Evaluating the Left and Left leaning Orgah mind(s)

[Pindar]

Of those Orgahs who self-identity as Left or Left leaning: who do you consider among other Orgah's as your most compelling spokesman? I mean by this, who do you see as the most effective proponent for your general position? This could include either active or previously active members. Please limit choices to a maximum of three persons.

Those who do not identify themselves as on the Left may also wish to participate. Could such posters note a bolded NL (as in non-Left) before their comment to distinguish themselves?

[Soulforged]

Of those Orgahs who self-identity as Left or Left leaning: who do you consider among other Orgah's as your most compelling spokesman? I mean by this, who do you see as the most effective proponent for your general position? This could include either active or previously active members. Please limit choices to a maximum of three persons.
I'll have to say Aenlic for sure, though I'm not a leftist per se, I do tend to the left.

[Slyspy]

For what purpose?

[Zaknafien]

No doubt to be entered into a government watchlist :)

[AntiochusIII]

I'll have to say Aenlic for sure, though I'm not a leftist per se, I do tend to the left.Come to think of it, where is he?

Apologies to Pindar for hijacking the thread. :bow:

[Don Corleone]

I think the Org has many intelligent, well spoken representatives of left leaning ideology. I imagine of all of them, Devastatin Dave would have to be listed as the most glib.

Seriously, are we talking who has made the best arguments for the Left, or who is the most consistent, and eloquent, spokesman? Cause I actually find the best Left arguments put forward by those who do not always take up the Left view.

[Proletariat]

Who on this board actually proclaims to be a Leftist, anyway? I can't think of anyone, except for JAG, who actually admits to it.

[AntiochusIII]

Who on this board actually proclaims to be a Leftist, anyway? I can't think of anyone, except for JAG, who actually admits to it.Well, I am something of a Leftist. Enough to admit it. Yet I find myself to the right of many of my peers quite strangely in some issues at least.

Pindar: What would you consider to be a Leftist? Right now I'm assuming that self-identification is all that matters; is that a right assumption to work from?

Having said that, I don't really think myself to be, ah, worthy or decisive enough to say clearly who I think makes the best "spokesman" for "my side." What if I disagree with that person on certain crucial issues? Are we still in the same wavelength by then?

[Pindar]

For what purpose?

To see who Left and Left leaning Orgahs think is their most compelling spokesman/most effective proponent.

[Pindar]

Seriously, are we talking who has made the best arguments for the Left, or who is the most consistent, and eloquent, spokesman? Cause I actually find the best Left arguments put forward by those who do not always take up the Left view.

The question does not look at individual arguments, but for a judgment of person(s) who the like mined typically see as best at advancing their general point of view. Your second sentence would seem to be an indictment of the believers ability to present their case.

I also allowed room where the unbelievers can also weigh in on who they think puts forward the best position for the opposition.

[Pindar]

Pindar: What would you consider to be a Leftist? Right now I'm assuming that self-identification is all that matters; is that a right assumption to work from?

I consider Left or Left leaning to be a general category that covers: socialist, collectivist and Marxist thought (and its theoretical children) as well as a larger penchant to appeal to the state to resolve issues of inequity or other social/economic concerns distinct from any military role . Left or Left leaning therefore also includes the idea often termed progressive or progressivism. Self identifying as Left or Left leaning is also fine.


Having said that, I don't really think myself to be, ah, worthy or decisive enough to say clearly who I think makes the best "spokesman" for "my side." What if I disagree with that person on certain crucial issues? Are we still in the same wavelength by then?

If there is a issue that you consider defining (essential) for the moniker that another does not share then you should not include them as a candidate for your cause. Even so, there is an old Reagan maxim about if one agrees with 80% of your own beliefs, it is sufficient.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

I would put AdrianII's name in the ring. Very well researched and has quite a wide range of knowledge.

tribsey as well... if he may not be the most polite of orgahs. (to the right wing that is).

[CountArach]

Who on this board actually proclaims to be a Leftist, anyway? I can't think of anyone, except for JAG, who actually admits to it.
I consider myself a hardline Socialist. Though, I am not too active in the backrooom, jsut no time to read through teh threads. Also, religious arguments (Half the threads in here) just aren't my thing.


would put AdrianII's name in the ring. Very well researched and has quite a wide range of knowledge.
Seconded.

[Pannonian]

TosaInu and Ser Clegane.

[JAG]

For me when I was posting a fair bit, it was always Ser and Adrian, whose opinions I always looked forward to reading from a more progressive outlook.

But then again those were the members who were evident the last time I was posting here, and there were many before them and I am sure since I ceased posting so much, who are also very worthy of a good read.

[naut]

Hmmm. To be redundant:

JAG, Aenlic, Ser Clegane and Adrian II.

[Incongruous]

Meh, not too sure what category I have slapped myself to yet.
Probabaly Left leaning.
So I guess, Tribesman.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Aenlic however, categorises himself as an anarchist, and thus may well reject right/left labels.

