A silly place filled with caffeine induced ramblings of this person named KarmaGirl....or something.
Published on June 2, 2004 By KarmaGirl In Politics

I am sure that many will disagree, but it appears to me that it is an easier stance to be on the political left than on the right.  It seems like you hear more people on the left calling people on the right "fascist" and other terms, or tend to think that the right is stifling the "free speech" of the left.  People also equate the liberal left as the "humanitarians" of the world, while the right is only out to protect themselves.  Draginol has pointed out the many things that Republicans have done for Americans.  I wish I could remember the whole list, and I hope that he will enlighten me again so that I don't forget anything.  I also notice that a lot of lefts point out what political stance another person has, but not many rights do.  Maybe rights are just more open minded than lefts?

But, I'll just leave this disorganized rambling with a definition from www.wordiq.com (I don't know why I find it amusing, but I do.....It may have to do with a line a read on JU where somebody said that they remember when "Liberalism" was called "Socialism") :

 Encyclopedia  Definition: Left-wing politics 

In politics, left-wing, political left, or simply the left, are terms which refer (with no particular precision) to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of socialism, social democracy, or liberalism (especially in the United States sense of the word), or with opposition to right-wing politics.

The terminology of Left-Right politics was originally based on the seating-arrangement of parliamentary partisans, during the French Revolution. The more ardent proponents of radical revolutionary measures (including democracy and republicanism, but often including also governmental terror) were commonly referred to as leftists because they sat on the left side of successive legislative assemblies. As this original reference became obsolete, the meaning of the terms has changed as appropriate to the spectrum of ideas and stances being compared.

The term is also often used to characterize the politics of the Soviet Union and other one-party communist states, although many (perhaps most) on the political left (even including some who call themselves Marxist) would not consider their own politics to have anything significant in common with those of these states. Similarly, most anarchists consider themselves part of the political left, but many others on the left would reject that connection.

 


Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 03, 2004
Brad - I never said you did.

You do label people and you do troll them with your 100 pts. And I know it's your site. And that's cool. But as a user, I'm a bit in the blue here as to what the rules are. And since you are playing different roles on this site, moderator, owner, and debater, it would be sensible to separate them (different nicks etc.) to clarify in what capacity you're posting. Just some friendly "non-wing" advice...

I thought you "zapped" Saint Ying because I looked him up and he was marked as "exiled". Didn't know about the politcal machine at all....I was wrong. See? It's not so hard...
on Jun 04, 2004

It's easier to be liberal than conservative because liberals tend to go with their feelings whereas conservatives are forced to deal with the consequences.
Yeah, dealing with consequences such as Iraq by upstaging Kerry's solutions.

Extremism of either side is dangerous--isn't that what generates terrorism?

on Jun 04, 2004

Kerry's solutions? What solution would that be? Waving a magic wand and getting the UN to magicaly make it all better?

on Jun 04, 2004
Yes, Steven, please explain further what Kerry's solutions are?
on Jun 04, 2004
Yes, Steven, please explain further what Kerry's solutions are?


Kerry's plan is to put more troops in Iraq, namely NATO peacekeeping troops to defend the borders and help train the Iraq military. We are way too overextended and preoccupied with insurgencies and terrorism to complete those tasks successfully. Remember, we tried and failed. Kerry is generally very practical and very dedicated when it comes to this war. We can't be certain how he'll do of course, but we can realize that Bush has overseen too many failed operations and objectives in Iraq, all in the name of proving how clueless foreign policy realists like Colin Powell are. Well Powell apparently was right and Bush was wrong, so why is it that Bush is running for reelection and Powell is on the verge of being fired?
on Jun 04, 2004

Weird. Kerry plans to stay in Iraq, and yet, the same people who complain about the whole Iraqi occupation have no problem supporting Kerry.

on Jun 05, 2004
Weird. Kerry plans to stay in Iraq, and yet, the same people who complain about the whole Iraqi occupation have no problem supporting Kerry.


Well if you can find me a candidate who a) will make it so that the occupation never happened, will remain serious about fighting terrorism, and c) can defeat George Bush, I'll vote for him. Seeing as the first is impossible, and most democrats are in favor of seeing this one through as best we can, I'll stick with Kerry, thank you very much. And I think if we aren't going to bring NATO into the war, we need to draft Americans. Incidentally, I'd feel much more comfortable about serving in the military if Kerry was president, not that I would make a good soldier in the first place.
3 Pages1 2 3