I really really fucking hate it when people misuse the terms in politics, and this is extremely prevalent in America because there is only the right wing.
I hope to either educate or at least have this information written down so it can be quoted :P
I'll start off with how the defining of the political spectrum arose.
In the past the most successful type of Government had been the Roman Republic which used a combination of Democracy and Meritocracy which utilised its specialists and saw the expansion from the City of Rome to all of the Mediterranean until turned into the Roman Empire and effectively a Dictatorship but not quite a Monarchy. If this period could be summed up using the political spectrum then it would be authoritarian far right wing as you could do whatever you wanted within the law which favoured wealth owning and wealth production, counter balanced with a lot of public works for the cities. Put simply, near fascism. Collapse of the Roman Empire led to a traumatic time of warfare and warlords, ending up in the time of Feudalism where lords owned and Barron's owned land which was in a kings country and was given to them by the king as to ensure loyalty, and then these lords and barons offered their services to the king in terms of taxes and men for war. The Peasants... were peasants. By our standards this was very right wing still and the level of authoritarianism was down to an individual but it had to potential to be absolute and often required so as a means to keep order. The middle classes did exist and were a powerful force but effectively had little power most of the time. The next notable period was the time of Empire where science had somehow survived through the persecution of the church and given way to military science and the ability of professional full time armies to exist and crush any militia armies thereby eliminating the feudal system. Along with advances in naval capabilities and world wide trade with the America's and Asia this meant central Government was formed by rule of an elected people or an appointed people by a Monarch. The result of this was laws such as Habeas Corpus which meant the powerful were held account to the same laws as the less powerful and the powerful couldn't strip the wealthy of their wealth. The wealthy, and the mercantile classes flourished, and power was then only derived from wealth, and office held to shape the laws. I feel I should write more as this was colossal.
The reason for the history lesson is simple. Up until now, there was no "left" in terms of the state. The most left was the Catholic Church...
Slowly as the economies of countries grew and Empire flourished and wars were fought throughout Europe, there was 1 key shortage arising, there was food, but there wasn't the population and man power to full utilize these machines; the machine of industry and the machine of war. 'I guess the ruling classes took at 5 minuet stroll around the streets with this question in mind and realised there were 3 problems.' There poor were badly paid and could not afford the food. The poor worked in bad conditions, chewing up men and women meaning more were required. The poor had no health care... at all... they could never afford it so they died young and infant mortality meant people didn't even enter the machines at all.
Here we have our first parties:
UK: The Tories & The Whigs
The Whigs were a "progressive"(compared to the time) party who believed that the ways of old needed to change to help the poor contribute to the system more, in effect so that making the poor better off in order to help the rich more, in the future. The Tories were a more conservative party and believe that only what needed to be done to the people was what was required to prevent a Revolution as seen in France occur. Other differences were that the Tories were a very military party, which had advantages at times. The Tories tended to represent the Aristocracy while the Whigs the middle class (those without property could not vote).
USA: After the American Revolution there were soon 2 main parties set up which were the Republicans and the Democrats.
Much like the Tories and the Whigs: the Republicans and the Democrats respectively initially were like their counterparts abroad. The Democrats being more "progressive", aiding the worker to enable them to contribute more and the Republicans being in favour of big business, but there was of course the lack of aristocracy at the time, but one soon found its way to the top.
So, there was right wing, and right wing, giving a tiny bit to the poor in order to make them more, still never getting in the way of market economics and always favouring business, enterprise etc etc.
There was no "left" as we know it today.
Enter good old Karl Marx, the intellectual who tired of the system encasing the classes as of present, wanted to re-write the whole system by which we live in. He wanted the disassembling of classes, he wanted the state to be near non-existence, and inequality and income disparity to be of a factor of 0. It would be the ideal world... as found out in the subsequent century and numerous attempts of implementation it... never really worked... worked best in Cuba and that's saying a lot. Ideally Karl Marx wanted a near anarchic system where people just worked like clockwork. That never works because humans are... well humans. There will be dicks who break stuff, and there will also be charismatic big men who will form kingdoms given the chance, when there is a vacuum of Government.
In my opinion the breaking point for the old system was the first world war. "My opinion", it was fact. During this time the Governments of the world, built up the largest armed forces ever seen in history, even borrowing off of the United States of America to fund this, in the fear that they had to win at all costs. Now if there was a time when the poor needed to get out of the fucking way and let the different states do war this was it. Total War was approaching and the idea of new "Progressive" measures were thrown out the window. Britain had a high population density and an Empire, So did France to the North. Germany was an industrial power house in the making, Austria a land Empire, Italy was... complicated. Russia was huge... really huge... but it still had a king who ruled by sole Divine Right of Kings, or Tzar's. This meant there was no Democracy of any form, what the king said, went. During the build up, things were stretched and strained. During the war itself some Russians charged the Germans with Swords because the Russians could not afford guns. This mass loss of life... broke the country open. But... who could fill the gap? Which system would allow equality for the people of Russia? Communism... the totalitarian one... not the anarchic one...
Once the idea was in the air, "You can't un-ring a bell", "Idea's are bullet proof" whatever you like to say. This... thing, had been realised and... a lot of poor people were curious about what it would be like. We are humans, we are all curious. They see people in their top hats with their Monical and wonder, why can't I have that stuff, but they can.
Every western Government direly fearful of this and mounts large propaganda campaigns against this. Germany, where Karl Marx was born and lived, banned communist parties (With the help of an Adolf Hitler).
Side NotePHA+VGhlIG90aGVyIEV4dHJlbWUgd2UgaGF2ZSBpcyB0aGUgTmF6aSdzLiBXZSBhbGwga25vdyBhYm91dCB0aGVtIHRob3VnaC48YnIgLz5JIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gc3BlY2lmeSBvbmUgdGhpbmcgdGhvdWdoOjxiciAvPkZhc2Npc3RzIGFyZSBUb3RhbGl0YXJpYW4gUmlnaHQgd2luZy48YnIgLz5OYXppJ3MgYXJlIEZhc2Npc3RzICsgdGhlIGV0aG5pYyBjbGVhbnNpbmcgYW5kIGlkZW9sb2d5IGFib3V0IEEgTWFzdGVyIFJhY2UgYW5kIFN1cGVyaW9yaXR5IGJlY2F1c2Ugb2YgTmF0aW9uYWxpdHkuPC9wPg==
In Britain you had the major parties reforming even going through name changes to abandon their past in order to get the vote off of the expanding electorate. After the First World War, all women and all men could vote. Before only those with land to their name (a house) could vote. This led to the flourishing of the Labour Party who were considerably left compared to the Liberals(Reformed Whigs), Conservatives(Reformed Tories).
So there we have the actual socialist Parties around a lot of the world and a couple of Governments, acting as counter-balances to the right-wing which has existed for a long long time.
Now, if you need to do research into recent history about the cold war feel free. Communism doesn't work and a lot of the left failed.
From that point onwards Governments tended to centralise and become less extreme and the unwritten rule to be a "left" leaning party: Allow the market to exist but then take some of the money to help those at the bottom, and generally "stabilizing" the economy... in their opinion.
And the unwritten rule of being on the right wing... too varied between different countries.
There it is, the origins of both the right and the left.
You can't really give a definition to what each side is because it is always a sliding scale to the degree parties and Governments are left and right. The extreme on all sides fails miserably.
The extreme right; succumbs to a revolution of the poor... The extreme left: Anarchic, some one takes over and swings it to the right. Totalitarian... demands too many resources and it starts creeping to the right and probably out right collapses.
The United States of America! Oh where do I begin? Oh wait, its easy. If you read all of that^^^ you're very informed and I can tell you it strait.
There is no left wing in America. None as it is known anywhere else... well maybe Michael Moore, but ignore him.
The Democrats are by no means left wing. Whoever calls or hints they are communists... are retarded. The Labour Government who were dramatically more right wing than before, and they boosted the NHS spending to the point where the National Health service in the UK... is THE 3RD LARGEST EMPLOYER OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, THE WORLD!!!
They pushed business and gave large tax breaks to multiple companies to keep up the economic "success" created under the Conservatives.
Equally... The Republicans have all been Fascists too... no... not even the Tea party are that bad. They are not Fascists, by no means. There is a significant gap between the two parties due to the Partisan nature developed over the past... since... well: the founding of the United States.
Each party is a broad coalition of different opinions uniting under 1 banner as the system fucks over the chance of 3rd parties to exist apart from as a rarity, at all levels.
This creates an US or Them system where you must choose a Brand closest to what you want instead of what you actually want.
The Democrat voters average out as Centre Right. The Republican voters average out as firm right. The Tea party represent the extreme wing of the Republicans and well... they are far right bordering extreme. I think at the point where you say "we could save a dying man's life but let him die" it becomes extreme :P There isn't a real gauge for the Tea Party so that is my estimate. Extreme liberating of the markets lowers them more towards "liberalism" than the Republican status quo.
TL:DR 2
Now:
When someone says that the Democrats are on the left wing, that is wrong. When someone says that the Democrats are on the relative left wing, that is correct.
When someone calls the Democrats communists they need sending back to school in order to re-learn what they should have been taught in high school as if they make that leap, they have clearly failed something. (Or they are a devious PR person, or Evil politician).