He is certainly missed though.

As to the question posed by Pindar, further illuminated by his offered definition, I'm afraid I can't find an answer. The breadth of leftist thought is wide, particularly in Europe, and most of the posters that might be considered "left" often argue from a right-wing perspective too - since our "liberal" is much closer to the original meaning.

To go by self-identification, the candidates would resolve to JAG (good to see you back) and possibly Idaho.

Watchman probably embodies the character of the European left most of all, though I'd be surprised if he laid public claim to the mantle. Similarly with Adrian II - I don't see many of his views as being traditionally leftist at all, and I think he would reject the label proposed.

Over the pond, Zaknafien has recently established himself as an eloquent anti-government debater, but being anti-government does not a socialist make (honestly Gawain, this is true :wink:). Beirut has many opinions that mirror European moderates, but then Quebec is practically Europe anyhow ~;p. solypsist was possibly the nearest to a spokesman over there - also much missed.

In short then: dunno. :shrug:

Louis is the only hardline communist agitator I can think of offhand. :wink3:

[English assassin]

I'm not persuaded we really have any posters at all who satisfy what I would understand by Pindar's definition, other than JAG in the old days. Econ21 hasn't been mentioned and may come close, and puts forward thoughtful points of view.

Broadening slightly to include the liberal/progressive viewpoint, (by which incidently I obviously mean something different to Pindar as I do not regard a penchant for state intervention as remotely progressive, quite the opposite), then as well as the names above, y'all forgetting the Goofball.

Tribsey gets my vote as boot boy of the liberals. Go Tribes :2thumbsup:

[HoreTore]

Watchman glorifies the scandinavian model, and so do I.... So I guess it would have to be him.

BTW, proletariat, I'm an utter leftist, and somewhat marxist(well, partly anyway)...

[HoreTore]

Louis is the only hardline communist agitator I can think of offhand. :wink3:

Hey, I'm on the norwegian communist party's election list for the next election!

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I've always looked forward to reading Beirut and Ser's opinions. Though I don't think I'm actually all that much of a leftist, even though I find socialist ideology sometimes quite seductive. I've definately edged a bit further left in my year in the old German Democratic Republic, but how far left I've gone isn't all that clear to me at the moment.

[English assassin]

Hey, I'm on the norwegian communist party's election list for the next election!

I salute your heroic stand against the tide of history and all the lessons of tha past 80 years. (A stand given a delicious irony by your status as a marxist).

I wouldn't give up the day job though.:clown:

[Beirut]

Beirut has many opinions that mirror European moderates, but then Quebec is practically Europe anyhow ~;p.


And ~;p to you too. (The only reason Quebec is like Europe is because Quebec is as big as Europe.)

If we're talking leftist as in socialized medicine, then it's me. :knight:

[Petrus]

I think Gawayn of orkeny and panzerjager are perfect heralds of my personal progressive standing in the negative sense.

[Husar]

I've always looked forward to reading Beirut and Ser's opinions. Though I don't think I'm actually all that much of a leftist, even though I find socialist ideology sometimes quite seductive. I've definately edged a bit further left in my year in the old German Democratic Republic, but how far left I've gone isn't all that clear to me at the moment.
You will be assimilated...

Well, as a rightwing european christian nutter, I cannot choose a leftist to represent me I guess, but I'll go for Tribesman anyway.:2thumbsup:

[HoreTore]

I salute your heroic stand against the tide of history and all the lessons of tha past 80 years. (A stand given a delicious irony by your status as a marxist).

I wouldn't give up the day job though.:clown:

We got 24 votes in our county last time, I'm practically voted in!

[Fragony]

JAG and Watchman are teh prototypes of the radical left for me. Obviously they don't represent my views.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I must bring up Brenus. Old-guard socialist, well educated and very factual. I sorely miss him.

Shajikata strikes me as classical Nordic Social-Democrat. And a great spokesman of it too. He's not really around much anymore. He's also not as left-wing as that Norwegian communist Hore.

Also InsaneApache. I really admire his unrelenting opposition to Blair, whom IA despises for having destroyed old Labour.


Most of the others have been mentioned. The difficulty is not in naming intelligent, eloquent posters, but in finding truly leftist ones. JAG and Idaho obviously. Watchman maybe. Tribesy is a great rightwing BS-detector. Goofball would qualify. Adrian Too.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Obviously they don't represent my views.

Too late. Pindar specifically said that non-leftists have to put NL before their names, otherwise they get put on the list as well.

That's EA and you for the chop.

One cross each, line on the left. :laugh4:

[Meneldil]

My vote goes for AdrianII, Watchman and BG, though there are many other skilled left-leaning spokesmen.

[Fragony]

Too late. Pindar specifically said that non-leftists have to put NL before their names, otherwise they get put on the list as well.

That's EA and you for the chop.


