter how much that clashes with my libertarian individualism!).

[Chris]

It matters to people who are uncomfortable with the idea that the world isn't black and white and composed entirely of easily labeled and pigeonholed elements - that we live in a universe, a world, a society in which shades of grey, ambiguity and relativity do exist. It matters to people who want to attribute a refusal to accept their view of things to a flaw of character or a lack of intellect, and who therefore don't understand how a stupid person or a moral monster like that could ever agree with them about anything. It matters to people who always have to have an enemy to blame things on, and a close coterie of similar minded individuals to surround them and make them feel good about themselves. It matters to people who feel it necessary to view every struggle for a solution to any problem as a war between "sides".

Now you're beginning to get the point of this thread.

It's just when you're asked to explain yourself and the terms you use that you turn defensive.

[Mister D]

That's what tends to happen when you collapse different continuums. In that world's smallest political quiz I end up on the far right, low libertarian quadrant. I'm sure many read that as being far right politically when I see myself as far right socially, as something of a traditionalist (no matter how much that clashes with my libertarian indivisualism!).
You bring up a good point. It's a fact that many of us have views that exist in some tension with each other. For example, I'm a racialist and yet a Catholic.

[Chris]

You bring up a good point. It's a fact that many of us have views that exist in some tension with each other. For example, I'm a racialist and yet a Catholic.

Terrible! Being Catholic is in itself itself conflicting in its individualism and universalism, and both those conflict with group considerations.

[ripmeister]

So the point is that there is a lot of "gray" out there.

[Mister D]

So the point is that there is a lot of "gray" out there.
No. I think the point is that "right wing" is used to describe ideas that have no relationship with each other as if they did.

[Mister D]

Terrible! Being Catholic is in itself itself conflicting in its individualism and universalism, and both those conflict with group considerations.
Very true

[ripmeister]

No. I think the point is that "right wing" is used to describe ideas that have no relationship with each other as if they did.
Well that depends on the definition of the structure that one would define. In the context of total government control -vs- no government control I think the use of left and right wing is pretty clear. Of course that is simplistic but it doesn't make it invalid.

[Mister D]

Well that depends on the definition of the structure that one would define. In the context of total government control -vs- no government control I think the use of left and right wing is pretty clear. Of course that is simplistic but it doesn't make it invalid.
On that very basis it would patently ridiculous to say that a neo-Nazi and a free market capitalist or libertarian are on a continuum.

[Chris]

So the point is that there is a lot of "gray" out there.

Well, then, so much more the need to be ready and willing to define the terms you use.

When someone says conservative principles are stretched far enough to be called racist, fascist, etc, that someone ought to stand up for it and explain.

That's the stuff of a forum.

[Chris]

Well that depends on the definition of the structure that one would define. In the context of total government control -vs- no government control I think the use of left and right wing is pretty clear. Of course that is simplistic but it doesn't make it invalid.

The tendency is for conservatives to seek power less in the government and more in society, and for liberals the reverse. Of course, that's my perspective. Yours may well differ. Once we know where we each stand, a little more precisely, then discussion can happen.

[Standing Wolf]

No. I think the point is that "right wing" is used to describe ideas that have no relationship with each other as if they did.

Would you agree, then, that "left wing" is frequently used to describe things that bear no relation to one another, as well? As, for example, support for labor unions and advocacy for same-sex marriage? Or affirmative action and legalized abortion?

[ripmeister]

On that very basis it would patently ridiculous to say that a neo-Nazi and a free market capitalist or libertarian are on a continuum.
Perhaps parallel continuums?

[Standing Wolf]

Well that depends on the definition of the structure that one would define. In the context of total government control -vs- no government control I think the use of left and right wing is pretty clear. Of course that is simplistic but it doesn't make it invalid.

Which side, left or right, do you see as being - generally speaking - advocates for which scenario?

[ripmeister]

The tendency is for conservatives to seek power less in the government and more in society, and for liberals the reverse. Of course, that's my perspective. Yours may well differ. Once we know where we each stand, a little more precisely, then discussion can happen.
Certainly, and each individual can fall at a different spot along that continuum or even perhaps disparate spots on that continuum depending on the issue. None of this is black and white and those who would seek to pigeonhole want to make it out to be. Its all very gray.

[ripmeister]

Which side, left or right, do you see as being - generally speaking - advocates for which scenario?
More government control and involvement would be left, less would be right. That to my mind is a generally understood definition. Of course there are degrees along the continuum.

[Captdon]

As always, Chris, you twist yourself into knots in an attempt to make anyone whom you perceive as an adversary appear somehow deficient in understanding, and make yourself appear smarter. I keep forgetting what an utter waste of time it almost always is to try to discuss anything with you.