When someone calls the Republicans Fascists or Nazi's then they are equally stupid.
Here in the US, your whole "please don't generalize everybody" thing has a problem: we only have the two parties. The Democrats are the more liberal party, and the Republicans are the more conservative. Furthermore, the most outspoken and influential Republicans tend to be the most conservative (the Tea Party), and the most influential Democrats tend to be farther left of the moderate line than most voters.
Sure, the VOTERS may be more moderate, but in the end that doesn't mean shit. The party leaders and those elected are on the farther ends of the spectrum, and those are the ones with the power. So until we get some more moderate leaders elected (fat chance right now), it is usually accurate to say the Democratic and Republican POLITICIANS are more on the left wing and right wings. The voters are another story.
Lilani: Here in the US, your whole "please don't generalize everybody" thing has a problem: we only have the two parties. The Democrats are the more liberal party, and the Republicans are the more conservative. Furthermore, the most outspoken and influential Republicans tend to be the most conservative (the Tea Party), and the most influential Democrats tend to be farther left of the moderate line than most voters.
Comando96: Each party is a broad coalition of different opinions uniting under 1 banner as the system fucks over the chance of 3rd parties to exist apart from as a rarity, at all levels.
This creates an US or Them system where you must choose a Brand closest to what you want instead of what you actually want.
I know it is long but... I did acknowledge that :P
Sure, the VOTERS may be more moderate, but in the end that doesn't mean shit. The party leaders and those elected are on the farther ends of the spectrum, and those are the ones with the power. So until we get some more moderate leaders elected (fat chance right now), it is usually accurate to say the Democratic and Republican POLITICIANS are more on the left wing and right wings. The voters are another story.
Yes, you have pointed out the problems with the 2 party system, however the parties as a whole in the past years have roughly been within the confines of the listed positions, though the Tea party is an added guess on my part.
Comando96: USA: After the American Revolution there were soon 2 main parties set up which were the Republicans and the Democrats.
Please reread your history books and try again. While there has always been a conservative and a more liberal wings of the US political system (as well as the libertarian-authoritarian scale, but that only got real play during the 1950s and 60s), the Democratic and Republican parties themselves didn't exist in the early nineteenth century.
Comando96: USA: After the American Revolution there were soon 2 main parties set up which were the Republicans and the Democrats.
Please reread your history books and try again. While there has always been a conservative and a more liberal wings of the US political system (as well as the libertarian-authoritarian scale, but that only got real play during the 1950s and 60s), the Democratic and Republican parties themselves didn't exist in the early nineteenth century.
You want me to add a Wikipedia link in?
Foundation of the 2 parties system: 1854 American Revolution; 1774 American Independence; 1781 (When they won, not the Declaration)
Artistic licence, thats "soon" :P
If you want to add detail then please do, yourself : ) If your gonna poke holes, please fill them in. I have tried to get the feel for history into condensed paragraphs xD
I agree that this is mostly correct in regards to what the parties were supposed to do, however, thier position should actually reflect their actions instead.
If you view their recent actions, the Republicans and democrats should basicically be moved on top of each other overlapping.
When republicans had control over congress and the white house, they expanded healthcare, and education. When Democrats had control, they expanded healthcare, ( but in a very bad way, that makes things worse not better) expanded the war and the patriot act. They have been moving together balancing each other out where the only major differences has been the republicans believe in economic freedom and less social freedom, whereas Democrats believe in more social freedom and less economic freedom. Other than that they are right on top of each other, though I think those issues balance each other out. :)
The democrats have become increasingly authoritarian, and the Republicans have been more in favor of more libertarian principles thus raising the position of democrats and lowering that of republicans.
Now for me, every time I have tested myself on these things I appear a bit south of the UK Liberal democrats exactly on the line.
Click to see 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
One thing you have over looked is how the States Rep/Dem's differ from the Federal Government which is meant to act as the ring master of a circus (very fucking chaotic).
The Obama administration has pretty much had its hand tied and at the Federal level not much differentiation has occurred, until the Rep's blocking the Dem's.
State level there are a lot more noticeable differences in attitudes and policies enacted, and after all most law is created and enforced by the states and not the Federal Government.
Also, America was going back a few years as opposed to the last 11 years :P With the exception of the UK Old/New Labour party change When Blair and Gordon took over, parties listed have changed over time with no sudden jolts.
Click to see 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
One thing you have over looked is how the States Rep/Dem's differ from the Federal Government which is meant to act as the ring master of a circus (very fucking chaotic).
The Obama administration has pretty much had its hand tied and at the Federal level not much differentiation has occurred, until the Rep's blocking the Dem's.
State level there are a lot more noticeable differences in attitudes and policies enacted, and after all most law is created and enforced by the states and not the Federal Government.
Also, America was going back a few years as opposed to the last 11 years :P With the exception of the UK Old/New Labour party change When Blair and Gordon took over, parties listed have changed over time with no sudden jolts.
I disagree about " having his hands tied". No one forced him to expand the patriot act. No one forced him to sign an insurance mandate, nor forced him to expand the war by breaking laws and treaties to accomdate his shadow war. No one tied his hands, he made these decisions knowingily and willfully. He has done quite a bit since he has been in office. Pelosi single handedly blocked the impeachment of Bush. It is all a show. Neither side is going to change things for the better, they only put on a show to make people think they are but when it comes down to it, they vote against the things they claim to champion if they think it has a chance in hell of passing. Both sides are guilty of this.
Democrats support discrimatory laws, expanding their authority, disregard for individual rights, and ecomonic supression just as much as the republians do.
Democrats in my state are usually about expanding the powers of government, lets take Perry as a prime example. Rick Perry was a democrat here first, he only changed to republican to get in the governors seat. Do you think he suddenly changed as a person when he changed parties? of course not. They are practically the same party anyhow, so it isn't like anyone notices.
Democrats had a majority in both congress and control over the white house when they pushed through the insurance mandate. This is their creation, and try to use the republicans as a scapegoat, they did this all on their own. House: Voting yes were 219 Democrats and 0 Republicans.
Voting no were 34 Democrats and 178 Republicans. Senate: 60-39 all republicans voted against.
When I hear people claim the republicans messed up the bill. That is a load of nonsense. This was all the democrats mess. No republicans voted for this madness.
The Whigs were a "progressive"(compared to the time) party who believed that the ways of old needed to change to help the poor contribute to the system more, in effect so that making the poor better off in order to help the rich more, in the future. The Tories were a more conservative party and believe that only what needed to be done to the people was what was required to prevent a Revolution as seen in France occur. Other differences were that the Tories were a very military party, which had advantages at times. The Tories tended to represent the Aristocracy while the Whigs the middle class (those without property could not vote).
Well, no, not quite.
Neither party wanted to do anything but oppress the revolting demographics. The Whigs, however, recognised that if the upper class held all the power, they would be inevitably swamped by the lower and middle classes combined, especially as the MC became wealthier and the LC poorer with growing industrialisation. As such, the Whigs wanted to extend voting rights to those with less property, but still a lot of property, in order to get the MC and UC on the same side against the LC. Both parties represented the Aristocracy. Only after the 1832 reform act could it be said that the Whigs even partly represented the middle classes.
Both parties wanted to change as little as possible to prevent revolution, they just differed in opinion (barely) over how much change was necessary.
Lil devils x: the republicans believe in economic freedom and less social freedom
...
Democrats... Authoritarian... the Republicans have been more in favor of more libertarian principles
Contradiction?
You might want to look up what Authoritarian means. I don't think it's quite as mild an attribute as you might think it to be,
When Democrats had control, they expanded healthcare, ( but in a very bad way, that makes things worse not better
Someone is going to have to explain to me why Obamacare is actually bad. Every rightwinger says it is, but reading the actual fucking bill tends to indicate otherwise.
- wasn't allowed to feature a public option, so it instead mandates insurance for all (because we're a fucking first world country, the richest on the goddamn planet, and we should be able to provide healthcare for the vast majority of our citizens) - if you can't afford the insurance, you receive subsidies to help you afford it - our healthcare costs are completely out of whack with the rest of the world (50-100% more than other industrialized nations) despite the much-ballyhooed competition that is supposed to keep prices in check, so the bill mandates creation of insurance exchanges in every state to facilitate that competition and lower those prices - doesn't allow insurance providers to screw over children or people with pre-existing conditions
Seriously, where is the bad? Seems like the bill is aimed at 1) making sure everyone has healthcare, 2) bringing down prices through competition, and 3) preventing insurers from screwing over the most vulnerable and sickly among us.
The only reason people think its bad is that Fox News fucking told them it was.
This all depends on how you look at it. The two party system rather obscures the details. Depending on where you live there are actually fairly left wing politics. On the whole the Dems try to woo as many people as possible and that includes several people that are actually fairly conservative but have a financial interest in voting Dem. As my state voted Obama in they also voted to ban gay marriage. Afterwards when I listened to my local conservative radio station one of their listeners called in and said how happy she was that gay marriage was banned. My local conservative talk show hosts told her she was a vile disgusting excuse for a human being and they hoped she never listened to the show again.
