Historical definition of political left.

[eliminatedsprinter]

In the late 19th century there would often be violent physical confrontations between the communists and the socialists and those who opposed them, right on the floor of the French House of Parliament. As a result, the french segregated the communists and the socialists to the left side of the center isle (the left wing) of the French House of Parliament. The terms Left Winger or Leftist have been applied to those who favor communist or socialist ideas ever since.
The term "Right Winger" is much more vague and simply refers to anyone who strongly disagrees with communisim and socialism and or communist/socialist principles. The more strongly anti-communist/socialist a person is the farther right they are.
Example:
I think Communisim and Socialism are among the most authoritarian and totalitarian systems of government ever devised and I strongly oppose them. Thus I am a "Right Winger".

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The assumption that everyone falls under a, Left, Right, Liberal, or Conservative label, is over broad. It is also incorrect to conclude that all Democrats follow only Leftist or Liberal views. It is also an invalid assumption to conclude that Republicans only follow Right Wing or Conservative views.
In my view, the American people have become much more diverse in their political views and beliefs to consider historical definitions.
Separation of Church and State
A Balanced Budget
Smaller Government
Stronger and More Effective Government
War as the Last Resort
Strengthened Military
Strong Diplomacy
Secure Borders
Investment in Infrastructure
Elimination of the Electoral College
No Additional Controls on Non-Automatic Guns
A Womans Right to Choose
Stronger More Effective Control of Federal Lobbyists
Complete Preservation of the Right of Privacy
Term Limits on all Elected Federal Officials
Less Federal Involvement in Welfare type State Aid
Total Election Accountability
No Amnesty for Illegals
Fewer Legal Immigrats
A Riftist, as I see it. :D
__________________________________________________ ________________________
A more modern definition from Wik
Left-Right politics or the Left-Right political spectrum is a common way of classifying political positions, political ideologies, or political parties along a one-dimensional political spectrum.
Left vs. Right is an imprecise, broad, dialectical interpretation of a set of factors or determinants. "The Left" and "The Right" are usually understood to represent polar opposites for each determinant, though a particular individual or party may take a "left" stance on one matter and a "right" stance on another.
The meaning of the terms "left" and "right" in a political context has changed radically over time. The Right is generally against intentional political, economic and social change, the Left is in favour of it.[1] The Left broadly identifies itself with the interests of the masses, while the Right is seen to favour the interests of the established propertied classes.[1]
Some commentators, such as Norberto Bobbio, have argued that the central difference between left and right is that the left prioritises social equality, while the right prioritises individual responsibility and the maintenance of natural and inherent inequalities between people. Bobbio also makes clear, however, that "left" and "right" are not absolute terms, but vary between different countries and different periods.[2]

[ULTRA26 # 1]

In the late 19th century there would often be violent physical confrontations between the communists and the socialists and those who opposed them, right on the floor of the French House of Parliament. As a result, the french segregated the communists and the socialists to the left side of the center isle (the left wing) of the French House of Parliament. The terms Left Winger or Leftist have been applied to those who favor communist or socialist ideas ever since.
The term "Right Winger" is much more vague and simply refers to anyone who strongly disagrees with communisim and socialism and or communist/socialist principles. The more strongly anti-communist/socialist a person is the farther right they are.
Example:
I think Communisim and Socialism are among the most authoritarian and totalitarian systems of government ever devised and I strongly oppose them. Thus I am a "Right Winger".
Another definition from Wik:
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3], Montesquieu, Voltaire [4] and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[5] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[6] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods that the market is seen as being incapable of providing.[7] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,[8] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,[9] which grants a more interventionist role for the state.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Another definition from Wik:
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3], Montesquieu, Voltaire [4] and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[5] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[6] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods that the market is seen as being incapable of providing.[7] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,[8] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,[9] which grants a more interventionist role for the state.
It's ironic that Libralism and Leftism have never ment anything close to the same thing, yet (sadley) today the 2 terms seem to be used as if they are.
I'm old enough to remember when our old dictionarys simply defined
"Liberal" to mean "Free thinking and in favor of social change and progress" and "Conservative" as "In favor of maintaining the status quo".

[ULTRA26 # 1]

It's ironic that Libralism and Leftism have never ment anything close to the same thing, yet (sadley) today the 2 terms seem to be used as if they are.
ES, I agree.

