(02-10-2019, 02:15 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2019, 07:21 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]John Roberts basically is a liberal justice.
That is all.
The reason the left is blind to this, is that they perceive themselves as the center of all being.
The center of the universe, center of all thought, and the center of the political spectrum. Perhaps the cornerstone of the alternate reality they've manufactured for themselves.
In truth, they are way left and moving farther left at an accelerating rate. (Yet will look out the window and say, "I've moved nowhere!")
Same with the right. The right as a whole has moved left of center over time as well - in turn pulled to the left by the political climate as well. There isn't much that separates the parties, at least... the career politicians in the parties.
![[Image: IMG_20190117_123904.jpg]](https://brinkleys.org/users/tsl/Files/IMG_20190117_123904.jpg)
Your graphic is simplifying things considerably, and isn't entirely accurate. The political spectrum extends from statism on the far left to fascism on the far right, and once you start reaching for those extremes (neither party is anywhere near there yet), the two ends of the political spectrum start to curl back in towards each other. Statism and fascism have a lot in common.
(02-10-2019, 12:36 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2019, 11:49 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]No, he's not. His voting record indicates that he's center-right. He just refuses to allow the Supreme Court to be used as a political tool by either party, and his voting record reflects that position.
Then he's a liberal.
What? Dude, you've posted some crazy stuff before, but a Supreme Court justice being labeled a liberal because he votes for what he thinks is correct rather than voting for what the party that put him there wants? Sometimes I wonder if you actually think for yourself, or if you just parrot whatever Carlson and Brietbart throw at the wall.
Fascism is an authoritarian trait, which is by definition on the far left end of the scale.
The far right end of the scale is the exact opposite - unbound individual freedom with no control whatsoever. Anarchy.
Wherever you go that idea from, was mistaken.
Which is why the left using it to describe the right is so ridiculous. At the extremes, left is total control and domination of the people by one. You can see that in the endgame of today's Democrats, they don't even try to hide it anymore. Ideas that lead to that path are mainstream today. Extreme right is the absence of any control whatsoever over the people. You don't see that in the Republican party today. Libertarian and Tea Party ideologies lean this direction, but they aren't philosophies that have any broad engagement or underlie any platforms of the Republican party. Today, the Republican party is mostly a watered down version of the Democrats.
(02-10-2019, 09:43 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2019, 02:41 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Do you ever give a direct answer? You just talk in circles. Be specific. What are specific solutions. If you get rid of abortion, what do you do with all the unwanted kids? It's a simple question. You can't "dismantle that premise". Someone is gonna have to take care of these "new" lives and the foster care system is a mess, as it is. This will be the last time I ask you for a direct answer, not some "off the wall" allegory that has nothing to do with the direct question. If I get that again, I'm just gonna put you on "ignore." Please just answer that simple question in plain English. I really would like to here what you would realistically do with these kids. You can't just say, people should take care of their own responsibilities. As much as I agree with that, we both know it's not realistic. It won't happen in many of those cases, maybe even most cases. There are a lot of cruel people in this world and most times, cruelty and carelessness go hand in hand.
If you don't like the answer don't ask the question! The simple solution is that parents take care of their own children and those who can't ask for help, like adults, and we work through it as a society.
were roughly talking about 1.5 million children annually. in that same time we spent 22 trillion dollars on wealth transfer programs. In addition to that we contributed 2% of our GDP to charity. It's not a lack of resources, its a lack of accountability and ill be darned if I condone mass genocide to subsidize it.
That's not the reality we live in.
(02-10-2019, 12:51 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm - can't discuss religion, but can discuss abortion? Seems to be getting pretty close to the same thing. What's the foundation of one's thoughts in opposing abortion?
I don't think abortion has any thing at all to do with religion.
(02-10-2019, 03:34 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-10-2019, 12:51 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm - can't discuss religion, but can discuss abortion? Seems to be getting pretty close to the same thing. What's the foundation of one's thoughts in opposing abortion?
I don't think abortion has any thing at all to do with religion.
Nothing at all? You can’t be serious.
(02-10-2019, 03:12 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Fascism is an authoritarian trait, which is by definition on the far left end of the scale.
The far right end of the scale is the exact opposite - unbound individual freedom with no control whatsoever. Anarchy.