Neither party wanted to do anything but oppress the revolting demographics. The Whigs, however, recognised that if the upper class held all the power, they would be inevitably swamped by the lower and middle classes combined, especially as the MC became wealthier and the LC poorer with growing industrialisation. As such, the Whigs wanted to extend voting rights to those with less property, but still a lot of property, in order to get the MC and UC on the same side against the LC. Both parties represented the Aristocracy. Only after the 1832 reform act could it be said that the Whigs even partly represented the middle classes.
That's rather cynical. I think you can't easily dismiss that the Whigs always had a strong, inherent leaning towards liberalism which predisposed them to greater electoral participation.
I don't think either Whigs or Tories were driven by suppression of the lower classes per se, but engaged in a power struggle between old money: landed gentry who derived their income from land ownership and agriculture; and the new money: the expanding middle class of trade and industry. The Whig party was fundamentally a middle class party, for all that - especially early on - it was heavily composed of aristocrats.
When Democrats had control, they expanded healthcare, ( but in a very bad way, that makes things worse not better
Someone is going to have to explain to me why Obamacare is actually bad. Every rightwinger says it is, but reading the actual fucking bill tends to indicate otherwise.
- wasn't allowed to feature a public option, so it instead mandates insurance for all (because we're a fucking first world country, the richest on the goddamn planet, and we should be able to provide healthcare for the vast majority of our citizens) - if you can't afford the insurance, you receive subsidies to help you afford it - our healthcare costs are completely out of whack with the rest of the world (50-100% more than other industrialized nations) despite the much-ballyhooed competition that is supposed to keep prices in check, so the bill mandates creation of insurance exchanges in every state to facilitate that competition and lower those prices - doesn't allow insurance providers to screw over children or people with pre-existing conditions
Seriously, where is the bad? Seems like the bill is aimed at 1) making sure everyone has healthcare, 2) bringing down prices through competition, and 3) preventing insurers from screwing over the most vulnerable and sickly among us.
The only reason people think its bad is that Fox News fucking told them it was.
Health insurance is not health care. It is in no way, shape or form, universal healthcare. Insurers were part of the problem, not the solution. Insurers increase the cost of care and prevent proper treatment, yet they turnd our entire healthcare industry over to insurers! I do not watch fox news, I have worked in the medical industry for quite some time, and view this insurance mandate as complete garbage. I have been fighting for universal healthcare long before it came to the forefront here, and they refused to address core issues wrong with system and now have made it harder for us to actually get something that would actually provide healthcare for all passed anytime soon.
No way in hell democrats or republicans will ever allow us to actually have universal healthcare anyhow. Those who support the mandate have no clue what was causing the problems in the first place, nor do they plan on fixing them.
The Whigs were a "progressive"(compared to the time) party who believed that the ways of old needed to change to help the poor contribute to the system more, in effect so that making the poor better off in order to help the rich more, in the future. The Tories were a more conservative party and believe that only what needed to be done to the people was what was required to prevent a Revolution as seen in France occur. Other differences were that the Tories were a very military party, which had advantages at times. The Tories tended to represent the Aristocracy while the Whigs the middle class (those without property could not vote).
Well, no, not quite.
Neither party wanted to do anything but oppress the revolting demographics. The Whigs, however, recognised that if the upper class held all the power, they would be inevitably swamped by the lower and middle classes combined, especially as the MC became wealthier and the LC poorer with growing industrialisation. As such, the Whigs wanted to extend voting rights to those with less property, but still a lot of property, in order to get the MC and UC on the same side against the LC. Both parties represented the Aristocracy. Only after the 1832 reform act could it be said that the Whigs even partly represented the middle classes.
Both parties wanted to change as little as possible to prevent revolution, they just differed in opinion (barely) over how much change was necessary.
Lil devils x: the republicans believe in economic freedom and less social freedom
...
Democrats... Authoritarian... the Republicans have been more in favor of more libertarian principles
Contradiction?
You might want to look up what Authoritarian means. I don't think it's quite as mild an attribute as you might think it to be,
I know exactly what Authoritarian means, and that is why I do not take the democrats or republicans moving in this direction lightly.
Thats a nice chart and as accurate as it may be, most people talk about the right and the left wings in relation to each other. For example, if the Democratic Party didnt exist and if the Tea Party and the Republican party were the two major US political parties (just bear with me here I am trying to make a point) then people would say that the Republican party represented the American left relative to the Tea Party which would be on the right wing.
Getting back to the way things actually are, you realize that if the Tea Party ever did become the 3rd major US political party it would mean that the Republican Party would be the "centrist" US political party (if it survived the split of course)?
I know exactly what Authoritarian means, and that is why I do not take the democrats or republicans moving in this direction lightly.
You know what it means, so you should also know that they're hardly moving in that direction. They're not opposed to individualism, nor do they seek to control everything. To call them authoritarian, or approaching authoritarian, implies that they have total control as the goal. It's obviously not, and to insinuate as such is sensationalist at best.
I know exactly what Authoritarian means, and that is why I do not take the democrats or republicans moving in this direction lightly.
You know what it means, so you should also know that they're hardly moving in that direction. They're not opposed to individualism, nor do they seek to control everything. To call them authoritarian, or approaching authoritarian, implies that they have total control as the goal. It's obviously not, and to insinuate as such is sensationalist at best.
Sorry, but you are incorrect. They have been moving this way for a very long time. They are opposed to individualism, and have been gaining leaps and bounds towards their goals of total control.
Lets take a look at the past for example. A farmer growing food for his home. Under our laws as they were written, the federal government had no authority to regulate him. But then they decided to claim the commerce clause gave them the right to do so. So let's take a look at this clause they claimed gave them this authority:
The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".
Oh wait, it is pretty obvious that isn;t what it states at all, yet that is the clause they claim gives them the authority to regulate a man growing food for himself?
So the law did not grant them this authority, so they took it. That sounds like a complete disregard to the law, and they just decided to grant themselves authority anyhow. Sounds pretty damn authoritarian to me.
Lets take a look at respect for individualism. So we have a person who wishes to claim an elderly neighbor as a dependant. The government claims they cannot because they get to decide who is and who is not your dependant. Why is that when it should be up to the individual to determine who is and who is not their dependant? How about next of kin? Say you have not spoken with any of your family for 30 years and wou wish to have your best friend you have been living with for the past 40 years named as your next of kin, yet the government claims you cannot do that and they override your decision and designate the next closest family meber who you do not even speak with as your next of kin for you. How is that for respect for individualism? I could go on and on about how this nation has moved farther away from freedom and towards an authority on how you an live your life, but what is the point? It isn;t going to make them suddenly start promoting freedom. They have done this far to long for us to change it. Too many in power now will never allow that to happen. Sensationalism my ass. The media does not even cover this. Most of our damn population doesn't have a clue. They have allowed themselves to be kept distracted for so long there is nothing we can really do to change it now.
I'm sorry, but I don't have the energy for this. Suffice to say that I wish a lot more Americans actually went to some real authoritarian regimes in countries which really don't care for individualism, then they might not throw around what is actually an incredibly strong word so lightly.
I'm sorry, but I don't have the energy for this. Suffice to say that I wish a lot more Americans actually went to some real authoritarian regimes in countries which really don't care for individualism, then they might not throw around what is actually an incredibly strong word so lightly.
I am not using it lightly at all. Maybe you should gain a better understanding of what both authoritarian and sensationalism means.
Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism Sensationalism is a type of editorial bias in mass media in which events and topics in news stories and pieces are over-hyped to increase viewership or readership numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism
You described Authoritarianism as a ethic. As a governing method, its quite a bit different.
the second sentence of your cited source: In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of political elite, typically unelected by the people (but not necessarily), who possess exclusive, most of the time unaccountable, and arbitrary power.
[EDIT: bolding added]
Lil devils x: Sensationalism is a type of editorial bias in mass media in which events and topics in news stories and pieces are over-hyped to increase viewership or readership numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism
When you publish something that is over-hyped, like, say, on a forum, it too is sensationalist. You act as the editor in that case.
Lil devils x: And maybe a history lesson on what has taken place in our own nation. "The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (AKA "Warrantless Wiretapping") concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
Wasn't that found to be blatantly illegal within your own country? In an real authoritarian country, it wouldn't be.
I could go into why citing World Net Daily is about as effective as citing the News of the World, but NotW has higher standards.
As for Waco, they had already killed several police by then, so I'm inclined to say that this was probably already beyond the point of bringing in a regular SWAT van. That's what you get in a country where you can own assault weapons.
Again, turns out that the experiments on unknown civilians was illegal. This would not be the case in an authoritarian regime. EDIT:
Your linked Wikipedia article: Revelation section: In December 1974, The New York Times reported that the CIA had conducted illegal domestic activities, including experiments on U.S. citizens, during the 1960s. That report prompted investigations by the U.S. Congress, in the form of the Church Committee, and by a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission that looked into domestic activities of the CIA, the FBI, and intelligence-related agencies of the military.
Most programs had ended by the 1950s and were based on a lack of understanding of how certain genetic traits were passed down. Forced sterilization is no longer practiced in the civilized world and is classified as a Crime Against Humanity and under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Lil devils x: So if these things are not authoritarian, what would you call them? should I continue?
You just engaged in the most deliberate form of sensationalism I have ever seen that doesn't directly cross into lies (that still belongs to powder), but either greatly misrepresents the articles that you've cited or comes from a source that has no credibility.