I was asked, by Nathan, to define "far right", and I did that. If that bothers you for whatever arcane, personal reason, so what? Had I demurred on the grounds that to do so would be to give in to the temptation to use words that we are all mostly agreed have become an impediment to rational discussion, you'd have faulted me for that. :rollseyes:

Think it through. The neo-nazis aren't political to begin with. they are racist about everything. They are a herd of followers much like Hitler's SA but seek no power. They just want to scream, scare people and get tattoos. They aren't far right; they aren't any political term.

It would be like calling Louis Farrakhan a far-leftist.

These are non-political entities used to insult people.

[nathanbforrest45]

Would you agree, then, that "left wing" is frequently used to describe things that bear no relation to one another, as well? As, for example, support for labor unions and advocacy for same-sex marriage? Or affirmative action and legalized abortion?


Those are both liberal ideology and that is defined as being left wing.

How would you rather see us describe those positions?

[Chris]

Would you agree, then, that "left wing" is frequently used to describe things that bear no relation to one another, as well? As, for example, support for labor unions and advocacy for same-sex marriage? Or affirmative action and legalized abortion?

Depends. I can easily categorize all those as falling under supporting the oppressed against oppressors. This follows Arnold Kling's classication im The Three Languages of Politics: Talking Across the Political Divides:

https://i.snag.gy/S5ubQN.jpg


The point here is not that people classify each other, as you show in your tu quoque response to D. No, the point is whether or not people in doing so are saying something meaningful or meaningless.

The distinction can be the same as the rule I go by when identifying trolls: Some remark is made, is it a troll (slur)? Test it. Engage the person, challenge them to define their terms, explain their mean, give their post substance. How they react in response tells you whether they're trolling (slurring) or not.

[Chris]

Certainly, and each individual can fall at a different spot along that continuum or even perhaps disparate spots on that continuum depending on the issue. None of this is black and white and those who would seek to pigeonhole want to make it out to be. Its all very gray.

And how we see ourselves and how others see us will of course vary as well. All the more reason to engage and explain and defend yourself.

[Captdon]

Terrible! Being Catholic is in itself itself conflicting in its individualism and universalism, and both those conflict with group considerations.

No, you going too far with this. I am an individual and a member of a group (Catholic). There is no real conflict. I have rarely noticed any Catholic having any problem being an individual while holding a universal belief.

[ripmeister]

Think it through. The neo-nazis aren't political to begin with. they are racist about everything. They are a herd of followers much like Hitler's SA but seek no power. They just want to scream, scare people and get tattoos. They aren't far right; they aren't any political term.

It would be like calling Louis Farrakhan a far-leftist.

These are non-political entities used to insult people.
This is in large part true but one has to look at these "labels" in their historical context. These labels were not arrived at in a vacuum. Of course that's the problem with labels in the first place. They are simply labels that may be ok in a general sense but don't get down into the minutia of each persons point of view. We will always be categorizing, and labels can be good for that for relative comparisons, not so much for absolute comparisons.

[Captdon]

Would you agree, then, that "left wing" is frequently used to describe things that bear no relation to one another, as well? As, for example, support for labor unions and advocacy for same-sex marriage? Or affirmative action and legalized abortion?

Two of them are moral issues, one is mostly a moral issue and one is a political issue even though it shouldn't be.

[Chris]

No, you going too far with this. I am an individual and a member of a group (Catholic). There is no real conflict. I have rarely noticed any Catholic having any problem being an individual while holding a universal belief.

I think it's one and the same, so to speak, religiously. I mean, religiously, it's not a conflict, finding individual salvation in the one true God. But that has political ramifications as, in part, roots to political individualism and political collectivism.

[Ethereal]

This should help clear things up...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYU87QNjPw

[stjames1_53]

This is silly. Right and left are continuums. Far right is just that, as is far left, farther from the center. Most people understand that. Perhaps we should use extreme right and extreme left to differentiate even further. Does it really matter though since they are relative terms?
To you, anyone who is not on the Left, are all Nazis, Fascists, Bigots........just because one identifies as center Right are all of the above. Even you have called those more centered than you these names.
How do you refer to yourself?

[stjames1_53]

Would you agree, then, that "left wing" is frequently used to describe things that bear no relation to one another, as well? As, for example, support for labor unions and advocacy for same-sex marriage? Or affirmative action and legalized abortion?

talk about applying labels. Here this is from your side:
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/100595-Trump-Zombies

talk about insults and slurs.

[Standing Wolf]

More government control and involvement would be left, less would be right. That to my mind is a generally understood definition. Of course there are degrees along the continuum.

How, then, to justify those positions that are traditionally associated with "the right" that clearly involve imposing, rather than lessening, government control on its citizens?

