Amazinz wrote:The terms Left & Right are not usually used to describe economic stances more than social stances. And currently it is quite the opposite. I think most people right now would associate the left with socially progressive and the right with socially conservative. This is not a mistake by the media since these terms are not absolute. The reason people don't call Libertarians far right is because it would be misleading.
I gotta disagree with you there. I see the vast majority of issues breaking down into role of government - be it social or economic, and there are very few issues that libertarians dont see solving with less government intrusion, therefore they are far to the right.
Amazinz wrote:The terms Left & Right are not usually used to describe economic stances more than social stances. And currently it is quite the opposite. I think most people right now would associate the left with socially progressive and the right with socially conservative. This is not a mistake by the media since these terms are not absolute. The reason people don't call Libertarians far right is because it would be misleading.
I gotta disagree with you there. I see the vast majority of issues breaking down into role of government - be it social or economic, and there are very few issues that libertarians dont see solving with less government intrusion, therefore they are far to the right.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Cornbread had it absolutely right; the vast majority of voters see themselves as conservative or liberal based solely on social issues. This is a trend that had been pushed solely by both liberal and conservative pundits and radio hosts. I don't hear one thing from any so-called conservative about fiscal responsibility or government limitations. Yes, that notion is gaining popularity thanks to ex-libertarian Ron Paul speaking out against George W. Bush, the war in Iraq and Republican pork barrel spending. But it is NOT what defines liberal and conservative in American among the general public. What defines liberal and conservative is whatever Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly (et al.) is spouting; immigration, abortion, gays, terror, secularism, "the war on Christmas," drugs, morals... anything to take national interest away from whatever really matters. If social issues didn't matter, then there is no way Bush would have been elected twice. Every political scientist in the country spouts the effect of the evangelical vote and how important it was to the Bush victory. It's only many years later that polls indicate, with an approval rating hovering around 30% for some time now, that people are only now waking up to the realities of the world. That thinking from the head is more important than thinking from the gut.
Amazinz, you are a smart dude, I see that time and time again from your posts here. You're a true conservative, through and through, and you see the world in the way it's meant to be seen on a two-party system. But if economics meant anything to you, then you'd realize the neo-conservative trend of spend, spend, spend is not the conservative party that Ronald Reagan and those before him constructed. Libertarians, at large, while economically conservative, all stand for a very liberal social America; that people should be free to do what they want to do without interference from the federal government and that does not just mean the second amendment (which it very much does). Libertarians largely support the legalization of drugs, the abolishment of any and all government censorship in the media, gay-rights, embryonic stem cell research, the large-spread privatization of social security and other government programs, and ending of ALL government barriers to free, international trade. Libertarians may be conservative when it comes to guns, but they are also quite liberal when it comes to things you probably hate.
So, cornbread maxwell is absolutely, 100% right when when he says that labels like liberal and conservative are applied in a purely social-political ideology. This is how each side attacks each other and this is how every pundit in America, conservative or liberal, puts their point across. It's not about economics or government spending; those things are difficult to understand. But the social stuff; flag burning and gay-marriage... now THAT hits home and it doesn't matter how well informed you or I may be on the intricacies of daily politics, the average Joe American is a social issue voter and other than the Iraq war itself, that isn't going to change for a most people in a long, long time.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Amazinz wrote:The terms Left & Right are not usually used to describe economic stances more than social stances. And currently it is quite the opposite. I think most people right now would associate the left with socially progressive and the right with socially conservative. This is not a mistake by the media since these terms are not absolute. The reason people don't call Libertarians far right is because it would be misleading.