You described Authoritarianism as a ethic. As a governing method, its quite a bit different.
the second sentence of your cited source: In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of political elite, typically unelected by the people (but not necessarily), who possess exclusive, most of the time unaccountable, and arbitrary power.
Lil devils x: Sensationalism is a type of editorial bias in mass media in which events and topics in news stories and pieces are over-hyped to increase viewership or readership numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism
When you publish something that is over-hyped, like, say, on a forum, it too is sensationalist. You act as the editor in that case.
Lil devils x: And maybe a history lesson on what has taken place in our own nation. "The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (AKA "Warrantless Wiretapping") concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
Wasn't that found to be blatantly illegal within your own country? In an real authoritarian country, it wouldn't be.
I could go into why citing World Net Daily is about as effective as citing the News of the World, but NotW has higher standards.
As for Waco, they had already killed several police by then, so I'm inclined to say that this was probably already beyond the point of bringing in a regular SWAT van. That's what you get in a country where you can own assault weapons.
Most programs had ended by the 1950s and were based on a lack of understanding of how certain genetic traits were passed down. Forced sterilization is no longer practiced in the civilized world and is classified as a Crime Against Humanity and under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Lil devils x: So if these things are not authoritarian, what would you call them? should I continue?
You just engaged in the most deliberate form of sensationalism I have ever seen that doesn't directly cross into lies (that still belongs to powder), but either greatly misrepresents the articles that you've cited or comes from a source that has no credibility.
I have not engaged in senstaionalism! What event above misrepresents the article? I grabbed the first thing that came up in my google search, as these were all events carried out by our government in our past, and the monitoring has actually been expanded to this day via patriot act, which technically should be illegal as well.
Authoritarian government definition also applies since our current government has disregarded the laws and have acted in breach of our own laws. They have stacked the benches to allow them to do so, and yes, they are an elite group that claim authority over the people. They fit that description to a tee.
Forced sterilization was part of their eugenics research, which is still ongoing to this day, illegal or otherwise. Just listen to kissenger, as he sees this as our future. Scary stuff there.
As to the use of tanks against women and children, yes they did that, I watched myself as the treads of the tank ran over the bodies. It makes me sick just thinking about it. That never should have happened at all. They had many opportunities to take the men in town without harming the children. They chose to use military force against their own people instead.
It does not matter if something is illegal or not, they are doing it anyways. They have placed themselves above the law. they aren't arresting each other, or impeaching anyone, instead they are covering each others asses to gain more authority.
What exactly has no credibility? I did not look for the source, I just grabbed the first one I found about an event. Most everyone already knows these thing have happened.
Would you like to discuss CIA drug dealing? FBI illegal arms sales? or how about the financial benefits to political organizations through the bailouts? What about threatening businesses to merger or get thrown out? It is our government officials who have lost credibility.
I think you should replace Democrats and Republicans with federalists and democratic-republicans. Also through the years Republicans and democrats have switched a couple core values and made new ones up that where really of little concern at the time. The split by the democratic republicans led to the national republicans and democrats. national republicans gave rise to the whigs, being the basis for the civil war era republicans and eventually modern democrats.
Same party name and technically same party but completely different principles and voter base.
Lil devils x: I have not engaged in senstaionalism! What event above misrepresents the article? I grabbed the first thing that came up in my google search, as these were all events carried out by our government in our past, and the monitoring has actually been expanded to this day via patriot act, which technically should be illegal as well.
Authoritarian government definition also applies since our current government has disregarded the laws and have acted in breach of our own laws. They have stacked the benches to allow them to do so, and yes, they are an elite group that claim authority over the people. They fit that description to a tee.
Forced sterilization was part of their eugenics research, which is still ongoing to this day, illegal or otherwise. Just listen to kissenger, as he sees this as our future. Scary stuff there.
As to the use of tanks against women and children, yes they did that, I watched myself as the treads of the tank ran over the bodies. It makes me sick just thinking about it. That never should have happened at all. They had many opportunities to take the men in town without harming the children. They chose to use military force against their own people instead.
It does not matter if something is illegal or not, they are doing it anyways. They have placed themselves above the law. they aren't arresting each other, or impeaching anyone, instead they are covering each others asses to gain more authority.
What exactly has no credibility? I did not look for the source, I just grabbed the first one I found about an event. Most everyone already knows these thing have happened.
Would you like to discuss CIA drug dealing? FBI illegal arms sales? or how about the financial benefits to political organizations through the bailouts? What about threatening businesses to merger or get thrown out? It is our government officials who have lost credibility.
I've bolded the relevant parts that you mis-characterized in the original post above and added a section from your own article regarding the CIA program.
As for eugenics, modern versions of the science are not revolved around forced sterilization of "undesirables," but the idea of pre-implantation genetic modification to strengthen desirable traits (intellect, strength, metabolism, etc.). We as a species are far from being able to do this in humans on a mass scale, though we are getting close in other species. I'd comment on Kissenger, but without a citable source, I can't determine which comment you're referring to.
World Net Daily is a known hawker of right-wing conspiracy theories. Most recently they claimed that President Obama was not born in the US.
In regards to Waco, the only way you could have even been close enough to see those injuries would have been to be inside the building at the time.
Wikipedia article: Waco Siege, Section: Autopsies: Autopsies of the dead revealed that some women and children found beneath a fallen concrete wall of a storage room died of skull injuries. Photographs taken after the fire show that the M728 CEV that penetrated the building while injecting CS gas did not come close enough to cause the collapse, which was more likely the result of the fire; photographs show signs of spalling on the concrete, which suggests that it was damaged by the intense heat.
Autopsy photographs of other children locked in what appear to be spasmic death poses are consistent with cyanide poisoning, one of the results produced by burning CS gas. The DOJ report indicated that only one body had traces of benzene, one of the components of solvent-dispersed CS gas, but that the gas insertions had finished nearly one hour before the fire started, and that it was enough time for solvents to dissipate from the bodies of the Davidians that had inhaled the tear gas.
Autopsy records indicate that at least 20 Davidians were shot, including five children under the age of 14. Three-year-old Dayland Gent was stabbed in the chest. The medical examiner who performed the autopsies believed these deaths were mercy killings by Davidians trapped in the fire with no escape. The expert retained by the Office of Special Counsel concluded that many of the gunshot wounds "support self-destruction either by overt suicide, consensual execution (suicide by proxy), or less likely, forced execution."
So unless you were with the FBI strike team (which is unlikely given your comments on this board) or were with with Branch Davidians (unlikely given the high number of casualties), you're unlikely to know from sensory knowledge that "the treads of the tank ran over the bodies." Without some kind of corroborating evidence (an affidavit, some kind of recording, or other evidence), your claim is unsubstantiated.
Every time you've claimed they've "placed themselves above the law," you failed to notice that the law smacked them right back down. In an authoritarian government system, such actions are automatically within the law by the nature of the system. Now, you've begun throwing accusations without sources to substantiate your claims. If you're interested in making claims that are in dispute, please have the decency to do the legwork of telling us where those ideas came from.
Lil devils x: I have not engaged in senstaionalism! What event above misrepresents the article? I grabbed the first thing that came up in my google search, as these were all events carried out by our government in our past, and the monitoring has actually been expanded to this day via patriot act, which technically should be illegal as well.
Authoritarian government definition also applies since our current government has disregarded the laws and have acted in breach of our own laws. They have stacked the benches to allow them to do so, and yes, they are an elite group that claim authority over the people. They fit that description to a tee.
Forced sterilization was part of their eugenics research, which is still ongoing to this day, illegal or otherwise. Just listen to kissenger, as he sees this as our future. Scary stuff there.
As to the use of tanks against women and children, yes they did that, I watched myself as the treads of the tank ran over the bodies. It makes me sick just thinking about it. That never should have happened at all. They had many opportunities to take the men in town without harming the children. They chose to use military force against their own people instead.
It does not matter if something is illegal or not, they are doing it anyways. They have placed themselves above the law. they aren't arresting each other, or impeaching anyone, instead they are covering each others asses to gain more authority.
What exactly has no credibility? I did not look for the source, I just grabbed the first one I found about an event. Most everyone already knows these thing have happened.
Would you like to discuss CIA drug dealing? FBI illegal arms sales? or how about the financial benefits to political organizations through the bailouts? What about threatening businesses to merger or get thrown out? It is our government officials who have lost credibility.
I've bolded the relevant parts that you mis-characterized in the original post above and added a section from your own article regarding the CIA program.
As for eugenics, modern versions of the science are not revolved around forced sterilization of "undesirables," but the idea of pre-implantation genetic modification to strengthen desirable traits (intellect, strength, metabolism, etc.). We as a species are far from being able to do this in humans on a mass scale, though we are getting close in other species. I'd comment on Kissenger, but without a citable source, I can't determine which comment you're referring to.
World Net Daily is a known hawker of right-wing conspiracy theories. Most recently they claimed that President Obama was not born in the US.
In regards to Waco, the only way you could have even been close enough to see those injuries would have been to be inside the building at the time.