I'm thinking about attempts to restrict what health care professionals can tell a pregnant woman (or to dictate certain things they must say), or to enforce laws aimed at limiting the ability of adult citizens to marry based on gender...not to mention the established history of "conservatives" in America to keep citizens from reading certain books, watch certain films, be employed (and out of jail) if they belonged to certain political parties or associations, operate their business on a certain day of the week, etc.

I grant you, "the left" has attempted to create some fairly silly rules about what people can and can't do in their personal lives, but they're not alone in that. And some of the attempts by "the right" to control what Americans can and can't do have gone well beyond just being "silly".

[Chris]

How, then, to justify those positions that are traditionally associated with "the right" that clearly involve imposing, rather than lessening, government control on its citizens?

I'm thinking about attempts to restrict what health care professionals can tell a pregnant woman (or to dictate certain things they must say), or to enforce laws aimed at limiting the ability of adult citizens to marry based on gender...not to mention the established history of "conservatives" in America to keep citizens from reading certain books, watch certain films, be employed (and out of jail) if they belonged to certain political parties or associations, operate their business on a certain day of the week, etc.

I grant you, "the left" has attempted to create some fairly silly rules about what people can and can't do in their personal lives, but they're not alone in that. And some of the attempts by "the right" to control what Americans can and can't do have gone well beyond just being "silly".

There has always been a split in the conservative movement between those like Buckley who thought virtue should be practice by the individual in society and not pushed by the government, and those like Kirk who thought the opposite.

IOW, there has been a side of conservatism that is very liberal is pushing what they think is for the public good.

I'm still wonder how stretching either to the extreme lands you in fascism or racism as you posted earlier.

[Standing Wolf]

Think it through. The neo-nazis aren't political to begin with. they are racist about everything. They are a herd of followers much like Hitler's SA but seek no power. They just want to scream, scare people and get tattoos. They aren't far right; they aren't any political term.

It would be like calling Louis Farrakhan a far-leftist.

These are non-political entities used to insult people.

I would have to agree with you about Nazis and the like being non-political. Likewise, most non-violent activists and their organizations are politically neutral, in terms of things like what government owns and what remains in private hands, i.e., whether it's a capitalist or a socialist society. It's all part and parcel of the main thrust of this entire thread: much of the use of "left", "right", "conservative" and "liberal" is simply inaccurate and a distraction.

[Chris]

I would have to agree with you about Nazis and the like being non-political. Likewise, most non-violent activists and their organizations are politically neutral, in terms of things like what government owns and what remains in private hands, i.e., whether it's a capitalist or a socialist society. It's all part and parcel of the main thrust of this entire thread: much of the use of "left", "right", "conservative" and "liberal" is simply inaccurate and a distraction.

Sorry, but what you understand as the main trust of the thread is not. The main thrust is that some, including NPR, use political labels as slurs in order to shut down discussion. No different than a common troll. You can test this by asking the one doing it to define what he means. If he does, discussion can open up; if he refuses, then he's likely just rolling with slurs.

[Common Sense]

Sorry, but what you understand as the main trust of the thread is not. The main thrust is that some, including NPR, use political labels as slurs in order to shut down discussion. No different than a common troll. You can test this by asking the one doing it to define what he means. If he does, discussion can open up; if he refuses, then he's likely just rolling with slurs.

I have a hard time buying your indignation when you're guilty of the very same.

Simply defining what your slur means doesn't make it any less of a slur. Particularly when your personal definition is based more on your personal opinions rather than widely accepted definitions.

[Standing Wolf]

Those are both liberal ideology and that is defined as being left wing.

How would you rather see us describe those positions?

How can they, with any accuracy or logic, be described as representing the same position - "left wing" - when you have millions of people who advocate for one and not the other? Earlier, a member noted that he opposed the death penalty - a position traditionally associated with the "left wing" - although I would venture to guess that several other of his views would not be so categorized. Millions, perhaps tens of millions of Americans, support labor unions, but not abortion rights; or they support racial preferences, but not same-sex marriage; or they oppose the death penalty, but they also oppose minimum wage laws.

Perhaps the truth is that while individual positions or views may be fairly described as "liberal" or "conservative", actual human beings, for the most part, cannot be.

And if someone's understanding of "the left" is that it/they advocate(s) for socialism, most socially liberal causes bear no relation to that viewpoint - any more than most socially conservative causes are grounded in the necessity of free market capitalism.

[Safety]

I have a hard time buying your indignation when you're guilty of the very same.

Simply defining what your slur means doesn't make it any less of a slur. Particularly when your personal definition is based more on your personal opinions rather than widely accepted definitions.