Oh crikey, I'll just have to take the middle road and become a national-socialist then :wall:

[macsen rufus]

I guess I probably still just about qualify as being slightly left of centre, though have become profoundly cynical of and disillusioned by anything that ends in "-ism" of any sort. I still favour the ideals of the NHS, with medical care free at point of use, state education, and equality of opportunity for all, as opposed to the ideals of "richest takes all". But I also value free enterprise and deprecate controlled economies. Also as I get older I'm more willing to accept "shoot-em-all" solutions to social problems, but that's just grouchiness and laziness rather than an ideologically grounded aspect of my beliefs ~D

I also feel that the left-right spectrum is outdated, the major issues don't really divide along the old axis any more, certainly not in Europe. Environmental and development issues I see as more important currently.

So with those general provisos, I think BG often articulates a viewpoint I can endorse, and Tribesy stirs things nicely in a way I can appreciate :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

I guess I probably still just about qualify as being slightly left of centre, though have become profoundly cynical of and disillusioned by anything that ends in "-ism" of any sort. I still favour the ideals of the NHS, with medical care free at point of use, state education, and equality of opportunity for all, as opposed to the ideals of "richest takes all". But I also value free enterprise and deprecate controlled economies. Also as I get older I'm more willing to accept "shoot-em-all" solutions to social problems, but that's just grouchiness and laziness rather than an ideologically grounded aspect of my beliefs ~D

I also feel that the left-right spectrum is outdated, the major issues don't really divide along the old axis any more, certainly not in Europe. Environmental and development issues I see as more important currently.

So with those general provisos, I think BG often articulates a viewpoint I can endorse, and Tribesy stirs things nicely in a way I can appreciate :laugh4:

You seem like quite a typical Liberal...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but being anti-government does not a socialist make (honestly Gawain, this is true

May I suggest you will have hard time finding anyone on these boards thats more anti-government than I. Its an unfortunate reality that we have to pick our poison. Im an anarchist at heart.


I think Gawayn of orkeny and panzerjager are perfect heralds of my personal progressive standing in the negative sense.

Theres that word again "progressive" like conservatives are regressive, Call a spade a spade your a die hard Lib:laugh4: And thanks for the compliment. Some one has to keep you people in line.:yes:

[rory_20_uk]

I'd have to go right wing.

I believe that individuals have responsibilities as well as rights, and such matters as the NHS undermine this: people can and do come along with any slight ache without having tried even taking paracetamol. They call ambulances as they're cheaper and quicker than taxis. People demand every drug for everyone without a thought to the economics of how this is paid for.

People should be able to choose their own destiny, and this means that actions should have consequences: doing well at school should lead to a better life than those that waste their fee education; those that lead healthy lives should have access to healthcare, and not be subsidising chronic drunks.

A burgeoning state not only manages to be a blunt cudgel to complex problems, but also throttles everyone under a mass of bureaucracy - which inevitably leads to further wastage.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

People should be able to choose their own destiny, and this means that actions should have consequences: doing well at school should lead to a better life than those that waste their fee education

Ah, but this isn't the trademark of a right-wing society, is it?
All of these will bring in more money than someone doing well at school:

1. A rich heir more interested in drugs or make-up than school.
2. A mobster
3. Some random dumb chick with a nice rack, who gets "discovered" by the media/record/movie industry

[InsaneApache]

I dunno, we have 'socialists' ministers who are horrified about the prospect of sending their children to state schools, so they send them to fee paying schools. One of them was the minister for education at the time she did it.

The left to me are hypocritical and self-serving. Do as I say, not as I do, just about sums it up.

[English assassin]

1. A rich heir more interested in drugs or make-up than school.
2. A mobster
3. Some random dumb chick with a nice rack, who gets "discovered" by the media/record/movie industry

I am baffled with why the left gets hung up on this.

1. An insignificant percentage of national wealth

2 Actually, this IS still illegal under right wing governments.

3 No one HAS to buy records from/pictures of dumb chicks with nice racks. The ready availability of dumb-chick-with-nice-rack related produce is the market responding to demand. As someone who likes a nice rack as much as the next man (provided the next man isn't Benny Hill) I say this is actually a plus point. Why do you hate nice racks anyway?

[Kralizec]

NL I'd have to say Adrian II and Banquo's Ghost, as they have frequently given me food for thought. A.Saturnus too, but I haven't seen him in a long time.

Side note, not sure Aenlic qualifies as a leftist. I remember him (and could well be wrong) as an anarcho-capitalist. Didn't he say here he would vote libertarian?

[scooter_the_shooter]

NL Anelic. He is one of if not the ONLY Liberal on here that gets people to change their minds.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

NL Anelic. He is one of if not the ONLY Liberal on here that gets people to change their minds.