Wikipedia article: Waco Siege, Section: Autopsies: Autopsies of the dead revealed that some women and children found beneath a fallen concrete wall of a storage room died of skull injuries. Photographs taken after the fire show that the M728 CEV that penetrated the building while injecting CS gas did not come close enough to cause the collapse, which was more likely the result of the fire; photographs show signs of spalling on the concrete, which suggests that it was damaged by the intense heat.
Autopsy photographs of other children locked in what appear to be spasmic death poses are consistent with cyanide poisoning, one of the results produced by burning CS gas. The DOJ report indicated that only one body had traces of benzene, one of the components of solvent-dispersed CS gas, but that the gas insertions had finished nearly one hour before the fire started, and that it was enough time for solvents to dissipate from the bodies of the Davidians that had inhaled the tear gas.
Autopsy records indicate that at least 20 Davidians were shot, including five children under the age of 14. Three-year-old Dayland Gent was stabbed in the chest. The medical examiner who performed the autopsies believed these deaths were mercy killings by Davidians trapped in the fire with no escape. The expert retained by the Office of Special Counsel concluded that many of the gunshot wounds "support self-destruction either by overt suicide, consensual execution (suicide by proxy), or less likely, forced execution."
So unless you were with the FBI strike team (which is unlikely given your comments on this board) or were with with Branch Davidians (unlikely given the high number of casualties), you're unlikely to know from sensory knowledge that "the treads of the tank ran over the bodies." Without some kind of corroborating evidence (an affidavit, some kind of recording, or other evidence), your claim is unsubstantiated.
Every time you've claimed they've "placed themselves above the law," you failed to notice that the law smacked them right back down. In an authoritarian government system, such actions are automatically within the law by the nature of the system. Now, you've begun throwing accusations without sources to substantiate your claims. If you're interested in making claims that are in dispute, please have the decency to do the legwork of telling us where those ideas came from.
Excuse me? The whole thing was on live TV as it happened. They did show the bodies under the tank as it rolled in. They had the whole thing live, it was pretty disgusting. They came in guns ablazing knowing there were children in there, when none of it was necessary. They had interviews with people in town telling us the men were just in town a few days prior. They spoke with authorities while they were in town and they very well could have just taken them in without going in to fight. That was completely unexcuseable, and to try and make it out like this is acceptable in a free society, would lead me to believe that you also believe the government should use this kind of force on their own people. In a free nation, the government is not there to rule over the people, instead the government is there to protect the rights of the indivudual. There is a grave difference.
Did you not watch this live? they had nonstop coverage on it as it happened here. But we are not far from waco, so they may not have given it as much coverage elsewhere. The people from town came out there and were watching this whole event at the fence. They were doing interviews while it was taking place. I never followed up on autopsies, we watched this as it happened. The people were in shock from town as well, as the dividians had never shown to be violent or anything.
I was at the local pizzaria when this happened. People in the restaurant actually said" They are running them down with tanks!" Everyone was in shock here as well. You see, for me, it is the only event that stands out in my mind that gave me the same feeling as when I watched the twin towers being attacked. It kept going on and on and getting worse and worse. And even to this day when I see the footage of the twin towers, I also flash back to watching the waco event. While watching it, it was horrifying.
As for kissinger, it wasn't one comment there was like a 2 hour interview where he went on and on about why he supports eugenics, about the need for a slave class and a ruling class, and how this will be the only way society basically can function in the future. He really is a scary guy. The more the man talked, the more sick I became listening to him.
The law didn;t smack them down until after the harm was done, and often in these cases, the people who intitially were responsible never get smacked down at all, no instead they use some guy low on the chain of command to take the fall, and then go on as business as usual, just as they did with the corruption at the NRC region IV. The guy responsible for that still works there till this day. That is how it works in reality. That is no consipracy, that is just accepting the reality of our situation.
It works the same on low levels as well. We have had a corrupt Sherrif for many years here, I personally had a sexual harrassment restraining order against him, while on a community board because he thinks that all women are his property. So then we have prisoner rape charges come up and a federal investigation. What do they do? They allow some new guy they just hired to take the fall, and the guys that were responsible for this are still working there.
We had a DA here illegally jailing people and stealing their land, then after actual protests they finally arrest the guy. Instead of charging him on those charges, they charge him with embezzlement, and then he gets out of jail in a few months. That shows us there were more people involved, but we already knew that because that was the land the city was using. He was acting on behalf of the city to do these things, so he agreed to take a hand slap. Justice is not served when the land he stole never gets returned.
This isn't just limited to our local government, this goes up to state, fgederal, it doesn't matter. Because while American became complacent, the people who really wanted the power in the first place took it. The people who want these jobs the most are control freaks, not people who want to make the nation a better place. So who gets arrested for disreagrding the constitution and bypassing the laws? Oh yea, no one.
Everyone knows about the CIA selling drugs, the fast and the furious deal, and which cndidates sponsors shot those keeping them in office profits through the roof via bailouts, as well as the feds forcing BoA to merge with lynch so that it would send their stocks plummitting enough for buffett to make a killing. This is all old news, why does something everyone already knows about even need sources. You can find the source of your choosing with google. I don't need to look it up, I was paying attention. "legwork" you can google and get all the information you need, it isn;t that hard. I consider it legwork when I have to go out and get petitions signed to improve our community. Now that is what I consider " legwork" .Using search on google to find whatever source you find acceptable isn;t legwork, not reading more about that if you are interested in it is just lazy.
The Democrats and Republicans hadn't always been around, at first some of the founding fathers actually wanted no political parties because they feared what that could do to the country, however in time some naturally sprung up, each liberal or conservative. Within that time span the Democratic party formed and was one of the more influential and strong parties. The republican party only formed before the revolution, they were mainly a party in opposition to slavery. During the election, the reason the Republicans one was because Pro Slavery Democrats and Anti Slavery Democrats had two different candidates for president, there was such a division in the party that the Republicans managed to get more votes then either of the divided democratic candidates. Fast forward pass the civil war, and then the southern strategy came along and politics got a lot more complicated. The "Southern Strategy" was basically Republicans appealing to disillusioned Democrats in the South by supporting more heavily conservative "Pro South" ideas, this lead to them alienating the north and the Democrats moving in there.
The Democrats and Republicans hadn't always been around, at first some of the founding fathers actually wanted no political parties because they feared what that could do to the country, however in time some naturally sprung up, each liberal or conservative. Within that time span the Democratic party formed and was one of the more influential and strong parties. The republican party only formed before the revolution, they were mainly a party in opposition to slavery. During the election, the reason the Republicans one was because Pro Slavery Democrats and Anti Slavery Democrats had two different candidates for president, there was such a division in the party that the Republicans managed to get more votes then either of the divided democratic candidates. Fast forward pass the civil war, and then the southern strategy came along and politics got a lot more complicated. The "Southern Strategy" was basically Republicans appealing to disillusioned Democrats in the South by supporting more heavily conservative "Pro South" ideas, this lead to them alienating the north and the Democrats moving in there.
The founders had good reason to fear what would happen when people started voting for parties rather than actions. We will continue to pay for that for the foreseeable future.
Lil devils x: Excuse me? The whole thing was on live TV as it happened. They did show the bodies under the tank as it rolled in. They had the whole thing live, it was pretty disgusting. They came in guns ablazing knowing there were children in there, when none of it was necessary. They had interviews with people in town telling us the men were just in town a few days prior. They spoke with authorities while they were in town and they very well could have just taken them in without going in to fight. That was completely unexcuseable, and to try and make it out like this is acceptable in a free society, would lead me to believe that you also believe the government should use this kind of force on their own people. In a free nation, the government is not there to rule over the people, instead the government is there to protect the rights of the indivudual. There is a grave difference.
Did you not watch this live? they had nonstop coverage on it as it happened here. But we are not far from waco, so they may not have given it as much coverage elsewhere. The people from town came out there and were watching this whole event at the fence. They were doing interviews while it was taking place. I never followed up on autopsies, we watched this as it happened. The people were in shock from town as well, as the dividians had never shown to be violent or anything.
I was at the local pizzaria when this happened. People in the restaurant actually said" They are running them down with tanks!" Everyone was in shock here as well. You see, for me, it is the only event that stands out in my mind that gave me the same feeling as when I watched the twin towers being attacked. It kept going on and on and getting worse and worse. And even to this day when I see the footage of the twin towers, I also flash back to watching the waco event. While watching it, it was horrifying.
Long story short: no I didn't watch this live as I was not within the US at that time. That is irrelevant. I asked for a source, not just "I saw it on TV;" a citation that I can verify as a credible source as to your claim. Was it on CNN? Does CNN have a story on Waco in their site? If you're making the accusation, the burden of verification is on you, not the person questioning it.
Lil devils x: As for kissinger, it wasn't one comment there was like a 2 hour interview where he went on and on about why he supports eugenics, about the need for a slave class and a ruling class, and how this will be the only way society basically can function in the future. He really is a scary guy. The more the man talked, the more sick I became listening to him.
Again, that's not very specific when it comes to Kissinger. I asked for the quote that you've claimed to hear and still have not produced it.
Lil devils x: The law didn;t smack them down until after the harm was done, and often in these cases, the people who intitially were responsible never get smacked down at all, no instead they use some guy low on the chain of command to take the fall, and then go on as business as usual, just as they did with the corruption at the NRC region IV. The guy responsible for that still works there till this day. That is how it works in reality. That is no consipracy, that is just accepting the reality of our situation.
