03 Jan 10
Originally posted by generalissimo"Right-wingers" operate - indeed flourish - in social democracies in every non-authoritarian political system and environment in the world.
you're right about the pro-choice stance, however, social democracy is without a doubt a left-wing ideal, ultimately its objective is the distribution of wealth through government programs, do you deny this?
To equate "social democracy" with the "far left" is daft. AThousandYoung was obviously just trying to troll me a little. He isn't that stupid. And yet you've just swallowed it down whole. LOL.
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMFOK, I'll try again (and please don't dodge this questions again)
"Right-wingers" operate - indeed flourish - in social democracies in every non-authoritarian political system and environment in the world.
To equate "social democracy" with the "far left" is daft. AThousandYoung was obviously just trying to troll me a little. He isn't that stupid. And yet you've just swallowed it down whole. LOL.
Do you deny that the redistribution of wealth through government programs is a left-wing ideal?
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by generalissimoTo equate "social democracy" with the "far left" is daft. Do so if you want to. You are absolutely hopeless.
OK, I'll try again (and please don't dodge this questions again)
Do you deny that the redistribution of wealth through government programs is a left-wing ideal?
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by generalissimoSo in generalissimoWorld, the likes of Merkel, Sarkozy and Berlusconi are all "left wingers" are they? or Thatcher in the 80s? Social democracy embraces "right wingism" and "left wingism" and "centrism" and it can even accommodate "far right" and "far left" politics too. Your question is silly, simplistic, and a pretty clear cut example of reducio ad absurdum.
that is not what I said at all
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMFagain, I never said any of that, nor did I imply anything like that.
So in generalissimoWorld, the likes of Merkel, Sarkozy and Berlusconi are all "left wingers" are they? or Thatcher in the 80s? Social democracy embraces "right wingism" and "left wingism" and "centrism" and it can even accommodate "far right" and "far left" politics too. Your question is silly, simplistic, and a pretty clear cut example of reducio ad absurdum.
when are you going to answer the question? please, be honest at least once in your life, don't hide behind these misrepresentations and fantasies.
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by The SnapperAll right, all right, FMF is even MORE left wing than I implied, sorry!
Since when did respect for the WWII Allied dead become a right wing monopoly?
Some wars are justified and some are not. The men of all nations who fought and died fighting against possibly the greatest evil the world has ever known deserve the respect of everyone, not just the right wing. I find this statement of yours a wee bit disgraceful if it implie ...[text shortened]... those who lean to the left have no respect for those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom.
03 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Hugh GlassThe only thing that Cheney's ability to stare down opposition proves (with his own inimitable take on "you can't handle the truth", spin) is that he is, as we have always suspected, to be the very embodiment of evil. [flag] Hitler Card [/flag]
........He is a man of his word, you see it in his face. On the other hand what does our current president have to show? .......
How many tyrants and ideologically unsound demagogues have you also witnessed, that could stare down the barrel of a camera and with their hand on their heart convincingly tell you why their cause was right and just, and that the ends of their game plan justified any evil means in achieving it?
I wont trouble you with a genocidal maniacal roll call as a comparison because I know how sensitive you guys tend to get, but surely the ability to look convincing while explaining away atrocities should never be considered as the primary argument by which those atrocities are allowed to be overlooked?!
04 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoThis is nonsensical, simplistic silliness. "Left-wing" from what? Social democracy embraces "right wingism" and "left wingism" and "centrism" and it can even accommodate "far right" and "far left" politics too. What it isn't, is authoritarian or oligarchical, and so forth.
social democracy is without a doubt a left-wing ideal, ultimately its objective is the distribution of wealth through government programs, do you deny this?
You want to pose absurd questions that rinse all meaning out of the already beleaguered terminology describing the political spectrum, then go ahead. I have now answered your daft little reductionist question repeatedly.
For me personally, social democracy is more about equality of opportunity, the tackling of injustice, and the mechanisms of democratic participation, rather than redistribution of wealth in the ordinary sense of that expression. I am highly ambivalent towards programmes involving cash payments to the less well off to compensate for inequity. I am more interested in investment in things like social capital than in the often crude attempted engineering of 'handouts'.
On the other hand when the discussion is about empowering the individual and groups of citizens through the provision of education and training, preventative health care, equal footing in the eyes of the law, and protecting citizens from predatory or power concentrating corporatism, then my 'social democrat' ears prick up. Really, for all intents and purposes, my politics are not so wildly different from the likes of sh76 or USArmyParatrooper or DrKF.
This all makes me pretty much a centrist or centre-left in the real world, which of course is not the world that your heel-yapping plastic pantsery is addressing.
Like them or love them, my 'social democratic' world is or has been populated by the likes of Blair, Bush II, Merkel, Thatcher, all Japanese PMs since 1945, Sarkosy, Berlusconi, Uribe, PMs and presidents across the world in every country that isn't ruled by tyranny of some kind. Insinuate that they are all "left-wingers" if you want, but in terms of engaging in joined-up debate, it's like you turning up in France with a British electrical plug.
To call me "far left" has about as much credence as calling me "unintelligent" or "illiterate" or a "hermaphrodite" or a "well known proven liar" or other limp, meaningless insults that pass for superficial badass debating round here.
04 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMFIm not asking whether social democracy "accomodates" right-wing politics, this is irrelevant, I don't know why you insist on dodging the question.
This is nonsensical, simplistic silliness. "Left-wing" from what? Social democracy embraces "right wingism" and "left wingism" and "centrism" and it can even accommodate "far right" and "far left" politics too. What it [b]isn't, is authoritarian or oligarchical, and so forth.
You want to pose absurd questions that rinse all meaning out of the alre ...[text shortened]... ts that pass for superficial badass debating round here.[/b]
You want to pose absurd questions that rinse all meaning out of the already beleaguered terminology describing the political spectrum, then go ahead. I have now answered your daft little reductionist question repeatedly
You haven't answered my question, you just keep talking about how social democracy "accomodates" other ideologies, and how my question is "absurd", etc, etc.
I am highly ambivalent towards programmes involving cash payments to the less well off to compensate for inequity
I see, but you're not necessarily opposed to it.
On the other hand when the discussion is about empowering the individual and groups of citizens through the provision of education and training, preventative health care, equal footing in the eyes of the law, and protecting citizens from predatory or power concentrating corporatism, then my 'social democrat' ears prick up. Really, for all intents and purposes, my politics are not so wildly different from the likes of sh76 or USArmyParatrooper or DrKF.
ok, I think I can agree with this.
of course is not the world that your heel-yapping plastic pantsery is addressing.
I have to say, I don't know what you're talking about here.
To call me "far left" has about as much credence as calling me "unintelligent" or "illiterate" or a "hermaphrodite" or a "well known proven liar" or other limp, meaningless insults that pass for superficial badass debating round here.
I think you're letting your wild imagination get in the way of the truth, I never called you far-left, nor unintelligent, nor any of your other made-up examples.
I asked you a simple question which you reluctantanly answered, and even then the "answer" had nothing to do with the question, I wasn't asking about your personal views of what social democracy should be, I asked you whether or not you deny that the redistribution of wealth through govt programs is a left-wing ideal.