Is he a lobotomist ? Dr Frankenstien I presume:laugh4:

He may get then to change their opinions but I doubt he gets them to actually change their minds :laugh4: Besides many liberals on these board have gotten me to change my mind or at least reconsider my position on some matters.. Ill even admit grudgingly to Tribseman being one of the main ones

[Soulforged]

Side note, not sure Aenlic qualifies as a leftist. I remember him (and could well be wrong) as an anarcho-capitalist. Didn't he say here he would vote libertarian?
He was a self declared (and is of course) anarcho-communist. What qualifies as "the left" depends on wich is the mainstream politic view.

[Pindar]

Hmmm. To be redundant:

JAG, Aenlic, Ser Clegane and Adrian II.

Hello,

Please limit your choice to a maximum of three. One must get the axe.

[Pindar]

Aenlic however, categorises himself as an anarchist, and thus may well reject right/left labels.

He is certainly missed though.

As to the question posed by Pindar, further illuminated by his offered definition, I'm afraid I can't find an answer. The breadth of leftist thought is wide, particularly in Europe, and most of the posters that might be considered "left" often argue from a right-wing perspective too - since our "liberal" is much closer to the original meaning.

To go by self-identification, the candidates would resolve to JAG (good to see you back) and possibly Idaho.

Watchman probably embodies the character of the European left most of all, though I'd be surprised if he laid public claim to the mantle. Similarly with Adrian II - I don't see many of his views as being traditionally leftist at all, and I think he would reject the label proposed.

Over the pond, Zaknafien has recently established himself as an eloquent anti-government debater, but being anti-government does not a socialist make (honestly Gawain, this is true :wink:). Beirut has many opinions that mirror European moderates, but then Quebec is practically Europe anyhow ~;p. solypsist was possibly the nearest to a spokesman over there - also much missed.

In short then: dunno. :shrug:

Louis is the only hardline communist agitator I can think of offhand. :wink3:

Do you have up to three you wish to commit to?

[Don Corleone]

The question does not look at individual arguments, but for a judgment of person(s) who the like mined typically see as best at advancing their general point of view. Your second sentence would seem to be an indictment of the believers ability to present their case.

I also allowed room where the unbelievers can also weigh in on who they think puts forward the best position for the opposition.

Okay, so I'm interpreting that to mean in my case (as slight right of center) who puts the best total package forward for left leaning.

NLSer Clegnane, Skajihata (or however you spell his name) and Ironside.

The funny thing is, Ser C would probably resent being characterized as a Lefty and considers himself to be middle of the road. Remember, this is from my perspective. Adrian would have definitely been there if this was about making Leftist arguments (and Tribesman as well for that matter) but I've seen both of them take some stridently right-leaning stances from time to time.

[Pindar]

This seems to be the totals to date, if I added correctly:

Adrian II: 5
Ser Clegane: 4
Tribesman: 4
Jag: 3
Aenlic: 2
Watchman: 2
Banguo's Ghost: 2
Econ21:1
Sjakihata : 1
Goofball: 1
Beirut: 1
Brenus: 1
Tosa Inu: 1

NL Votes

Jag: 1
Watchman: 1
Adrian II: 1
Banguo's Ghost: 1
A. Saturnus: 1
Ser Clegane: 1
Sjakihata : 1
Aenlic: 1
Ironside: 1

[Papewaio]

IMDHO
By USA Political Spectrum I would be L
By Australia Political Spectrum I would be NL

[scotchedpommes]

From my passing observation I would have said most certainly Aenlic,
Idaho and Keba.

[Honourable mentions would have to go to JAG, particularly for views on
South America, and Sjakihata. And of course, Tribesman.]

[Pannonian]

Tally as of post #49.

Adrian II: 5
Ser Clegane: 4
Tribesman: 4
Jag: 3
Aenlic: 3
Watchman: 2
Banguo's Ghost: 2
Econ21:1
Shajikata: 1
Goofball: 1
Beirut: 1
Brenus: 1
Tosa Inu: 1
Idaho: 1
Keba: 1

NL Votes

Jag: 1
Watchman: 1
Adrian II: 1
Banguo's Ghost: 1
A. Saturnus: 1
Ser Clegane: 1
Shajikata: 1
Aenlic: 1
Ironside: 1

Pindar, how many votes is it for a lynch?

[Samurai Waki]

In American Terms I'm leaning towards the Libertarian Side (Thanks to Lemur et al) but in world terms I'd be considered mostly conservative. :smash:

[Idaho]

Typical right-wingers. Always looking for leaders to make decisions for them and blame when they go wrong :laugh4:

Left is a pretty broad and meaningless term in this context. Some 'left' people on this board are social democrats, some american liberals (I would class these both as centrists really). Some lean further left.



Theres that word again "progressive" like conservatives are regressive
Yep that's about the size of it.

[HoreTore]

Some 'left' people on this board are social democrats, some american liberals (I would class these both as centrists really). Some lean further left.

That would depend on the type of social democrat. Some are centrists(Blair and his "new" labour), while others belong firmly on the left. Some of them are actually very well read marxists...