By definition, the law was broken when the harm was done. That's how criminal law works. (The one exception to this are "attempted" crimes, which are limited in scope and do not pertain to this discussion)
And not all criminal actions involve dismissal or jail. Many, especially in government operations, involve injunctions whereby the the judicial system explicitly states that the actions were illegal and opens up the opportunity for remedies, such as other injunctions or civil remedies (i.e. lawsuits).
You also appear to be confusing corruption with authoritarian government. The two are not causal. For example You have the highly authoritarian Cuba which has significant corruption and the less-authoritarian Afghanistan which also has serious corruption problems. In contrast, you have Hong Kong (while technically part of China, it is operated as a separate country with relatively relaxed government) and Singapore (Highly-authoritarian governing style) with extremely low levels of corruption.
side note:PHA+U2VlPyBUaGlzIGlzIGFsbCB5b3UgaGF2ZSB0byBkby4gV2hlbiB5b3UgbWFrZSBhIGNsYWltIChpbiBteSBjYXNlIHRoYXQgY2xhaW0gYmVpbmcgYSBsYWNrIG9mIGNvcnJlbGF0aW9uIGJldHdlZW4gY29ycnVwdGlvbiBhbmQgdGhlIGxldmVsIG9mIGF1dGhvcml0YXJpYW5pc20gaW4gYSBzb2NpZXR5KSwgY2l0ZSBhIHNvdXJjZS4gSXQgcmVhbGx5IG5vdCB0aGF0IGhhcmQ8L3A+
Lil devils x: It works the same on low levels as well. We have had a corrupt Sherrif for many years here, I personally had a sexual harrassment restraining order against him, while on a community board because he thinks that all women are his property. So then we have prisoner rape charges come up and a federal investigation. What do they do? They allow some new guy they just hired to take the fall, and the guys that were responsible for this are still working there.
Then you use what I often hear is called "the fourth branch of government" in the US: get the media on it. Make it a campaign issue if he or the person who appointed him is running for re-election. Modern US politics runs on activism, so go and do something about it instead of just letting the system let him go at it. Nothing get's done without action.
Lil devils x: We had a DA here illegally jailing people and stealing their land, then after actual protests they finally arrest the guy. Instead of charging him on those charges, they charge him with embezzlement, and then he gets out of jail in a few months. That shows us there were more people involved, but we already knew that because that was the land the city was using. He was acting on behalf of the city to do these things, so he agreed to take a hand slap. Justice is not served when the land he stole never gets returned.
Again: Corruption ≠ Authoritarianism.
You've clearly got a problem with corruption within your local area (and if you're Texas, probably your entire state), but nothing happens if you do stop doing anything about it.
Lil devils x: This isn't just limited to our local government, this goes up to state, fgederal, it doesn't matter. Because while American became complacent, the people who really wanted the power in the first place took it. The people who want these jobs the most are control freaks, not people who want to make the nation a better place. So who gets arrested for disreagrding the constitution and bypassing the laws? Oh yea, no one.
Again, not everything gets resolved by throwing someone in jail. In the case of government overreach, it's almost always going to be a injunction.
Lil devils x: Everyone knows about the CIA selling drugs, the fast and the furious deal, and which cndidates sponsors shot those keeping them in office profits through the roof via bailouts, as well as the feds forcing BoA to merge with lynch so that it would send their stocks plummitting enough for buffett to make a killing. This is all old news, why does something everyone already knows about even need sources. You can find the source of your choosing with google. I don't need to look it up, I was paying attention. "legwork" you can google and get all the information you need, it isn;t that hard. I consider it legwork when I have to go out and get petitions signed to improve our community. Now that is what I consider " legwork" .Using search on google to find whatever source you find acceptable isn;t legwork, not reading more about that if you are interested in it is just lazy.
"Everybody knows" (aka Common Knowledge) is not a valid defense when someone asks for proof. Ever.
It doesn't matter what you're saying. You could say that Jupiter is a gas giant planet and I could say "I don't believe you. Prove it to me" and it would be your duty as the person who made the claim. When the facts are in dispute, he who cites the most reliable and accurate source(s) will always come out on top. If I look crazy for claiming that an obvious fact is not obvious, then I look crazy, but the burden to prove will always be on the one asserting the fact.
For example, when you (or rather your lawyer) were filing for your restraining order against the Sheriff, did you just submit a claim without any evidence? Of course not. You likely detailed exact instances and patterns of behavior that warranted the restraining order. You provided evidence (instances and patterns of behavior) to justify your claim (I should have a restraining order against the Sheriff). This isn't advanced argumentative theory. This is basic persuasive writing that you should have learned in secondary school.
When Democrats had control, they expanded healthcare, ( but in a very bad way, that makes things worse not better
Someone is going to have to explain to me why Obamacare is actually bad. Every rightwinger says it is, but reading the actual fucking bill tends to indicate otherwise.
- wasn't allowed to feature a public option, so it instead mandates insurance for all (because we're a fucking first world country, the richest on the goddamn planet, and we should be able to provide healthcare for the vast majority of our citizens) - if you can't afford the insurance, you receive subsidies to help you afford it - our healthcare costs are completely out of whack with the rest of the world (50-100% more than other industrialized nations) despite the much-ballyhooed competition that is supposed to keep prices in check, so the bill mandates creation of insurance exchanges in every state to facilitate that competition and lower those prices - doesn't allow insurance providers to screw over children or people with pre-existing conditions
Seriously, where is the bad? Seems like the bill is aimed at 1) making sure everyone has healthcare, 2) bringing down prices through competition, and 3) preventing insurers from screwing over the most vulnerable and sickly among us.
The only reason people think its bad is that Fox News fucking told them it was.
Health insurance is not health care. It is in no way, shape or form, universal healthcare. Insurers were part of the problem, not the solution. Insurers increase the cost of care and prevent proper treatment, yet they turnd our entire healthcare industry over to insurers! I do not watch fox news, I have worked in the medical industry for quite some time, and view this insurance mandate as complete garbage. I have been fighting for universal healthcare long before it came to the forefront here, and they refused to address core issues wrong with system and now have made it harder for us to actually get something that would actually provide healthcare for all passed anytime soon.
No way in hell democrats or republicans will ever allow us to actually have universal healthcare anyhow. Those who support the mandate have no clue what was causing the problems in the first place, nor do they plan on fixing them.
It's all in your very own post, but you can't see it.
Of course for-profit healthcare, embodied by the health insurance industry, is the cause of our overpriced healthcare. That's a complete no-brainer. The obvious solution (switching to universal healthcare, single payer option, etc.) is also a no-brainer. It will also never happen given our circumstances. The very next best thing, then, is to take the system we're stuck with and regulate it so as to accomplish what it won't on its own.
Universal healthcare covers everyone. So does a privatized healthcare system that mandates health insurance be purchased by everyone - so long as it subsidizes those who cannot afford it. Obamacare aims to do exactly this.
Universal healthcare, in real-world practice, keeps prices low. So does a privatized healthcare system that features legitimate competition. Obamacare aims to facilitate this competition with mandated insurance exchanges.
Universal healthcare doesn't leave children or people with pre-existing conditions out in the cold. Neither does a privatized healthcare system that, by law, must cover everyone. Obamacare aims to enforce exactly that.
Healthcare in America costs way, way too much and leaves way, way too many uncovered. If the political climate won't allow us to have the radical shift in policy needed to counteract these problems, the very next best thing is legislation that forces our current system to address said problems. That's exactly what Obamacare has tried to do.
Someone is going to have to explain to me why Obamacare is actually bad. Every rightwinger says it is, but reading the actual fucking bill tends to indicate otherwise.
- wasn't allowed to feature a public option, so it instead mandates insurance for all (because we're a fucking first world country, the richest on the goddamn planet, and we should be able to provide healthcare for the vast majority of our citizens) - if you can't afford the insurance, you receive subsidies to help you afford it - our healthcare costs are completely out of whack with the rest of the world (50-100% more than other industrialized nations) despite the much-ballyhooed competition that is supposed to keep prices in check, so the bill mandates creation of insurance exchanges in every state to facilitate that competition and lower those prices - doesn't allow insurance providers to screw over children or people with pre-existing conditions
Seriously, where is the bad? Seems like the bill is aimed at 1) making sure everyone has healthcare, 2) bringing down prices through competition, and 3) preventing insurers from screwing over the most vulnerable and sickly among us.
The only reason people think its bad is that Fox News fucking told them it was.
Health insurance is not health care. It is in no way, shape or form, universal healthcare. Insurers were part of the problem, not the solution. Insurers increase the cost of care and prevent proper treatment, yet they turnd our entire healthcare industry over to insurers! I do not watch fox news, I have worked in the medical industry for quite some time, and view this insurance mandate as complete garbage. I have been fighting for universal healthcare long before it came to the forefront here, and they refused to address core issues wrong with system and now have made it harder for us to actually get something that would actually provide healthcare for all passed anytime soon.
No way in hell democrats or republicans will ever allow us to actually have universal healthcare anyhow. Those who support the mandate have no clue what was causing the problems in the first place, nor do they plan on fixing them.
It's all in your very own post, but you can't see it.
Of course for-profit healthcare, embodied by the health insurance industry, is the cause of our overpriced healthcare. That's a complete no-brainer. The obvious solution (switching to universal healthcare, single payer option, etc.) is also a no-brainer. It will also never happen given our circumstances. The very next best thing, then, is to take the system we're stuck with and regulate it so as to accomplish what it won't on its own.
Universal healthcare covers everyone. So does a privatized healthcare system that mandates health insurance be purchased by everyone - so long as it subsidizes those who cannot afford it. Obamacare aims to do exactly this.
Universal healthcare, in real-world practice, keeps prices low. So does a privatized healthcare system that features legitimate competition. Obamacare aims to facilitate this competition with mandated insurance exchanges.
Universal healthcare doesn't leave children or people with pre-existing conditions out in the cold. Neither does a privatized healthcare system that, by law, must cover everyone. Obamacare aims to enforce exactly that.
Healthcare in America costs way, way too much and leaves way, way too many uncovered. If the political climate won't allow us to have the radical shift in policy needed to counteract these problems, the very next best thing is legislation that forces our current system to address said problems. That's exactly what Obamacare has tried to do.
Obamacare has NOT done that at all. First, Lets look at the insurance mandate. They want to fine people for not having insurance. This gives insurance companies alot more people giving them money. Second, they require them to cover people with preexisting conditions, but allow them to charge a higher premium. They were already doing that, the problem was that people could not afford the insurance because of their premiums were set too high. Many of the people who chose not to have insurance did so, because not only could they not afford the payments, even if they were to find a plan they could pay monthly, they could not afford the co pays, or the deductibles. Just because they make it mandatory, does not suddenly make them be able to afford it. The guidelines the government uses to base whether or not they can afford to do so, are too low, and do not accomodate the actual cost of living.
Insurance is still employer based. Guess what? If you change employers, you still lose all the money you paid in already. Also, when you reapply for new insurance, anything that you were being treated for suddenly becomes a preexisting condition, also raising income for insurance companies.
With both public healthcare and insurance you are leaving people in a worse predicament if they have a nontextbook or rare condition. if things do not have a code, or follow an insurer or government procedure, they cannot get their treatment approved. The way it works is like this: Patient has x symptoms, insurers require this test and medication to be used prior to approving the next one. The doctor suspects that the problem doesn;t actually need the first test, but the insurers require the results of a test that is non related to what the doctor thinks the problem is. Instead, the doctor wishes to run the test that will determine the problem, and move forward with treatment with a better medication. Office calls insurer and tells them this, insurer comes back and says no they will not approve it without the other test. So doctor makes them take the test, and that test has no findings, as the doctor suspected in the first place. Then they call the insurer back and they say they need to do this other test. The insurer responds, since there are no findings in the first test we see no grounds for the second test and will not approve it, instead we will approve giving the patient this medication and see if that works. Doctors hands are tied. Months later patient is diagnosed with cancer, but now they have a low survival rate because the Insurers made them wait, when the test the doctor wanted to run in the first place would have determined this earlier.
Yes this is how it actually works, and this is the model the government is using to reduce costs.
This is not the very next best thing, the best thing we could do right here and now is expand the role of doctor financing and shove insurers out of the system all together. healthcare is covering people, it is health insurance that is not. With people with many conditions, it is better for them not to have health insurance because they would then qualify for 100% charity care instead that would allow the doctors to decide what the best course of treatment is, not insurers or the government. They then could use aht money they do have to buy their medications, since chairty care cannot cover pharma outside of what the hospital has on site.
What this insurance mandate has done, is make it much more difficult for us to actually get universal healthcare passed at all.
Did you find this informative or interesting either as a history lesson or political rant?
No, I didn't find this informative or interesting at all because of how wrong all of it is. If there is no left in America then there is no right in Europe. It's as simple as that.
Lil devils x: What this insurance mandate has done, is make it much more difficult for us to actually get universal healthcare passed at all.
First and foremost, you should recognize the fact that the only people who decried the loss of the single payer option from this bill were Democrats. Full-stop. No one on the right gave a shit. That, right there, should indicate a pretty significant difference.
The left capitulated badly on this health insurance bill. I hated the thing precisely because it doesn't give us universal healthcare, but I applaud it for attempting to force our current system to perform at a higher level.
The bill is supposed to subsidize those who can't afford mandated coverage. If the subsidies had been insufficient, they would have been altered - ya know, assuming the intransigent GOP didn't block such a thing at every turn.
The costs haven't come down (and the subsidies aren't enough) because the insurance exchanges aren't functional at this time. Those exchanges were meant to open up markets across state lines and spur price-lowering competition, but the states don't have to implement them until 2014. In a nutshell: we haven't seen this portion of the plan in action. Meanwhile, states that have tried to implement them ahead of the deadline (like my own) have been met with nothing but GOP blockades. That's right; the Republicans are blocking free market initiatives because the content of legislation doesn't matter to them. The only thing that matters are a) who wrote it (Democrats) and b) what it means to their bottom line (corporate losses).
The best part about Obamacare is that it might fail spectacularly. If it doesn't lower costs (either because "competition yay!" is a complete fallacy or the GOP blocks the exchanges), and it doesn't insure more Americans, we'll be forced to truly reevaluate the system on a fundamental level. We won't be able to "go backwards" because that would mean even higher prices and cutting off children - things that frankly won't play in an election.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Obamacare doesn't need to succeed to succeed. Sure, it would be great if it provided reasonably priced healthcare to almost every American - almost as good as Universal. But if that doesn't happen, it will demonstrate that our current system, no matter how heavily modified, cannot do what we need our healthcare to do. That's a victory as well.
Did you find this informative or interesting either as a history lesson or political rant?
No, I didn't find this informative or interesting at all because of how wrong all of it is. If there is no left in America then there is no right in Europe. It's as simple as that.
Complete false equivalency. If the vast majority of the rest of the world is liberal by American standards, that makes us right wing. It doesn't make the whole fucking world, minus America, liberal.
Lil devils x: What this insurance mandate has done, is make it much more difficult for us to actually get universal healthcare passed at all.
First and foremost, you should recognize the fact that the only people who decried the loss of the single payer option from this bill were Democrats. Full-stop. No one on the right gave a shit. That, right there, should indicate a pretty significant difference.
The left capitulated badly on this health insurance bill. I hated the thing precisely because it doesn't give us universal healthcare, but I applaud it for attempting to force our current system to perform at a higher level.
The bill is supposed to subsidize those who can't afford mandated coverage. If the subsidies had been insufficient, they would have been altered - ya know, assuming the intransigent GOP didn't block such a thing at every turn.
The costs haven't come down (and the subsidies aren't enough) because the insurance exchanges aren't functional at this time. Those exchanges were meant to open up markets across state lines and spur price-lowering competition, but the states don't have to implement them until 2014. In a nutshell: we haven't seen this portion of the plan in action. Meanwhile, states that have tried to implement them ahead of the deadline (like my own) have been met with nothing but GOP blockades. That's right; the Republicans are blocking free market initiatives because the content of legislation doesn't matter to them. The only thing that matters are a) who wrote it (Democrats) and b) what it means to their bottom line (corporate losses).
The best part about Obamacare is that it might fail spectacularly. If it doesn't lower costs (either because "competition yay!" is a complete fallacy or the GOP blocks the exchanges), and it doesn't insure more Americans, we'll be forced to truly reevaluate the system on a fundamental level. We won't be able to "go backwards" because that would mean even higher prices and cutting off children - things that frankly won't play in an election.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Obamacare doesn't need to succeed to succeed. Sure, it would be great if it provided reasonably priced healthcare to almost every American - almost as good as Universal. But if that doesn't happen, it will demonstrate that our current system, no matter how heavily modified, cannot do what we need our healthcare to do. That's a victory as well.
Oh really? Oh yea because the media refuses to address what the Hospital charites had to say about it, They didn't listen to IADMD, they never even considered the alternative plans. Medical charities do not have money to lobby, they do not have money to advertise, because they spend all of their money treating patients. Claiming the only one who were upset about the universal healthcare fraud were democrats is BS. Public plan was just as bad as the insurance mandate, maybe you do not understand how bad it is because you have not had to try to treat patients yourself. They were using the crappiest insurance plans as a basis for their coverage under the public option. The reason the public option was shot down by fellow democrats was all over that guy who threw in there that they themselves would have to use it for themselvs and their families if they implemented it. Suddenly at that point they changed their minds. Go figure. Yes, it was that bad. That was why no body on the right gave a shit, it was because they also realized how bad that proposal was. They were not going to vote for whatever the democrats brought to the table, because this was their baby and they were going to let them have it all on their own. Republicans were not even a part of this, nor did any of them vote for it, hell not even all democrats voted for it.
The alternative plans that did not expand the powers of government, created a privately run singlepayer system, and solved the core issues were not even considered because that was not what they had set out to do in the first place.
Lil devils x: The alternative plans that did not expand the powers of government, created a privately run singlepayer system, and solved the core issues were not even considered because that was not what they had set out to do in the first place.
What they'd set out to do in the first place was increase the number of Americans with health insurance, lower costs, and prevent insurers from ditching kids and those with preexisting conditions. They then compromised all of these ideals irreparably, resulting in a system that tries to do everything it used to do (pad the pockets of insurers) as well as what it needs to do (insure everyone, lower costs). It's basically a walking contradiction that cannot sustain itself, and I like to think that was the point. If not, I'm certainly hoping that will be the result.
Extra Punctuation
MovieBob: Intermission
Experienced Points
First Person
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Exploding Barrels
Loading Time
No Right Explanation
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Mahalo
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Space Janitors
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
The Retro Show
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
Max Payne 3 Review
Company of Heroes 2
XCOM Enemy Unknown
Black Ops 2
Diablo 3 Review
TERA Review
Firefall Beta Preview
Starhawk Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
OK lets get this kicked off.
I really really fucking hate it when people misuse the terms in politics, and this is extremely prevalent in America because there is only the right wing.
I hope to either educate or at least have this information written down so it can be quoted :P
I'll start off with how the defining of the political spectrum arose.
In the past the most successful type of Government had been the Roman Republic which used a combination of Democracy and Meritocracy which utilised its specialists and saw the expansion from the City of Rome to all of the Mediterranean until turned into the Roman Empire and effectively a Dictatorship but not quite a Monarchy.
If this period could be summed up using the political spectrum then it would be authoritarian far right wing as you could do whatever you wanted within the law which favoured wealth owning and wealth production, counter balanced with a lot of public works for the cities. Put simply, near fascism.
Collapse of the Roman Empire led to a traumatic time of warfare and warlords, ending up in the time of Feudalism where lords owned and Barron's owned land which was in a kings country and was given to them by the king as to ensure loyalty, and then these lords and barons offered their services to the king in terms of taxes and men for war. The Peasants... were peasants. By our standards this was very right wing still and the level of authoritarianism was down to an individual but it had to potential to be absolute and often required so as a means to keep order. The middle classes did exist and were a powerful force but effectively had little power most of the time.
The next notable period was the time of Empire where science had somehow survived through the persecution of the church and given way to military science and the ability of professional full time armies to exist and crush any militia armies thereby eliminating the feudal system. Along with advances in naval capabilities and world wide trade with the America's and Asia this meant central Government was formed by rule of an elected people or an appointed people by a Monarch.
The result of this was laws such as Habeas Corpus which meant the powerful were held account to the same laws as the less powerful and the powerful couldn't strip the wealthy of their wealth. The wealthy, and the mercantile classes flourished, and power was then only derived from wealth, and office held to shape the laws. I feel I should write more as this was colossal.
The reason for the history lesson is simple. Up until now, there was no "left" in terms of the state. The most left was the Catholic Church...
Slowly as the economies of countries grew and Empire flourished and wars were fought throughout Europe, there was 1 key shortage arising, there was food, but there wasn't the population and man power to full utilize these machines; the machine of industry and the machine of war.
'I guess the ruling classes took at 5 minuet stroll around the streets with this question in mind and realised there were 3 problems.' There poor were badly paid and could not afford the food. The poor worked in bad conditions, chewing up men and women meaning more were required. The poor had no health care... at all... they could never afford it so they died young and infant mortality meant people didn't even enter the machines at all.
Here we have our first parties:
UK:
The Tories & The Whigs
The Whigs were a "progressive"(compared to the time) party who believed that the ways of old needed to change to help the poor contribute to the system more, in effect so that making the poor better off in order to help the rich more, in the future.
The Tories were a more conservative party and believe that only what needed to be done to the people was what was required to prevent a Revolution as seen in France occur.
Other differences were that the Tories were a very military party, which had advantages at times. The Tories tended to represent the Aristocracy while the Whigs the middle class (those without property could not vote).
USA:
After the American Revolution there were soon 2 main parties set up which were the Republicans and the Democrats.
Much like the Tories and the Whigs: the Republicans and the Democrats respectively initially were like their counterparts abroad. The Democrats being more "progressive", aiding the worker to enable them to contribute more and the Republicans being in favour of big business, but there was of course the lack of aristocracy at the time, but one soon found its way to the top.
So, there was right wing, and right wing, giving a tiny bit to the poor in order to make them more, still never getting in the way of market economics and always favouring business, enterprise etc etc.
There was no "left" as we know it today.
Enter good old Karl Marx, the intellectual who tired of the system encasing the classes as of present, wanted to re-write the whole system by which we live in. He wanted the disassembling of classes, he wanted the state to be near non-existence, and inequality and income disparity to be of a factor of 0. It would be the ideal world... as found out in the subsequent century and numerous attempts of implementation it... never really worked... worked best in Cuba and that's saying a lot.
Ideally Karl Marx wanted a near anarchic system where people just worked like clockwork. That never works because humans are... well humans. There will be dicks who break stuff, and there will also be charismatic big men who will form kingdoms given the chance, when there is a vacuum of Government.
In my opinion the breaking point for the old system was the first world war. "My opinion", it was fact.
During this time the Governments of the world, built up the largest armed forces ever seen in history, even borrowing off of the United States of America to fund this, in the fear that they had to win at all costs.
Now if there was a time when the poor needed to get out of the fucking way and let the different states do war this was it. Total War was approaching and the idea of new "Progressive" measures were thrown out the window. Britain had a high population density and an Empire, So did France to the North. Germany was an industrial power house in the making, Austria a land Empire, Italy was... complicated. Russia was huge... really huge... but it still had a king who ruled by sole Divine Right of Kings, or Tzar's. This meant there was no Democracy of any form, what the king said, went. During the build up, things were stretched and strained. During the war itself some Russians charged the Germans with Swords because the Russians could not afford guns. This mass loss of life... broke the country open. But... who could fill the gap? Which system would allow equality for the people of Russia? Communism... the totalitarian one... not the anarchic one...
Once the idea was in the air, "You can't un-ring a bell", "Idea's are bullet proof" whatever you like to say. This... thing, had been realised and... a lot of poor people were curious about what it would be like. We are humans, we are all curious. They see people in their top hats with their Monical and wonder, why can't I have that stuff, but they can.
Every western Government direly fearful of this and mounts large propaganda campaigns against this. Germany, where Karl Marx was born and lived, banned communist parties (With the help of an Adolf Hitler).
Side Note
In Britain you had the major parties reforming even going through name changes to abandon their past in order to get the vote off of the expanding electorate. After the First World War, all women and all men could vote. Before only those with land to their name (a house) could vote. This led to the flourishing of the Labour Party who were considerably left compared to the Liberals(Reformed Whigs), Conservatives(Reformed Tories).
So there we have the actual socialist Parties around a lot of the world and a couple of Governments, acting as counter-balances to the right-wing which has existed for a long long time.
Now, if you need to do research into recent history about the cold war feel free. Communism doesn't work and a lot of the left failed.
From that point onwards Governments tended to centralise and become less extreme and the unwritten rule to be a "left" leaning party:
Allow the market to exist but then take some of the money to help those at the bottom, and generally "stabilizing" the economy... in their opinion.
And the unwritten rule of being on the right wing... too varied between different countries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There it is, the origins of both the right and the left.
You can't really give a definition to what each side is because it is always a sliding scale to the degree parties and Governments are left and right. The extreme on all sides fails miserably.
The extreme right; succumbs to a revolution of the poor...
The extreme left:
Anarchic, some one takes over and swings it to the right.
Totalitarian... demands too many resources and it starts creeping to the right and probably out right collapses.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL:DR
Misconceptions:
The United States of America! Oh where do I begin? Oh wait, its easy. If you read all of that^^^ you're very informed and I can tell you it strait.
There is no left wing in America. None as it is known anywhere else... well maybe Michael Moore, but ignore him.
The Democrats are by no means left wing. Whoever calls or hints they are communists... are retarded.
The Labour Government who were dramatically more right wing than before, and they boosted the NHS spending to the point where the National Health service in the UK... is THE 3RD LARGEST EMPLOYER OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, THE WORLD!!!
Optional
They pushed business and gave large tax breaks to multiple companies to keep up the economic "success" created under the Conservatives.
Equally... The Republicans have all been Fascists too... no... not even the Tea party are that bad. They are not Fascists, by no means. There is a significant gap between the two parties due to the Partisan nature developed over the past... since... well: the founding of the United States.
Each party is a broad coalition of different opinions uniting under 1 banner as the system fucks over the chance of 3rd parties to exist apart from as a rarity, at all levels.
This creates an US or Them system where you must choose a Brand closest to what you want instead of what you actually want.
The Democrat voters average out as Centre Right.
The Republican voters average out as firm right.
The Tea party represent the extreme wing of the Republicans and well... they are far right bordering extreme. I think at the point where you say "we could save a dying man's life but let him die" it becomes extreme :P There isn't a real gauge for the Tea Party so that is my estimate. Extreme liberating of the markets lowers them more towards "liberalism" than the Republican status quo.
TL:DR 2
Now:
When someone says that the Democrats are on the left wing, that is wrong.
When someone says that the Democrats are on the relative left wing, that is correct.
When someone calls the Democrats communists they need sending back to school in order to re-learn what they should have been taught in high school as if they make that leap, they have clearly failed something. (Or they are a devious PR person, or Evil politician).
When someone calls the Republicans Fascists or Nazi's then they are equally stupid.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Please consider this a long rant.
Did you find this informative or interesting either as a history lesson or political rant?