Further, when those very definitions have been defined before, it becomes nothing more than a way to deflect from the topic and the apropos-ness of the term being used, to arguing about the definition because they don’t like to be shown in a negative light. Case in point about the defense and lying over a word a member used, even when the quote was produced, they still proceeded to lie that it was never said.

I guess it even more proves that Trump is their guy

[Chris]

Further, when those very definitions have been defined before, it becomes nothing more than a way to deflect from the topic and the apropos-ness of the term being used, to arguing about the definition because they don’t like to be shown in a negative light. Case in point about the defense and lying over a word a member used, even when the quote was produced, they still proceeded to lie that it was never said.

I guess it even more proves that Trump is their guy


In short, it opens the topic to meaningful discussion. Why would you be against that?

[Chris]

I have a hard time buying your indignation when you're guilty of the very same.

Simply defining what your slur means doesn't make it any less of a slur. Particularly when your personal definition is based more on your personal opinions rather than widely accepted definitions.


Indignation?

Example?

I'm sure if you think a term, like lefty, is intended as a slur, you will stick to that no matter if it is meaningfull explained as something else. That's on you, not the speaker.

[Chris]

How can they, with any accuracy or logic, be described as representing the same position - "left wing" - when you have millions of people who advocate for one and not the other? Earlier, a member noted that he opposed the death penalty - a position traditionally associated with the "left wing" - although I would venture to guess that several other of his views would not be so categorized. Millions, perhaps tens of millions of Americans, support labor unions, but not abortion rights; or they support racial preferences, but not same-sex marriage; or they oppose the death penalty, but they also oppose minimum wage laws.

Perhaps the truth is that while individual positions or views may be fairly described as "liberal" or "conservative", actual human beings, for the most part, cannot be.

And if someone's understanding of "the left" is that it/they advocate(s) for socialism, most socially liberal causes bear no relation to that viewpoint - any more than most socially conservative causes are grounded in the necessity of free market capitalism.


You begin to get the point of the thread. That we should assume we know the meaning and intent of terms used without opening it up for discussion.


And see an earlier post where I explained how all those examples fit a leftist point of view about oppression.

[Safety]

In short, it opens the topic to meaningful discussion. Why would you be against that?No it doesn't, it side tracks the discussion so you can herp derp for pages about why your definition is more correct than Webster. Well, that and Latin phrases....

[Chris]

No it doesn't, it side tracks the discussion so you can herp derp for pages about why your definition is more correct than Webster. Well, that and Latin phrases....

In that case that you harp on, Safety, you side tracked discussion of an interesting topic to attack another member. Just as you're side tracking this one.

But thanks for explaining why you come to a discussion forum for reasons other than open discussion.

[Captdon]

I grant you, "the left" has attempted to create some fairly silly rules about what people can and can't do in their personal lives, but they're not alone in that. And some of the attempts by "the right" to control what Americans can and can't do have gone well beyond just being "silly".

There you have it. The right want to control people's lives. The left has some "silly" things. Nonsense.

[Captdon]

I have a hard time buying your indignation when you're guilty of the very same.

Simply defining what your slur means doesn't make it any less of a slur. Particularly when your personal definition is based more on your personal opinions rather than widely accepted definitions.

Saying I'm a right-winger is meant to be a slur. Whether it is or not isn't the point. It is intended that way.

I'm a minimalist. That is neither right or left. I want government as the most local level possible but I don't have any ideas of any restraints on what they do.

Now, how is that right-wing?

[Standing Wolf]

There you have it. The right want to control people's lives. The left has some "silly" things. Nonsense.

Okay, you're right - perhaps my personal biases sometimes do affect how I characterize different things...but I'll tell you the examples that I was probably thinking about - whether consciously or otherwise - and perhaps that will serve to explain my phrasing, even if it doesn't fully excuse it.

When I think about some of the "silly" things that (I'll say "liberals" because, as explained elsewhere, I don't think "the left" is really appropriate in this context) routinely try to get the State to control, I think about plastic straw or big soda cup bans. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I will just ask you here what you see as ways in which "liberals" have attempted to control your life, or have actually succeeded in doing so. (If you were to offer "attempts at gun bans" as an example, I would have to agree, of course; that certainly goes far beyond the realm of the merely silly.)

[Captdon]

Okay, you're right - perhaps my personal biases sometimes do affect how I characterize different things...but I'll tell you the examples that I was probably thinking about - whether consciously or otherwise - and perhaps that will serve to explain my phrasing, even if it doesn't fully excuse it.

When I think about some of the "silly" things that (I'll say "liberals" because, as explained elsewhere, I don't think "the left" is really appropriate in this context) routinely try to get the State to control, I think about plastic straw or big soda cup bans. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I will just ask you here what you see as ways in which "liberals" have attempted to control your life, or have actually succeeded in doing so. (If you were to offer "attempts at gun bans" as an example, I would have to agree, of course; that certainly goes far beyond the realm of the merely silly.)

The liberals took 8 1/2 percent of my income to pay for a retirement and healthcare program I didn't ask for. That is is a good system is not the point. Bear in mind what you asked. Liberals forced me to do that.

They passed affirmative action rules in hiring.It may or may not have cost me a job. It was definitely a violation of an employer's right to hire. It set quota's.

Gun control, as you mentioned.

Requiring employers to buy or guarantee unemployment insurance.

Requiring work over 40 hours per week to be paid at 50% more.(They do allow some modifications).

Refusing to allow me to grow certain legal things unless I had a license. They set a quota on this.

Requiring me to have a prescription for FDA approved drugs. If I'm on a drug like insulin i will always have to take it. Yet, I have to get a prescription evere six months. That cost me money to have a doctor say."Yea, stay on it. Here's a prescription."

Setting gas mileage standards for cars.

Putting certain regulations on home mortgages.

I could put more up if I wanted to think about it a lot but this is my point. These are not "silly." They aren't the federal government's concern. i won't say they are all bad ideas. I do say they are my business.

Whatever rules and programs are needed should be the least not the most. The federal government should be the government of last resort. The Civil Rights Acts were just that. The Constitution outlawed some things and required other things. When some states refused to obey the Constitution the federal government had to enforce the Constitution. I think liberals go too far with it at times but not in ever instance.

[Chris]

I'll step aside for a while since the two of you are engaging in discussion, explaining terms, saying what you mean, and I think others can see it. Thanks!

[stjames1_53]

I have a hard time buying your indignation when you're guilty of the very same.

Simply defining what your slur means doesn't make it any less of a slur. Particularly when your personal definition is based more on your personal opinions rather than widely accepted definitions.
Is that not the very definition of Individualist?

[Chris]

Is that not the very definition of Individualist?

As opposed to a populist like common sense?

"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."" @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[Common Sense]

Saying I'm a right-winger is meant to be a slur. Whether it is or not isn't the point. It is intended that way.

I'm a minimalist. That is neither right or left. I want government as the most local level possible but I don't have any ideas of any restraints on what they do.

Now, how is that right-wing?
Have I called you a right winger?

I'm called left wing, liberal, lefty, socialist and sometimes communist.

I rarely label individuals.

[Chris]

Have I called you a right winger?

I'm called left wing, liberal, lefty, socialist and sometimes communist.

I rarely label individuals.


You miss the point just as you miss the intent of those who call you those things. Likely, because of your own habit to mock others, you assume people are merely mocking you. Sad.

[Common Sense]

Is that not the very definition of Individualist?

No. Creating your own definitions of words to suit your ideology is not the definition of Individualist.

[Common Sense]

You miss the point just as you miss the intent of those who call you those things. Likely, because of your own habit to mock others, you assume people are merely mocking you. Sad.
I didn't assume I was being mocked.

[Chris]

I didn't assume I was being mocked.

You cried "I'm called left wing, liberal, lefty, socialist and sometimes communist. "

[Standing Wolf]

The liberals took 8 1/2 percent of my income to pay for a retirement and healthcare program I didn't ask for. That is is a good system is not the point. Bear in mind what you asked. Liberals forced me to do that.

Even though I, personally, opposed the individual mandate provision of the ACA, that was not a "liberal" invention; conservative Republican politicians and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation had been promoting that as a necessary component of any national healthcare legislation since the late '80s. In any case, if you look at the record, the sole reason the law was opposed by Congressional Republicans - the majority of whom are certainly not "liberals" - was that it was being passed during President Obama's administration, and their stated and agreed upon aim was not to permit him to "win" anything. In other words, if the ACA as it exists today had not been created when it was, a Republican administration would have had to create something very much like it eventually. Yes, a liberal Democrat was behind it - this time. Had the timeline been different, you might be blaming Bush 43 or Trump for it.


They passed affirmative action rules in hiring.It may or may not have cost me a job. It was definitely a violation of an employer's right to hire. It set quota's.

Racial preferences and quotas are wrong, in my opinion, regardless of who they benefit and who they disadvantage. Fortunately, the courts - and not just "conservative" judges - are more and more coming to that conclusion. For those "liberals" who favor and support such preferences, I really have no affinity.


Gun control, as you mentioned.

Right.


Requiring employers to buy or guarantee unemployment insurance.

Requiring work over 40 hours per week to be paid at 50% more.(They do allow some modifications).

As far as unemployment insurance and overtime pay, I'm really not sure you can lay those things solely at the feet of "liberals". Especially in the case of the unemployment insurance, I believe you might be stretching the definition of "liberal" a bit thin, to encompass everybody to the left of Ebenezer Scrooge. Societies, through the agency of their governments, have been making rules about what employers and merchants can and can't do with regard to their interactions with the public since recorded history began. If you're thinking that all the other-than-liberal politicians and officials are, given the option, going to take a totally hands-off approach to how businesses treat their workers, I have to say I think you're wrong about that.


Refusing to allow me to grow certain legal things unless I had a license. They set a quota on this.

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, if it wasn't for the "liberal" faction of the State you wouldn't be able to grow it at all - with or without a license. Making you get a license and pay money for the privilege of doing or owning something is not a liberal or a conservative thing - it's a bureaucratic thing.


Requiring me to have a prescription for FDA approved drugs. If I'm on a drug like insulin i will always have to take it. Yet, I have to get a prescription evere six months. That cost me money to have a doctor say."Yea, stay on it. Here's a prescription."

I feel your pain on that one. I take seven different pills every day, and I have to pay for an office visit at least every six months to be told what I already know and to get a refill on everything. Again, though, I don't see that as being any sort of "liberal" plot, cause or agenda item. In fact, I'm not even sure that - unless we're talking about opiates, and that's a very recent development - a doctor couldn't legally keep refilling your scrip with a phone call in at least some jurisdictions.

I'm out of time for the moment. To wrap it up, though, I believe you're right and justified in saying that some governmental intrusiveness is certainly attributable to the liberal mindset. I'll have to work on a list of things "conservatives" do to us that they really shouldn't and bounce it off you. Later.

[Chris]

No. Creating your own definitions of words to suit your ideology is not the definition of Individualist.

Except no one does that.

[Common Sense]

You cried "I'm called left wing, liberal, lefty, socialist and sometimes communist. "
I was just stating a fact. It doesn't bother me, nor was I crying about it. People on a message board can call me what they like. Nothing here is worth crying about.

[Common Sense]

Except no one does that.

You do quite often.

[Chris]

You do quite often.

You quite often make vacuous accusations. I guess it's easier than actually engaging in discussion.

[Chris]

I was just stating a fact. It doesn't bother me, nor was I crying about it. People on a message board can call me what they like. Nothing here is worth crying about.

Sorry, I assumed in a topic on slurs with other lefties whining about being called those things that you were as well.

[Common Sense]

Sorry, I assumed in a topic on slurs with other lefties whining about being called those things that you were as well.

I don't speak for anyone but myself. I also don't know that anyone is crying about anything, just as I wouldn't characterize your OP as crying about the left wing media.

More ore often than not, people are just making statements and the reader is inferring tone.

[Common Sense]

You quite often make vacuous accusations. I guess it's easier than actually engaging in discussion.

I don't know about vacuous. I do make accusations and I engage in discussion.

As to my accusation, you've claimed quite often that fascism is left wing, when it is defined and widely accepted to fall on the right wing /authoritarian area of the political compass. So essentially you are creating your own definition because it suits your ideology.

[Chris]

I don't know about vacuous. I do make accusations and I engage in discussion.

As to my accusation, you've claimed quite often that fascism is left wing, when it is defined and widely accepted to fall on the right wing /authoritarian area of the political compass. So essentially you are creating your own definition because it suits your ideology.

If you don't provide evidence then your accusations are vacuous. That is an attempt to stop discussion, side track it.

You do? I see only mockery, which is a fallacy, and not engaging in discussion.


Yes, I claim that fascism is left wing and I explain why I think so, I give reasons, I provide history and other evidence. I don't merely redefine words as you, now, erroneously accused.

It is accepted by those you accept as something else. Thing is, you yourself fail to explain how it's right wing, fail to provide any evidence, you merely argue from popularity which is fallacious. In short, you do what you accuse me of--you're projecting your own faults on me.

[Chris]

I don't speak for anyone but myself. I also don't know that anyone is crying about anything, just as I wouldn't characterize your OP as crying about the left wing media.

More ore often than not, people are just making statements and the reader is inferring tone.

Still, in a topic on slurs, in that context, one would naturally believe you were whining.

Right, because the topic is not about slurs as insults but as ways to avoid discussion.

I figure, one challenges what others mean and intend and let them explain.

[Safety]

In that case that you harp on, Safety, you side tracked discussion of an interesting topic to attack another member. Just as you're side tracking this one.

But thanks for explaining why you come to a discussion forum for reasons other than open discussion.

No, Chris, I did not side track that discussion. A member made a claim that was incorrect, I provided proof of the claim and you, along with several others, decided to lie and obfuscate. You don't get to rewrite history, no matter how hard you try.

[Common Sense]

Still, in a topic on slurs, in that context, one would naturally believe you were whining.