Wherever you go that idea from, was mistaken.
Which is why the left using it to describe the right is so ridiculous. At the extremes, left is total control and domination of the people by one. You can see that in the endgame of today's Democrats, they don't even try to hide it anymore. Ideas that lead to that path are mainstream today. Extreme right is the absence of any control whatsoever over the people. You don't see that in the Republican party today. Libertarian and Tea Party ideologies lean this direction, but they aren't philosophies that have any broad engagement or underlie any platforms of the Republican party. Today, the Republican party is mostly a watered down version of the Democrats.
Most people would not define left and right that way.
We already have the word "anarchy" so there's no need to define "extreme right" as exactly the same as anarchy.
Fewer people know the word "totalitarian", but that is the word that would describe a government that has no limits on its power, not "extreme left."
Around the world, multiparty governments often form, with none of the parties having a totalitarian view, and none of the parties favoring anarchy.
"Right" and "left" refer to congresses and parliaments in general. some people all agree with each other and sit on the right side, and other people all agree with each other and sit on the left side. The things that they are disagreeing about will vary by time and place.
(02-10-2019, 03:12 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Fascism is an authoritarian trait, which is by definition on the far left end of the scale.
The far right end of the scale is the exact opposite - unbound individual freedom with no control whatsoever. Anarchy.
Wherever you go that idea from, was mistaken.
Which is why the left using it to describe the right is so ridiculous. At the extremes, left is total control and domination of the people by one. You can see that in the endgame of today's Democrats, they don't even try to hide it anymore. Ideas that lead to that path are mainstream today. Extreme right is the absence of any control whatsoever over the people. You don't see that in the Republican party today. Libertarian and Tea Party ideologies lean this direction, but they aren't philosophies that have any broad engagement or underlie any platforms of the Republican party. Today, the Republican party is mostly a watered down version of the Democrats.
Anarchy actually doesn't fall on the spectrum. It's a state of no government and a belief that governments are unnecessary. That's neither left nor right. It's the default state until someone identifies themselves on the spectrum.
And yes, fascism and nationalism are on the far right end of the scale. Dude, I spent 20 years of my life studying political theory, from grade school straight through college. I have the horseshoe scale measured backwards and forwards and I can tell you why any particular ideology lands where it does. You are not winning this one.
(02-10-2019, 03:34 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2019, 09:43 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]If you don't like the answer don't ask the question! The simple solution is that parents take care of their own children and those who can't ask for help, like adults, and we work through it as a society.
were roughly talking about 1.5 million children annually. in that same time we spent 22 trillion dollars on wealth transfer programs. In addition to that we contributed 2% of our GDP to charity. It's not a lack of resources, its a lack of accountability and ill be darned if I condone mass genocide to subsidize it.
That's not the reality we live in.
(02-10-2019, 12:51 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm - can't discuss religion, but can discuss abortion? Seems to be getting pretty close to the same thing. What's the foundation of one's thoughts in opposing abortion?
I don't think abortion has any thing at all to do with religion.
It has just about everything to do with religion.
(02-10-2019, 05:11 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2019, 03:34 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]That's not the reality we live in.
I don't think abortion has any thing at all to do with religion.
It has just about everything to do with religion.
Agreed. I don’t know why anyone would say otherwise. Unless they were completely ignorant to what others may believe. Which’s understandable, and apparently the case, but still couldn’t be any more wrong.
(02-10-2019, 08:29 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2019, 08:18 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed. I don’t know why anyone would say otherwise. Unless they were completely ignorant to what others may believe. Which’s understandable, and apparently the case, but still couldn’t be any more wrong.
It depends of your view of what constitutes a person. Several religions state the answer in their dogma, but that doesn't mean that a person taking either side does so because of religion.
I can agree with you on that. But what O-line stated was that “abortion had nothing to do with religion”. With almost 3/4 of the nation “claiming” to be Christian and over half of those actually going to church, taking religious beliefs out is just asinine. Unless 100% of the church goers say screw my deity I’m making things up as I go, he’s right. If that’s the case 147 million people in the nation don’t even follow the religion they say they do.
(02-10-2019, 04:16 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2019, 03:34 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]
I don't think abortion has any thing at all to do with religion.
Nothing at all? You can’t be serious.
Dead serious. People try to make it a religious issue, but I see it as nothing more than a medical issue. I think religion should stay out of it. Separation of church and state.
I always find the pro life argument funny. In no other take do these people tend to have empathy or care for others, yet as soon as a woman has a little too much control it's all in the name of being "pro-life"
(02-10-2019, 10:20 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]I always find the pro life argument funny. In no other take dregs these people tend to have empathy or care for others, yet as soon as a woman has a little too much control it's all in the name of being "pro-life"
Is that why conservatives give more to charity?
(02-10-2019, 07:51 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2019, 05:10 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Anarchy actually doesn't fall on the spectrum. It's a state of no government and a belief that governments are unnecessary. That's neither left nor right. It's the default state until someone identifies themselves on the spectrum.
And yes, fascism and nationalism are on the far right end of the scale. Dude, I spent 20 years of my life studying political theory, from grade school straight through college. I have the horseshoe scale measured backwards and forwards and I can tell you why any particular ideology lands where it does. You are not winning this one.
You apparently spent 20 years being indoctrinated by leftists. Fascism is a leftist concept. FDR modeled his plan of governance on Mussolini's Italy.
As far as Pirkster's drawing, left and right don't exactly follow a Statist vs. Anarchy line, but the political Left is far toward the Statist end.
Some posters wouldn't surprise me with a simple shot at my education. You're not one of them. I'm a little disappointed, actually.
Political theory is generally agreed upon as a horseshoe spectrum. You would be correct in saying that where certain ideologies fall on that horseshoe spectrum, and you'd be right to point out that the most common version of it these days puts liberalism as moderate and conservatism as somewhat more extreme. I'd disagree with the chart pretty strongly there. If anything, classical conservatism is more moderate than classical liberalism, but what we have in our government right now doesn't resemble either of those. I'd say that what we have right now is a left that wants to pass itself off as democratic socialists and a right that wants to pretend it isn't trying to form a theocracy. The actual state of our government most closely resembles a corporatist state. If Verizon wants something done, they just make a few phone calls and pass out a few bucks and now their lawyer is running the FCC. If TurboTax wants to make sure everyone's stuck paying them $60 a year for the privilege of paying the government, they make a few phone calls and a few campaign donations, and the bill never makes it out of committee.
What's funny is that corporatism is generally defined as being somewhere along the far right side of the horseshoe, closing in on the extreme because of how theoretically easy it would be for a corporate-controlled government to take away rights in the name of sales. Democrats are just as complicit here, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in this country who would call the Democratic Party far right. They're not. They've just shifted in actuality to a position on the horseshoe where they start to mirror their friends across the aisle. And can you really tell me, with a straight face, that our government isn't owned by corporations?
(02-10-2019, 11:01 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2019, 07:51 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]You apparently spent 20 years being indoctrinated by leftists. Fascism is a leftist concept. FDR modeled his plan of governance on Mussolini's Italy.
As far as Pirkster's drawing, left and right don't exactly follow a Statist vs. Anarchy line, but the political Left is far toward the Statist end.
Some posters wouldn't surprise me with a simple shot at my education. You're not one of them. I'm a little disappointed, actually.
Political theory is generally agreed upon as a horseshoe spectrum. You would be correct in saying that where certain ideologies fall on that horseshoe spectrum, and you'd be right to point out that the most common version of it these days puts liberalism as moderate and conservatism as somewhat more extreme. I'd disagree with the chart pretty strongly there. If anything, classical conservatism is more moderate than classical liberalism, but what we have in our government right now doesn't resemble either of those. I'd say that what we have right now is a left that wants to pass itself off as democratic socialists and a right that wants to pretend it isn't trying to form a theocracy. The actual state of our government most closely resembles a corporatist state. If Verizon wants something done, they just make a few phone calls and pass out a few bucks and now their lawyer is running the FCC. If TurboTax wants to make sure everyone's stuck paying them $60 a year for the privilege of paying the government, they make a few phone calls and a few campaign donations, and the bill never makes it out of committee.
What's funny is that corporatism is generally defined as being somewhere along the far right side of the horseshoe, closing in on the extreme because of how theoretically easy it would be for a corporate-controlled government to take away rights in the name of sales. Democrats are just as complicit here, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in this country who would call the Democratic Party far right. They're not. They've just shifted in actuality to a position on the horseshoe where they start to mirror their friends across the aisle. And can you really tell me, with a straight face, that our government isn't owned by corporations?
The Right doesn't want a theocracy unless you're counting St. Franklin of the Holy Greenback.
(02-10-2019, 10:20 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]I always find the pro life argument funny. In no other take do these people tend to have empathy or care for others, yet as soon as a woman has a little too much control it's all in the name of being "pro-life"
We find your arguments absurd so I guess we're even then.
We? Oh I thought better of you. Thought you had your own opinions at least. You another so called pro lifer?
(02-10-2019, 02:37 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2019, 02:15 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]The reason the left is blind to this, is that they perceive themselves as the center of all being.
The center of the universe, center of all thought, and the center of the political spectrum. Perhaps the cornerstone of the alternate reality they've manufactured for themselves.
In truth, they are way left and moving farther left at an accelerating rate. (Yet will look out the window and say, "I've moved nowhere!")
Same with the right. The right as a whole has moved left of center over time as well - in turn pulled to the left by the political climate as well. There isn't much that separates the parties, at least... the career politicians in the parties.
Your graphic is simplifying things considerably, and isn't entirely accurate. The political spectrum extends from statism on the far left to fascism on the far right, and once you start reaching for those extremes (neither party is anywhere near there yet), the two ends of the political spectrum start to curl back in towards each other. Statism and fascism have a lot in common.
(02-10-2019, 12:36 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Then he's a liberal.
What? Dude, you've posted some crazy stuff before, but a Supreme Court justice being labeled a liberal because he votes for what he thinks is correct rather than voting for what the party that put him there wants? Sometimes I wonder if you actually think for yourself, or if you just parrot whatever Carlson and Brietbart throw at the wall.
If you're going to insult me that's fine. Maybe I deserve it. At least have the common decency to respond to my entire post and not pigeon hole my response. You mentioned that Roberts didn't want to have the court be used as a tool by the right. That may seem like a lofty goal but how do you achieve that? The answer should be strict constructionism, this is what the constitution says, this is what the statute says, and then hash out the decision based on the merits of the complaint. That's not the same as the prevailing theory of his actions in this case, the case for Obamacare etc. In that case the more general assertion is that Roberts is acting not of his own constitutional understanding, but intentionally trying to find common cause with the liberal members of the court to give SCOTUS the perception of impartiality. That's not the same thing! That's acting in a manner to advance a cause other than the intent or letter of the constitution and that's not what he was appointed to do.
The underlying case for this thread is based on the idea that the state of Louisiana can place restrictions on providers of abortion. I stated, and continue to state, that in this country at current states have the ability to regulate the credentials of service providers and place restrictions on licensure. Don't believe me, see what hoops you have to go through to sell a variable annuity. Try to open a business that sells alcohol. Try to open a gun store in NY state. If we want to have a broader discussion about the states role in licensure and making the entire country Right to Work then hey, I'm with you. I'll sit at that table and hash out details, but under our current understanding of state regulatory authority the idea that the state can't require admitting privileges for a surgical procedure is insane.
As to the political spectrum I don't care if you call it a horseshoe, circle, line, or the bloody dewy decimal system. Fascism is a form of socialism that ascribes to the idea that the state has infinite power and that the individual has no rights in comparison to the collective need or will. That has absolutely nothing to do with Constitutional republicanism, individual liberty, classical liberalism or the rest of it. As Malabar Correctly pointed out, the left in this country was involved in a one to one relationship with the fascists in Europe. Social Security and national health insurance are staples of German State Theory. Replacing the profit motive of the free market with government run subsidies to serve SOCIAL NEEDS is the fundamental basis for the Green New Deal, modern environmentalism and all the rest of it. The incestuous nature of Large Corporations and big government doesn't mean that those who advocate smaller government are corporatists. That's the kind of circular self defeating logic that can only exist in the modern higher educational system.
(02-11-2019, 01:56 AM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]We? Oh I thought better of you. Thought you had your own opinions at least. You another so called pro lifer?
I am very much pro-life, your confusion comes from your belief that being anti government dependency conflicts with that principle. And I speak for a few who, like me, chuckle at your naivete.