[Adrian II]

That little quiz reminds me of a statement by Gore Vidal: 'The U.S. has only one party, the Property Party. And it has two right wings.'

I would place myself in the extreme right-wing of Socialism, slightly to the right of Vlad the Impaler. Vlad often has the right idea, but his pr stinks.

[Pindar]

Pindar, how many votes is it for a lynch?

Culling the herd won't begin until we get a few more votes. :yes:

[doc_bean]

I'm actually pretty right wing around here (Belgium), but i guess liking cheap education and socialized health care would put me on the US right side ? :laugh4:

Seriously though, Pindar, you're one of the most intelligent people on this board, but why do you persist trying to find *the* left ? There is no one left, just as their is no one right, why can't you accept that ? The simplification by classifying ideas into one of two categories is ridiculous.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why do I have the feeling Pindar is going to turn this into a poll...

That being the case, I think we should spell Sjakihata (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=5546) correctly.
And I'd like to nominate Soulforged too. He would qualify as left leaning, and certainly deserves to be on any list.


Doc, do you think we should we open a Belgian election thread, or won't there be enough interest in it? Who are you going to vote for? VLD-Vivant?

[doc_bean]

Doc, do you think we should we open a Belgian election thread, or won't there be enough interest in it? Who are you going to vote for? VLD-Vivant?

I'll see what I can do...

[Pindar]

Seriously though, Pindar, you're one of the most intelligent people on this board, but why do you persist trying to find *the* left ? There is no one left, just as their is no one right, why can't you accept that ? The simplification by classifying ideas into one of two categories is ridiculous.

Of course, I disagree. I think classification and categories do have value. Atheism and theism are not the same. Those who identify with one or the other are making a distinction by and through that identification. Being able to recognize such including subcategories and points of departure has value. The same applies to economic/social theories.

As for the Leftist Mind, I'm always interested in observing cloudy thinking and the degrees of taint. To the question asked in this thread: I'm generally interested in who the Left leaning think of as effective or compelling champions as it were. I naturally have my own ideas on the subject. There are some posters I see as cartoons and rarely read any of their posts. Others I see as actually able to articulate a position. So, I wanted to know how my ideas compared.

[Pindar]

... I think we should spell Sjakihata correctly.


Done! :bow:

[doc_bean]

Of course, I disagree. I think classification and categories do have value. Atheism and theism are not the same. Those who identify with one or the other are making a distinction by and through that identification. Being able to recognize such including subcategories and points of departure has value. The same applies to economic/social theories.

There is no single criteria that separates the Left from the Right, any distinction is relative, context bound and arbitrarily.

That leftist thinking is by definition cloudy is of course, also wrong, it all depends on your paradigm of thinking. You might as well call all Right thinking clouded. If there was a single, best solution, we'd all be following that eventually (and probably by now).

[Pindar]

There is no single criteria that separates the Left from the Right, any distinction is relative, context bound and arbitrarily.

That leftist thinking is by definition cloudy is of course, also wrong, it all depends on your paradigm of thinking. You might as well call all Right thinking clouded. If there was a single, best solution, we'd all be following that eventually (and probably by now).


"And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision,, what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing And when to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?" -Plato

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Of course, I disagree. I think classification and categories do have value.

And isnt this one of the main things that seperates the right from the left? That is unless your talking about classifying someone a minority. Ohter wise in general liberals think everyone and every nation is good. That hteir either misunderstood or have been treated badly, That their are no BAD people. Just look at Jags defense of pedophiles.

[doc_bean]

And isnt this one of the main things that seperates the right from the left? That is unless your talking about classifying someone a minority. Ohter wise in general liberals think everyone and every nation is good. That hteir either misunderstood or have been treated badly, That their are no BAD people. Just look at Jags defense of pedophiles.

See now you're extrapolating one example to the whole group, that's like saying trhe whole right wants to re-educate homosexuals, or lock them up. JAG is an extremist, not the norm.

Also Pindar: cute. Now tell me, how do the prisoners know which is real ?

[Lemur]

As for the Leftist Mind, I'm always interested in observing cloudy thinking and the degrees of taint.
Which means, of course, that everyone you consider "left" is practicing some degree of "cloudy thinking" and touched with "taint" (I assume you're using the PG meaning of "taint," BTW). Wow. It's one thing to believe you're correct, and quite another to cast blanket aspersions on all who disagree. Uncivil, Pindar, and uncalled-for.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

See now you're extrapolating one example to the whole group,

No Im speaking of one example by one lefty on one topic. Even Jag isnt that far left in all his stands. Nobodies pure black or white, if thats what your trying to argue. But I think we can safely catagorize him as a liberal no matter where he lived . You can put me on the right I have no problem with it. Only liberals here in the US have an identity crisis and now must refer to themselves as progressives instead. Here Liberal is a dirty word. It seems though that Bush has done his best to even the playing field. But we conservatives will tell you that Bush is no conservative :laugh4: So does that make him a liberal?