I gotta disagree with you there. I see the vast majority of issues breaking down into role of government - be it social or economic, and there are very few issues that libertarians dont see solving with less government intrusion, therefore they are far to the right.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Cornbread had it absolutely right; the vast majority of voters see themselves as conservative or liberal based solely on social issues. This is a trend that had been pushed solely by both liberal and conservative pundits and radio hosts. I don't hear one thing from any so-called conservative about fiscal responsibility or government limitations. Yes, that notion is gaining popularity thanks to ex-libertarian Ron Paul speaking out against George W. Bush, the war in Iraq and Republican pork barrel spending. But it is NOT what defines liberal and conservative in American among the general public. What defines liberal and conservative is whatever Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly (et al.) is spouting; immigration, abortion, gays, terror, secularism, "the war on Christmas," drugs, morals... anything to take national interest away from whatever really matters. If social issues didn't matter, then there is no way Bush would have been elected twice. Every political scientist in the country spouts the effect of the evangelical vote and how important it was to the Bush victory. It's only many years later that polls indicate, with an approval rating hovering around 30% for some time now, that people are only now waking up to the realities of the world. That thinking from the head is more important than thinking from the gut.
Amazinz, you are a smart dude, I see that time and time again from your posts here. You're a true conservative, through and through, and you see the world in the way it's meant to be seen on a two-party system. But if economics meant anything to you, then you'd realize the neo-conservative trend of spend, spend, spend is not the conservative party that Ronald Reagan and those before him constructed. Libertarians, at large, while economically conservative, all stand for a very liberal social America; that people should be free to do what they want to do without interference from the federal government and that does not just mean the second amendment (which it very much does). Libertarians largely support the legalization of drugs, the abolishment of any and all government censorship in the media, gay-rights, embryonic stem cell research, the large-spread privatization of social security and other government programs, and ending of ALL government barriers to free, international trade. Libertarians may be conservative when it comes to guns, but they are also quite liberal when it comes to things you probably hate.
So, cornbread maxwell is absolutely, 100% right when when he says that labels like liberal and conservative are applied in a purely social-political ideology. This is how each side attacks each other and this is how every pundit in America, conservative or liberal, puts their point across. It's not about economics or government spending; those things are difficult to understand. But the social stuff; flag burning and gay-marriage... now THAT hits home and it doesn't matter how well informed you or I may be on the intricacies of daily politics, the average Joe American is a social issue voter and other than the Iraq war itself, that isn't going to change for a most people in a long, long time.
Very Well said Copper. I take it you are a Libertarin also?
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:...there are very few issues that libertarians dont see solving with less government intrusion, therefore they are far to the right.
Less government intrusion doesn't necessarily equal Right-Wing politics. It does in one sense because the right has become characterized by less government. However, the terms left and right are constantly evolving. At the root they mean the radical and conservative poles of the political spectrum. By the way, I am not trying to make a statement regarding Libertarians.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:...there are very few issues that libertarians dont see solving with less government intrusion, therefore they are far to the right.
Less government intrusion doesn't necessarily equal Right-Wing politics. It does in one sense because the right has become characterized by less government. However, the terms left and right are constantly evolving. At the root they mean the radical and conservative poles of the political spectrum. By the way, I am not trying to make a statement regarding Libertarians.
I dont mean anything personal of course, but you are off base here. The definition of right wing or left wing politics does not change and its actually very simple. Right = small government. Left = big government. You dont need to make it complicated.
It's all of the sake of discussion. I'm not taking any of this personally. I think that if you investigate this further you will find that the definitions I presented are accurate. It's not about making it more complicated. When you say "Right = small government. Left = big government." you are mistaking traditional U.S. characteristics of the left and the right, rather than the defining aspects.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
CheeseBeger wrote:Eh, you guys are arguing semantics now; everyone has their own personal meanings on each label.
I missed this remark earlier.
I apologize for "arguing semantics" but the very nature of the discussion was definition.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Right = small govt, Left = big govt. Really it's not that simple.
Maybe in the past the right was associated with smaller govt but have you seen the Dept of Homeland Security lately? Under this administration, there's a bloated govt w/an exorbitant spending record (so they're not very fiscally conservative either). Not to mention the increased involvement in personal lives - the many privacy infringements.
I don't consider myself right or left but I'm not into increased govt - I'm more about efficient govt.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by PlayingWithFire » Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:38 pm 