Right, because the topic is not about slurs as insults but as ways to avoid discussion.

I figure, one challenges what others mean and intend and let them explain.

You might believe it (that I was whining), but there is no more reason to believe it than assuming your OP is whining.

The topic is indeed slurs, but what some are trying to point out is that you fail to recognize your hypocrisy and imply that it's something only "lefties" do. Essentially the accusation is that your premise is flawed.

[Common Sense]

I almost forgot another example of the personal redefining of words when you claimed Trump was a progressive, Chris.

One can can make a claim like calling Trump a progressive and provide an explanation, but it doesn't mean that explanation holds water.

[Chris]

You might believe it (that I was whining), but there is no more reason to believe it than assuming your OP is whining.

The topic is indeed slurs, but what some are trying to point out is that you fail to recognize your hypocrisy and imply that it's something only "lefties" do. Essentially the accusation is that your premise is flawed.

ALready said sorry, admitted, ok, you weren't. I was explaining the basis of my incorrect assumption.


If the topic is about slurs why are you engaging in ad hom? I never said only lefties do it, have in fact several times said, yes, righties do it too. You really ought to read before you make these vacuous accusations.

[Chris]

I almost forgot another example of the personal redefining of words when you claimed Trump was a progressive, Chris.

One can can make a claim like calling Trump a progressive and provide an explanation, but it doesn't mean that explanation holds water.


Once again you really ought to read before you make vacuous accusations.

One, in response to someone questioning that I provided as evidence that Trump's protective policies are normally embraced and promoted by progressives--Clinton and Sanders both promised to apply protective measures to protect the nation.

Two, later I pointed out that "progressive" was a typo for "populist" which in the context of the rest of the sentence makes sense.

[Chris]

No, Chris, I did not side track that discussion. A member made a claim that was incorrect, I provided proof of the claim and you, along with several others, decided to lie and obfuscate. You don't get to rewrite history, no matter how hard you try.

The topic was what Jim Brown said about blacks, not what you perceived as the intent of a post 5 years ago.

And your bringing you attack on another member of this forum here into this thread is also off topic if not harrassment.

[Common Sense]

ALready said sorry, admitted, ok, you weren't. I was explaining the basis of my incorrect assumption.


If the topic is about slurs why are you engaging in ad hom? I never said only lefties do it, have in fact several times said, yes, righties do it too. You really ought to read before you make these vacuous accusations.
You haven't engaged in ad hom?

Admittedly I've only skimmed over the thread, but most of your posts solely accuse the left.


For a long time now I've through the left, standing for nothing, lost it. Now I begin to realize the left doesn't even know what they stand against--other than a slur of slur words like alt-right, far right, fascist, racist, white supremacist. The left seems bound together by slurs, empty, meaningless slurs.


The point of the thread is the left uses words like far right as slurs without substantial meaning.

Do you want me to define the left for you? I will. And that's the difference. I can and I will if challenged. But here you lefties are challenged to define the words you use and you do everything to avoid doing so.


You like the other lefties miss the point which is that you use terms like far right, fascist, racist merely as slurs. Challenged to define such words, you cannot. We know this based on the weekend discussion with you and Who neither of which could define race or racism beyond such superficialities as black and white. You don't want to discuss or debate, you just want to make accusations and insunuations--slurs.

[Safety]

The topic was what Jim Brown said about blacks, not what you perceived as the intent of a post 5 years ago.

And your bringing you attack on another member of this forum here into this thread is also off topic if not harrassment.

I am well aware of what the topic was, Chris. I am also well aware that replies are based upon what members post. When a member accuses me of lying, then I post proof that I didn't lie, then people with integrity would either acknowledge that, or shut the f up and not keep pretending the f'king quote was not presented. That thread is a record of the type of bullshit you and others present to this forum on a daily basis, which causes members to leave.

[Chris]

I am well aware of what the topic was, Chris. I am also well aware that replies are based upon what members post. When a member accuses me of lying, then I post proof that I didn't lie, then people with integrity would either acknowledge that, or shut the f up and not keep pretending the f'king quote was not presented. That thread is a record of the type of bullshit you and others present to this forum on a daily basis, which causes members to leave.

You were off topic, blaming it on someone else all the time, doesn't change that.

You're off topic now.

[Chris]

You haven't engaged in ad hom?

Admittedly I've only skimmed over the thread, but most of your posts solely accuse the left.


The left is not a person, arguing against the left is not arguing the man.

Frankly, I'm surprised anyone falls for such rhetorical trickery. Most people, I assume, learned the rudiments of rhetoric and logic in highschool.


None of which has to do with the topic on the use of slurs to avoid discussion.

[Safety]

You were off topic, blaming it on someone else all the time, doesn't change that.