[asch]

It's ironic that Libralism and Leftism have never ment anything close to the same thing, yet (sadley) today the 2 terms seem to be used as if they are.
I'm old enough to remember when our old dictionarys simply defined
"Liberal" to mean "Free thinking and in favor of social change and progress" and "Conservative" as "In favor of maintaining the status quo".
That's beacuse it's easier to sum the two up as equally opposing to the "right"
And yeah it is sad the two aren't more closely scrutinized, separated and exposed. Left and lib. are catch-all terms nowadays.

[eliminatedsprinter]

That's beacuse it's easier to sum the two up as equally opposing to the "right"
And yeah it is sad the two aren't more closely scrutinized, separated and exposed. Left and lib. are catch-all terms nowadays.
That is why I generally specify that I am opposed to the "left" or "Leftism". Those terms, at least, have a more specific and geographically consistant historical meaning. The terms conservative and liberal have been so bastardized that they have almost no meaning today and they also have totally different meanings in different parts of the world.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

A doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom
The view of Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives?
ES, in support of your point

[centerhill condor]

A doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom
I'm a constitutionalist...I think I can govern myself and accept the consequences. Irrespective of the population growth.
left wing, right wing, taste the same to me...Col. Sanders
CC

[eliminatedsprinter]

A doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom
The view of Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives?
ES, in support of your point
All very Liberal concepts, that are today under fire from people that often call themselves "Liberal". Go figure.:)
There was a time when I used to call myself a liberal libertarian. Now I have become more of what Ayn Rand called an "Objectivist".

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I'm a constitutionalist...I think I can govern myself and accept the consequences. Irrespective of the population growth.
left wing, right wing, taste the same to me...Col. Sanders
CC
CC doesn't believe in government at all irrespective of the population growth.
La Vergne, TN
Population 25,278
In your home town of 25000 people, you might get away with governing yourself, for a few more years.
Wik
Constitutionalism implies also a balance between the power of the government on the one hand and the rights of individuals on the other.
Balance of Government and the rights of individuals. Not sure there is a name for those who favor no government.

['75 Miller]

Not sure there is a name for those who favor no government.
Sure there is...they're called targets. Leftists is what they are, 'course they like to call themselves "anarchists". You know, the wee fags with bandanas over their faces protesting @ g8 meetings. Those dipshits, at least the ones I've seen interviewed claim that they want anarchy...no gov't at all. This is fine with me because no gov't = no authority = no reason not to hunt and kill so-called "anarchists." That's what those clowns fail to realize.....the only thing keeping them alive is the gov't and laws they want so badly to bring down.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Not sure there is a name for those who favor no government.
The term for those who favor no government or political authority is Anarchist.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Sure there is...they're called targets. Leftists is what they are, 'course they like to call themselves "anarchists". You know, the wee fags with bandanas over their faces protesting @ g8 meetings. Those dipshits, at least the ones I've seen interviewed claim that they want anarchy...no gov't at all. This is fine with me because no gov't = no authority = no reason not to hunt and kill so-called "anarchists." That's what those clowns fail to realize.....the only thing keeping them alive is the gov't and laws they want so badly to bring down.
Miller,
I'm beginning to wonder about you. In response to my comment you come back with Sure there is...they're called targets. Leftists is what they are,
If this is the case then why is it that those on the right keep complaining about the Leftists wanting more govt?
And it's only Monday.
The term for those who favor no government or political authority is Anarchist.
Thank you ES.

[asch]

This may seem contrary in lieu of what I've posted today, I have to say I believe freedom without authority is anarchy, but authority without freedom is tyranny.

[centerhill condor]

Wik
Constitutionalism implies also a balance between the power of the government on the one hand and the rights of individuals on the other
And it's only Monday.
Well stated ASCH
John Adams (Second President of the USA):
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion; our Constitution was written only for a moral and religious people, and it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
CC

[ULTRA26 # 1]

This may seem contrary in lieu of what I've posted today, I have to say I believe freedom without authority is anarchy, but authority without freedom is tyranny.
Very well put.