[doc_bean]

No Im speaking of one example by one lefty on one topic. Even Jag isnt that far left in all his stands. Nobodies pure black or white, if thats what your trying to argue. But I think we can safely catagorize him as a liberal no matter where he lived . You can put me on the right I have no problem with it. Only liberals here in the US have an identity crisis and now must refer to themselves as progressives instead. Here Liberal is a dirty word. It seems though that Bush has done his best to even the playing field. But we conservatives will tell you that Bush is no conservative :laugh4: So does that make him a liberal?

"Liberal" means right wing here, see how twisted your definiton has become ?

"Liberal" has the same root as "liberty" and refers to a free and open society/mindset. Nowadays you need the word "libertarian" to refer to what actually is a "Liberal"...

[Reverend Joe]

Uh, Pindar... I hate to bump in, but what on earth does a theory of reality have to do with ANYTHING HERE?! :dizzy2:

And as for me, I consider all of you to be a pack of rotten fascists and commie bastards. (Bastards isn't a real curse, is it?) I, frankly, have lost all faith in any large-scale organised system of man, including Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Federalism, the Republic, the Democracy, and all economic and governmental systems in general with a reach any wider than the local village. Give anyone an inch and he will do his best to control you.

At the moment, the best plan for the world seems to be the plan from Fight Club: blow out the system and let man stand or fall on his own. That's not to say you should never try to help people; but give it any organization and someone will abuse it.

So, no, I don't really have a spokesman. And frankly, I would like to know WHY you want to know who the leftist spokesmen here are, Pindar. You're a government spy, aren't you?

[Husar]

Which means, of course, that everyone you consider "left" is practicing some degree of "cloudy thinking" and touched with "taint" (I assume you're using the PG meaning of "taint," BTW). Wow. It's one thing to believe you're correct, and quite another to cast blanket aspersions on all who disagree. Uncivil, Pindar, and uncalled-for.
Well, it fits nicely with

There are some posters I see as cartoons and rarely read any of their posts. Others I see as actually able to articulate a position.
Since I'm well aware of my rather light-hearted posting style and my sometimes obvious inability to put my thoughts into words I guess I can now safely talk about Pindar behind his back without the need to hide my posts. ~;)

Seriously, there are some posters I don't agree with or who I think are maybe not as mature as others, but that doesn't mean their opinion is of less importance or that they are unable to have an interesting new point of view.

It's of course Pindar's own decision, but I wantred to enjoy my new freedom for a bit and talk bad about him behind his back, ya know. ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

"Liberal" means right wing here, see how twisted your definiton has become ?


If you read my post closely I gave it a few twists myself. Take a closer look at my post.

[Pindar]

Also Pindar: cute.

I thought so. :beam:


Now tell me, how do the prisoners know which is real ?

Elenchus. This is the hope of salvation for the Leftist Mind.

[Pindar]

Which means, of course, that everyone you consider "left" is practicing some degree of "cloudy thinking" and touched with "taint" (I assume you're using the PG meaning of "taint," BTW). Wow. It's one thing to believe you're correct, and quite another to cast blanket aspersions on all who disagree. Uncivil, Pindar, and uncalled-for.

To believe one view is correct means by definition that divergent/incompatible views are incorrect. This has nothing to do with civility or etiquette. It is basic to judgment.

Reference to cloudy or tainted indicate some good may be present, but things are not as they should be. Let the sun of reason shine :holiday: and its waters of made pure! :jarswim:

[Pindar]

Uh, Pindar... I hate to bump in, but what on earth does a theory of reality have to do with ANYTHING HERE?! :dizzy2:

Hello,

Humor. Also, the reference is not simply ontic but epistemic.


And frankly, I would like to know WHY you want to know who the leftist spokesmen here are, Pindar. You're a government spy, aren't you?

See post 9

[Lemur]

To believe one view is correct means by definition that divergent/incompatible views are incorrect. This has nothing to do with civility or etiquette. It is basic to judgment.
Have it your way, Pindar, and believe as you like. But honestly, some of your posts dance on the edge of arrogance and incivility. Being able to explain your absolute correctness afterwards does nothing to improve on that.

[Soulforged]

Also Pindar: cute. Now tell me, how do the prisoners know which is real ?
From the very start the author tells us what's real, he implies that, by projecting shadows of objects in a wall the real objects are elsewhere, exactly were the real world is. However the shadows are not unreal, they're just shadows, wich get deformed by light and texture, and therefore the prisoners don't get the exact form of said objects. Clasifications are ideal, they take a certain state of things and label it following certain criteria. What's Right and what's Left, and what's the Center, is always measured by defining the Right first, wich is the mainstream political ideology. They're circumstantial, while the concepts of them are always the same of course. Left is always the diametrically opposed vision, while the center usually takes some ideas of both, or is origianal but without being extreme.

EDIT: The world of the prisoners is not less real, is just that their ideas don't reflect that world properly.

For example: On the XVIII and XIX centuries the Right was represented by the Liberals on the western world, and the Left were all the other parties wich opposed their vision (i.e. socialism).

[Reverend Joe]

From the very start the author tells us what's real, he implies that, by projecting shadows of objects in a wall the real objects are elsewhere, exactly were the real world is. However the shadows are not unreal, they're just shadows, wich get deformed by light and texture, and therefore the prisoners don't get the exact form of said objects. Clasifications are ideal, they take a certain state of things and label it following certain criteria. What's Right and what's Left, and what's the Center, is always measured by defining the Right first, wich is the mainstream political ideology. They're circumstantial, while the concepts of them are always the same of course. Left is always the diametrically opposed vision, while the center usually takes some ideas of both, or is origianal but without being extreme.

EDIT: The world of the prisoners is not less real, is just that their ideas don't reflect that world properly.

For example: On the XVIII and XIX centuries the Right was represented by the Liberals on the western world, and the Left were all the other parties which opposed their vision (i.e. socialism).
:inquisitive: How the hell can the mainstream be right of the center?! The center IS the mainstream!

Besides which, the modern right wing and left wing are, themselves, defined by how far they are from the center; and it is the center which contains the mainstream ideology. How conservative or liberal the center may be is irrelevant.

And anyway, both ideologies, liberal and conservative, are based off of each other; to say that the one sprouts from the other like a mushroom from dung is ridiculous. Both sides influence each other constantly, and both sides have original ideas (or, more appropriately, had, because neither side has had anything original to say for decades; hell, centuries even.)

Oh, and just to note: "liberal" and "conservative" are used here to describe the two sides of the general political spectrum. Yes, I know in reality liberal and conservative simply describes open or closemindedness, but lacking a better term, they will have to do.

[Pindar]

Have it your way, Pindar, and believe as you like. But honestly, some of your posts dance on the edge of arrogance and incivility. Being able to explain your absolute correctness afterwards does nothing to improve on that.

Hmmm. Well that doesn't sound good. I'll be more careful.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Good work Pinder, getting them all in one place... :wink3:

[Soulforged]

:inquisitive: How the hell can the mainstream be right of the center?! The center IS the mainstream!No, the Center is just that "other" option...

Besides which, the modern right wing and left wing are, themselves, defined by how far they are from the center; and it is the center which contains the mainstream ideology. How conservative or liberal the center may be is irrelevant.
The center may be eclectic (nor revolutionary neither conservative), but it's not the mainstream ideology. The Right occupies that spot because it tends to mantain things as they're, the Left provoques drastical changes (plausible or not), and the Center is just that.

And anyway, both ideologies, liberal and conservative, are based off of each other; to say that the one sprouts from the other like a mushroom from dung is ridiculous. Both sides influence each other constantly, and both sides have original ideas (or, more appropriately, had, because neither side has had anything original to say for decades; hell, centuries even.)Of course this is because american political jargon is most confusing, it has been discussed many times. However if you go to the liberal France of the XIX century and then you observe the ideas of the communist in the same time frame you'll see them clearly separated. This will take a while to debate, but it's possible than in the Western world, except for a few exceptions, history has nearly stoped, political change happens normally and always on the same subjects (accidents), there's no more controversies on principle, and even contrary parties can reach a consensus in general. This is specially true in the USA.

Oh, and just to note: "liberal" and "conservative" are used here to describe the two sides of the general political spectrum. Yes, I know in reality liberal and conservative simply describes open or closemindedness, but lacking a better term, they will have to do.Those words you're looking for are: Left and Right...:2thumbsup::beam:

[Major Robert Dump]

I'm only liberal when I'm drunk.

[doc_bean]

From the very start the author tells us what's real, he implies that, by projecting shadows of objects in a wall the real objects are elsewhere, exactly were the real world is. However the shadows are not unreal, they're just shadows, wich get deformed by light and texture, and therefore the prisoners don't get the exact form of said objects. Clasifications are ideal, they take a certain state of things and label it following certain criteria. What's Right and what's Left, and what's the Center, is always measured by defining the Right first, wich is the mainstream political ideology. They're circumstantial, while the concepts of them are always the same of course. Left is always the diametrically opposed vision, while the center usually takes some ideas of both, or is origianal but without being extreme.

EDIT: The world of the prisoners is not less real, is just that their ideas don't reflect that world properly.

For example: On the XVIII and XIX centuries the Right was represented by the Liberals on the western world, and the Left were all the other parties wich opposed their vision (i.e. socialism).

This vision might apply to the US, where the democratic party is indeed a shadow of the republican party (these days, I'm not interested in a history lesson here).

Extrapolating it to the rest of the world is taking the analogy too far.

[HoreTore]

For example: On the XVIII and XIX centuries the Right was represented by the Liberals on the western world, and the Left were all the other parties wich opposed their vision (i.e. socialism).

Not entirely true. First you had the nobles and the liberals, and then around 1880 or so, socialism became a factor too.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Todays conservatives are yesterdays liberals

[Papewaio]

In Aus today's conservatives are the Liberals... John Howard PM for Australia and leader of the conservative Federal coalition is a member of the Australian Liberal Party... not to be confused with the ALP (the Australian Labor Party)... after all they tend to wear different coloured ties...

[Reverend Joe]

Todays conservatives are yesterdays liberals
No, Gawain, that's you. I can tell you, from experience, that while age may affect political doctrine, it does not always skew people to the right, not by a long shot.

@Soulforged: damn. :stunned: I bow to your superior knowledge.

[Lemur]

The Right occupies that spot because it tends to mantain things as they're, the Left provoques drastical changes (plausible or not), and the Center is just that.
You're confusing the right with small-c conservatism. In the U.S., the two have no relationship. I have no basis for making any similar judgment about the right in your nation.

Conservatism is the politics of caution, conservation and careful change. I'm not aware of any political party that treats these ideas seriously in the U.S.A.

[Soulforged]

@Soulforged: damn. :stunned: I bow to your superior knowledge.
Really no need for that, what I posted was very simple, Pindar is the real thing here.:laugh4: Thanks anyway...


Not entirely true. First you had the nobles and the liberals, and then around 1880 or so, socialism became a factor too.As I said. it was just an example.

This vision might apply to the US, where the democratic party is indeed a shadow of the republican party (these days, I'm not interested in a history lesson here).I was not talking about shadows doc...

Conservatism is the politics of caution, conservation and careful change. I'm not aware of any political party that treats these ideas seriously in the U.S.A.Then this confuses me even more regarding USA political jargon...:inquisitive:

[AntiochusIII]

Then this confuses me even more regarding USA political jargon...:inquisitive:Oh, Lemur is just being cynical.

Though he is rather correct. When you look at the political scene, the mainstream positions of the two major US parties -- positions which they, of course, often fail to adhere to themselves, hence the cynicism -- dictates the current definition of "liberal" and "conservative" in the USA. The Republican platform is the conservative one and the Democrats' the liberal, so to speak.

The ideological meanings behind them are no longer in widespread use, except when people want to feel like they're smarter than the opponent, aka:

"Because we are of America's true tradition, of cautious change, and of small government"

And

"Because we are the progressive ones seeking to abolish social injustice..."

Or, to give an example: Currently Social Security has long been firmly established in America. If you're ideologically conservative you would supposedly don't touch the existing system; yet US conservatives (perhaps omitting the elder ones who get money from SS) hate Social Security. The same for liberals, if you're ideologically liberal you would want to change it or even abolish it because it "artificially" controls the social and economic system, and a liberal want freedom, not restrictions; yet US liberals want to maintain it. Mostly. I don't ;P

And there's nothing particularly conservative in aggressive interventionist foreign policy, nor is isolationism a particularly liberal stance -- ideologically -- yet most people in the USA within said political spectrums support such stances.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No, Gawain, that's you. I can tell you, from experience, that while age may affect political doctrine, it does not always skew people to the right, not by a long shot.

Duh am I 250 years old? I mean that those who we labled as liberals in the past,lets use the founding fathers as an example(liberals for their times) are what conservatives favor today. If they were around today you would all label most of them conservatives.

Maybe you were thinking I meant more along the lines of this


"There is a saying by Winston Churchill — 'Anyone under 30 who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and anyone over 30 who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain

I made no claim of political persuasion being swayed because of aging.

I however did change from a lefty dope smoking hippy into a conservative dope smoking old man :)

[CountArach]

In Aus today's conservatives are the Liberals... John Howard PM for Australia and leader of the conservative Federal coalition is a member of the Australian Liberal Party... not to be confused with the ALP (the Australian Labor Party)... after all they tend to wear different coloured ties...
That said, they are both conservatives...

[Pannonian]

Duh am I 250 years old? I mean that those who we labled as liberals in the past,lets use the founding fathers as an example(liberals for their times) are what conservatives favor today. If they were around today you would all label most of them conservatives.

Actually, the ideals voiced in the declaration of independence were considered liberal then, and are still considered liberal now. The Whigs, who later called themselves the Liberals, tended towards individual freedoms, free trade, and the rest of the liberal package. The Tories (later called the Conservatives) picked these up at a later stage - they were originally pro-landowning class, maintenance of existing social structures, etc.

So if you're an owner of a large farm or ranch, and tend towards agriculture and herd-raising, you're a Tory/Conservative. However, if you tend towards trade and services, you're a Whig/Liberal. Which one are you, Gawain?

[doc_bean]

I was not talking about shadows doc...

I'm pretty sure I know what you meant, i just took the metaphore a step to far :stupido2:

[JR-]

NL Banquo's Ghost