You're off topic now.

I am responding to your feckless accusations, therefore, it is the natural flow of discussion, deal with it.

[Chris]

I am responding to your feckless accusations, therefore, it is the natural flow of discussion, deal with it.

I made no accusation, safety. I simply said you're off topic.

[Captdon]

Have I called you a right winger?

I'm called left wing, liberal, lefty, socialist and sometimes communist.

I rarely label individuals.

I didn't name names. No, you haven't. I'm not going to list who has and who hasn't after this.

[Captdon]

Even though I, personally, opposed the individual mandate provision of the ACA, that was not a "liberal" invention; conservative Republican politicians and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation had been promoting that as a necessary component of any national healthcare legislation since the late '80s. In any case, if you look at the record, the sole reason the law was opposed by Congressional Republicans - the majority of whom are certainly not "liberals" - was that it was being passed during President Obama's administration, and their stated and agreed upon aim was not to permit him to "win" anything. In other words, if the ACA as it exists today had not been created when it was, a Republican administration would have had to create something very much like it eventually. Yes, a liberal Democrat was behind it - this time. Had the timeline been different, you might be blaming Bush 43 or Trump for it.



Racial preferences and quotas are wrong, in my opinion, regardless of who they benefit and who they disadvantage. Fortunately, the courts - and not just "conservative" judges - are more and more coming to that conclusion. For those "liberals" who favor and support such preferences, I really have no affinity.



Right.



As far as unemployment insurance and overtime pay, I'm really not sure you can lay those things solely at the feet of "liberals". Especially in the case of the unemployment insurance, I believe you might be stretching the definition of "liberal" a bit thin, to encompass everybody to the left of Ebenezer Scrooge. Societies, through the agency of their governments, have been making rules about what employers and merchants can and can't do with regard to their interactions with the public since recorded history began. If you're thinking that all the other-than-liberal politicians and officials are, given the option, going to take a totally hands-off approach to how businesses treat their workers, I have to say I think you're wrong about that.



If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, if it wasn't for the "liberal" faction of the State you wouldn't be able to grow it at all - with or without a license. Making you get a license and pay money for the privilege of doing or owning something is not a liberal or a conservative thing - it's a bureaucratic thing.



I feel your pain on that one. I take seven different pills every day, and I have to pay for an office visit at least every six months to be told what I already know and to get a refill on everything. Again, though, I don't see that as being any sort of "liberal" plot, cause or agenda item. In fact, I'm not even sure that - unless we're talking about opiates, and that's a very recent development - a doctor couldn't legally keep refilling your scrip with a phone call in at least some jurisdictions.

I'm out of time for the moment. To wrap it up, though, I believe you're right and justified in saying that some governmental intrusiveness is certainly attributable to the liberal mindset. I'll have to work on a list of things "conservatives" do to us that they really shouldn't and bounce it off you. Later.

I got a laugh from the "growing." Actually I was referring to tobacco and peanuts but I guess pot would come to mind first.

I didn't concern myself with who came up with the idea but only who passed them. I also didn't mean to say they were all wrong but that they were liberal idea that controlled part of my life or tried to.

I realize that conservatives can be as guilty but I don't think they are as intrusive. You mention abortion in a post. Here we are never going to agree. You will call this a conservative intrusion of a women's right to choice. I will call it murder. We can never reconcile our views on this.

Gay rights to marriage as defined by the government is included in the Constitution. The men who wrote didn't intend it to be for gay rights but they wrote it too clearly to say it doesn't. It say what it says. They should have written it more strictly bit they did not.

As long as my church is not required to hold a wedding I don't care that much. I don't accept homosexuality but that's just the way it is. I don't talk about it much, and never do anything, since it doesn't really come up that much.

Liberals were right to end segregation since it is Un-Constitutional but quota's are wrong. It works both ways is my point. I do believe that liberals are wrong far more than they are right.

[Chris]

Does the right also using slurs somehow excuse the left?

[Captdon]

I almost forgot another example of the personal redefining of words when you claimed Trump was a progressive, Chris.

One can can make a claim like calling Trump a progressive and provide an explanation, but it doesn't mean that explanation holds water.

He is in a major way. He would accept a change in the ACA that made sense. It's a bad program, poorly written and poorly run. He wouldn't block abortions if he was able to. He is not all progressive but he isn't all conservative either.

[Captdon]

Does the right also using slurs somehow excuse the left?

Never.

[Chris]

He is in a major way. He would accept a change in the ACA that made sense. It's a bad program, poorly written and poorly run. He wouldn't block abortions if he was able to. He is not all progressive but he isn't all conservative either.

Once you get into the details and definitions, things that seem outlandish start to make sense.