['75 Miller]

Miller,
I'm beginning to wonder about you. In response to my comment you come back with Sure there is...they're called targets. Leftists is what they are,
If this is the case then why is it that those on the right keep complining about the Leftists wanting more govt?
It's like I said, they're leftists, commies, socialists, whatever you wanna call 'em. They don't want less gov't, they're the "radical left", "progressives" if you will. They aren't anarchists, though they enjoy portraying themselves as such 'cuz they think it makes 'em look cool somehow. They are the earth liberation front, peta, and other enviro-terrorist types. Tree-huggers...whatever.
They don't want anarchy, they just wanna cry like little bitches when they don't like the outcome of elections.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

It's like I said, they're leftists, commies, socialists, whatever you wanna call 'em. They don't want less gov't, they're the "radical left", "progressives" if you will. They aren't anarchists, though they enjoy portraying themselves as such 'cuz they think it makes 'em look cool somehow. They are the earth liberation front, peta, and other enviro-terrorist types. Tree-huggers...whatever.
They don't want anarchy, they just wanna cry like little bitches when they don't like the outcome of elections.
And I quote
Originally Posted by ULTRA26 # 1
Not sure there is a name for those who favor no government.
Your Responses
Originally Posted by 75 Miller
Sure there is...they're called targets. Leftists is what they are, 'course they like to call themselves "anarchists".
It's like I said, they're leftists, commies, socialists,
They don't want less gov't, they're the "radical left", "progressives" if you will.
They are the earth liberation front, peta, and other enviro-terrorist types. Tree-huggers...whatever
They aren't anarchists
They don't want anarchy, they just wanna cry like little bitches when they don't like the outcome of elections.
Again, all of the above is in response to
Not sure there is a name for those who favor no government.
:eek: :confused: :eek: :confused:

['75 Miller]

And I quote
[I]Originally Posted by ULTRA26 # 1
Not sure there is a name for those who favor no government.
Why are you being so obtuse? The name for those who favor no gov't is ANARCHISTS!
As I said most of the self-proclaimed "anarchists" I've seen interviewed, like the little bitch protesters, are merely radical lefties and nowhere near anarchists. The call themselves this because they are severely confused and don't understand that when anarchy reigns anarchists will be targeted.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Why are you being so obtuse? The name for those who favor no gov't is ANARCHISTS!
As I said most of the self-proclaimed "anarchists" I've seen interviewed, like the little bitch protesters, are merely radical lefties and nowhere near anarchists. The call themselves this because they are severely confused and don't understand that when anarchy reigns anarchists will be targeted.
Sorry I wasn't pointed enough. Your post came across as if you didn't think about one word you said. More like you opened your leftist hate faucet and until the sink was overflowing. An Anarchist, one who believes in no government, is not a leftist extremist, or an enviro-terrorist type tree-hugger. Your post contradicted itself. If your own tendencies toward the obtuse, cause you to be unable to understand this, I suggest that you sharpen your communication skills.
Rather than continue with your leftist hate babble, why not take a stand on why your views are better for this Country.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Sorry I wasn't pointed enough. Your post came across as if you didn't think about one word you said. More like you opened your leftist hate faucet and until the sink was overflowing. An Anarchist, one who believes in no government, is not a leftist extremist, or an enviro-terrorist type tree-hugger. Your post contradicted itself. If your own tendencies toward the obtuse, cause you to be unable to understand this, I suggest that you sharpen your communication skills.
Rather than continue with your leftist hate babble, why not take a stand on why your views are better for this Country.
Nevertheless he has a good point that, the vast majority of young radicals, who think they are protesting for freedom, are in their ignorance, carrying water for those who would have us all living in a more authoritarian state. :idea:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Nevertheless he has a good point that, the vast majority of young radicals, who think they are protesting for freedom, are in their ignorance, carrying water for those who would have us all living in a more authoritarian state. :idea:
ES,
I'm sorry I fail to see the connection between my comment and the anti-leftist rant. The freedom protesters during the Vietnam era were for the most part from the political left. You defined my comment about those who desire no government, as being Antichrists. One with political views from the left or right, by definition, is not an Anarchist.

[Old Texan]

ES,
I'm sorry I fail to see the connection between my comment and the anti-leftist rant. The freedom protesters during the Vietnam era were for the most part from the political left. You defined my comment about those who desire no government, as being Antichrists. One with political views from the left or right, by definition, is not an Anarchist.
:confused:

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
I'm sorry I fail to see the connection between my comment and the anti-leftist rant. The freedom protesters during the Vietnam era were for the most part from the political left. You defined my comment about those who desire no government, as being Antichrists. One with political views from the left or right, by definition, is not an Anarchist.
Actually, by definition, a true anarchist is a far right winger, because true anarchists are very anti socialist and anti communist. Anarchist are by definition opposed to all government and political authority.
Anti-left by definition is anti communist and or socialist. The fact that so many people confuse leftism with liberalism does not make those mistaken people correct.
The peace protestors were mostly liberals, but many of them were "Jesus Freaks" and thus could not be communists. Of the "Jesus Freaks" many were no doubt socialists. However it is and always has been possible to be a passivist and or a social liberal without being either a socialist or a communist.
My comment was more related to those young people (like myself when I was young) who are being used my power hungry leftists (people who desire more socialist style government control) ie. the Maxine Waters or Nancy Pelosi crowd. Not the peace or civil rights protestors of the sixties.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
I'm sorry I fail to see the connection between my comment and the anti-leftist rant. The freedom protesters during the Vietnam era were for the most part from the political left. You defined my comment about those who desire no government, as being Antichrists. One with political views from the left or right, by definition, is not an Anarchist.
Actually, by definition, a true anarchist is a far right winger, because true anarchists are very anti socialist and anti communist. Anarchist are by definition opposed to all government and political authority.
Anti-left by definition is anti communist and or socialist. The fact that so many people confuse leftism with liberalism does not make those mistaken people correct.
The peace protestors were mostly liberals, but many of them were "Jesus Freaks" and thus could not be communists. Of the "Jesus Freaks" many were no doubt socialists. However it is and always has been possible to be a passivist and or a social liberal without being either a socialist or a communist.
My comment was more related to those young people (like myself when I was young) who are being used my power hungry leftists (people who desire more socialist style government control) ie. the Maxine Waters or Nancy Pelosi crowd. Not the peace or civil rights protestors of the sixties.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Actually, by definition, a true anarchist is a far right winger, because true anarchists are very anti socialist and anti communist. Anarchist are by definition opposed to all government and political authority.
Anti-left by definition is anti communist and or socialist. The fact that so many people confuse leftism with liberalism does not make those mistaken people correct.
The peace protestors were mostly liberals, but many of them were "Jesus Freaks" and thus could not be communists. Of the "Jesus Freaks" many were no doubt socialists. However it is and always has been possible to be a passivist and or a social liberal without being either a socialist or a communist.
My comment was more related to those young people (like myself when I was young) who are being used my power hungry leftists (people who desire more socialist style government control) ie. the Maxine Waters or Nancy Pelosi crowd. Not the peace or civil rights protestors of the sixties.
Agreed, now that you reminded me of what Anarchist means. :D :D

['75 Miller]

Sorry I wasn't pointed enough. Your post came across as if you didn't think about one word you said. More like you opened your leftist hate faucet and until the sink was overflowing. An Anarchist, one who believes in no government, is not a leftist extremist, or an enviro-terrorist type tree-hugger.
My leftist hate faucet...that's good. And you're right, I do hate leftists....in every way. They are the enemy of Liberty and therefore should be dealt with in the most extreme way possible.
What I was attempting to do is answer your question: Anarchist is the term for those who favor no gov't. I then went on to point out, badly I guess, that the wee pussies that like to call themselves anarchists these days are actually radical "progressives". They claim to want to bring down the gov't, but that claim is a lie.
I later went on to point out that if, somehow these rejects got what they claim to want they'd not be around very long to enjoy it.
Can't make it much clearer than that.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

My leftist hate faucet...that's good. And you're right, I do hate leftists....in every way. They are the enemy of Liberty and therefore should be dealt with in the most extreme way possible.
What I was attempting to do is answer your question: Anarchist is the term for those who favor no gov't. I then went on to point out, badly I guess, that the wee pussies that like to call themselves anarchists these days are actually radical "progressives". They claim to want to bring down the gov't, but that claim is a lie.
I later went on to point out that if, somehow these rejects got what they claim to want they'd not be around very long to enjoy it.
Can't make it much clearer than that.
Much, much better
................................C.........E....... ..N.........T........E........R................... ............
left communist socialist liberal democrat republican conservative capitalist anarchist right
Don't most of us fall somewhere within the CENTER?

['75 Miller]

Much, much better
................................C.........E....... ..N.........T........E........R................... ............
left communist socialist liberal democrat republican conservative capitalist anarchist right
Don't most of us fall somewhere within the CENTER?
Nope. Well, at least I don't think so. Speaking for myself I can't think of one "democrat" idea or position that I agree with. Not that there aren't dems who's personal positions I agree with, but as far as party platform, Nyet!
Abortion, taxes, national security, Iraq, border, gun Rights, oil drilling, judges, queer "rights", the environment, education, individual rights and responsibilities, health care, etc. None of it.
Perhaps one of you can point out something the dems stand for that is worthy of getting behind....anything's possible.

[Old Texan]

Perhaps one of you can point out something the dems stand for that is worthy of getting behind....anything's possible.
"Blow jobs aren't considered as having Sex with that woman......"
W.J. Clinton
:devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :eat: