Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Left and Right

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Maybe, maybe not. Every politician is beholden to various lobbyists and special interest groups. Why single out one particular one and hold that up as the example?
    Lobbying is speech. It's the Democrats and Left that want most to limit it. They're the ones who call loudest for campaign contribution limits. They're the ones primarily wanting publically financed political campaigns. They cried the loudest when Citizens United was decided in favor of corporations for example.


    No, he's saying gays don't want to afford others the same rights and liberties they have. That is he's complaining about the Left wanting to limit speech.

    Because one is clearly based on genetics while the other can't be clearly, if at all, shown to be based on some inborn trait.

    Because it's an outlier? Why would I demand that Trump's wanting to limit terrorist access to the Internet be stopped? Why would any sane person not want their access blocked? That is what Trump was saying.
    Twitter just blocked thousands of terrorist accounts voluntarily. Good for them.

    http://news.yahoo.com/twitter-pledge...203158639.html

    I think Trump's message here was clear as was Twitter's action. What need is there for me to be vocal about either.

    But, none of this addresses the original issue: On freedoms like speech, it is usually the Left that wants to limit them and is the faction more readily willing to use government for that purpose. It is also the Left that will limit all sorts of speech they disagree with not just obvious cases like its use by enemies, terrorists, or criminals.
    Corporations buying policies and having a stronger, more influential voice than the people isn't necessarily what I would consider a great example of free speech. I could argue that it actually limits the effectiveness of free speech for the masses.

    Also, Trump did not say he's going to limit terrorists access to the internet, that's actually something that's not even possible to do. He made a blanket statement about shutting down parts of the internet, because our youth is impressionable. What parts are being shut down? He then mocked people who thought it would be a violation of free speech. Obviously not taking the notion seriously.

    It's clear to see that when it's ones own party in question everything changes. As it's been said countless times before, this two party system and the biases we hold will be the death of this country. Any time any sort of hypocrisy or faults within someone's party are pointed out, a thousand excuses are made. The excuse of, 'we're better than them on this issue' doesn't hold any weight. What's your bar? Either you stand firmly in your beliefs and set your own standards or you have nothing. Letting certain violations slide and excusing it because you don't have as many as the opposing party is a cop-out and not indicative of someone who's a steadfast advocate of freedom and liberty.

    The left will fall for restricted freedoms anytime they're told it's for some sort of social justice.

    The right will fall for restricted freedoms for a false sense of increased security. In the end, you both get played.

    Republicans are against net neutrality, as another example. Without it, the voices of ordinary bloggers will be severely limited. The ability for small businesses and start-ups, without significant capital, to effectively communicate will be hindered as well. Why are they against it, because of corporate donors like Comcast that they have, whom you don't want to limit.

    There are a lot of issues within the Republican party regarding liberty and freedoms that need be addressed if they're to be the party where those values are essential. It's time we be honest and raise the bar. Why not?
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    - Benjamin Franklin

    The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
      Corporations buying policies and having a stronger, more influential voice than the people isn't necessarily what I would consider a great example of free speech. I could argue that it actually limits the effectiveness of free speech for the masses.
      What you or I consider free speech is of little concern here. Free speech, from whatever source shouldn't be limited unless there is some real concern about public harm. The classic example would be shouting "FIRE!" in a theater.
      Corporations have a right to speak just as unions do. Money becomes a powerful tool for getting speech out there be it a corporation paying media to put on commercials touting their products, or a politician running an add to get elected.

      "The People" as a whole have no more right to free speech than a corporation or an individual does. Or, are you considering "The People" as the government speaking for everyone and that free speech of individuals should be restricted by comparison?

      Also, Trump did not say he's going to limit terrorists access to the internet, that's actually something that's not even possible to do. He made a blanket statement about shutting down parts of the internet, because our youth is impressionable. What parts are being shut down? He then mocked people who thought it would be a violation of free speech. Obviously not taking the notion seriously.
      Actually, although Trump was somewhat vague on specifics, that is what he meant. Restrict speech of terrorists and their supporters. I'd say that's reasonable as these individuals and groups have declared themselves enemies of free society and values other than their own.

      http://www.snopes.com/trump-wants-shut-internet/

      It's clear to see that when it's ones own party in question everything changes. As it's been said countless times before, this two party system and the biases we hold will be the death of this country. Any time any sort of hypocrisy or faults within someone's party are pointed out, a thousand excuses are made. The excuse of, 'we're better than them on this issue' doesn't hold any weight. What's your bar? Either you stand firmly in your beliefs and set your own standards or you have nothing. Letting certain violations slide and excusing it because you don't have as many as the opposing party is a cop-out and not indicative of someone who's a steadfast advocate of freedom and liberty.
      The two party system in the US is likely to survive. What isn't likely to survive is one party in the form it currently is. The Democrats will likely become the party of the Left. The Republicans will be forced to become the party of the rest of the political spectrum.
      So, you'll have one party with a rigid dogma trying to convince a majority of voters that its narrow platform is the one that should prevail while the other party looks more like a shotgun pattern of ideas. This is why the Democrats of late have lost so much ground in state and local races. Their narrow ideas only prevail on the coasts and mostly in dense urban areas.
      That the Left doesn't get that is normal and not just in the US.
      At the same time, the Republicans will, on a national stage, look fragmented and disjointed as they have a wide ranging debate over what their values and platform will be. To the Left that will be taken as a weakness. To everyone else, it's really a strength. Dogmatic thought, so common on the Left is a curse on society with its closed-minded and rigid set of values.

      The left will fall for restricted freedoms anytime they're told it's for some sort of social justice.
      The Left will restrict freedoms whenever they see that it isn't their values and dogma that is being promoted. Again I hold up universities as the example, as these are clearly very Left leaning institutions in America.
      For example, universities have pretty much shut out Conservative / Rightist speakers at commencements.

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ment-speakers/

      Or speech codes that not just restrict speech but often restrict any non-Leftist speech.

      http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/...campus-freedom

      Meanwhile, one of the most Right wing, Conservative universities in the US invited Bernie Sanders to speak:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ech-annotated/

      I make that distinction to show that in general, the non-Left to include the Right have far more belief in free speech and guarding it than the Left does.

      The right will fall for restricted freedoms for a false sense of increased security. In the end, you both get played.

      Republicans are against net neutrality, as another example. Without it, the voices of ordinary bloggers will be severely limited. The ability for small businesses and start-ups, without significant capital, to effectively communicate will be hindered as well. Why are they against it, because of corporate donors like Comcast that they have, whom you don't want to limit.

      There are a lot of issues within the Republican party regarding liberty and freedoms that need be addressed if they're to be the party where those values are essential. It's time we be honest and raise the bar. Why not?
      If net neutrality could limit only non Leftist speech the Democrats and Left would be clamoring for it. But, they know that many corporations operating various services on the net may well use it to limit their speech so they oppose it.

      By comparison, the Democrats and Left were all for a return to The Fairness Doctrine that would have mostly crippled Right wing talk radio and the major (by volume of viewers) news outlets like Fox while leaving the minority Left wing talk radio and cable underdogs like MSNBC alone.

      You want business hindrance? Which part of the political spectrum is in favor of closed shop laws and forced union membership? Which party fought tooth and nail against the Beck decision and laws that would allow union members to withhold any money in dues for political purposes?

      Which part of the political spectrum wants public funding of all candidates even though that means your and my tax money would be going to candidates we might not support?
      The Left loves to shout "Fair and Equal!" But their fair and equal is a literal one, not one of equal opportunity. You're good at something, really good at it? The Left wants you held back, taxed, or otherwise penalized for your success while giving a handout to the incompetent, lazy, or unsuccessful because that's "fair."
      Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 08 Feb 16, 16:51.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        What you or I consider free speech is of little concern here. Free speech, from whatever source shouldn't be limited unless there is some real concern about public harm. The classic example would be shouting "FIRE!" in a theater.
        Corporations have a right to speak just as unions do. Money becomes a powerful tool for getting speech out there be it a corporation paying media to put on commercials touting their products, or a politician running an add to get elected.

        "The People" as a whole have no more right to free speech than a corporation or an individual does. Or, are you considering "The People" as the government speaking for everyone and that free speech of individuals should be restricted by comparison?



        Actually, although Trump was somewhat vague on specifics, that is what he meant. Restrict speech of terrorists and their supporters. I'd say that's reasonable as these individuals and groups have declared themselves enemies of free society and values other than their own.

        http://www.snopes.com/trump-wants-shut-internet/



        The two party system in the US is likely to survive. What isn't likely to survive is one party in the form it currently is. The Democrats will likely become the party of the Left. The Republicans will be forced to become the party of the rest of the political spectrum.
        So, you'll have one party with a rigid dogma trying to convince a majority of voters that its narrow platform is the one that should prevail while the other party looks more like a shotgun pattern of ideas. This is why the Democrats of late have lost so much ground in state and local races. Their narrow ideas only prevail on the coasts and mostly in dense urban areas.
        That the Left doesn't get that is normal and not just in the US.
        At the same time, the Republicans will, on a national stage, look fragmented and disjointed as they have a wide ranging debate over what their values and platform will be. To the Left that will be taken as a weakness. To everyone else, it's really a strength. Dogmatic thought, so common on the Left is a curse on society with its closed-minded and rigid set of values.



        The Left will restrict freedoms whenever they see that it isn't their values and dogma that is being promoted. Again I hold up universities as the example, as these are clearly very Left leaning institutions in America.
        For example, universities have pretty much shut out Conservative / Rightist speakers at commencements.

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ment-speakers/

        Or speech codes that not just restrict speech but often restrict any non-Leftist speech.

        http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/...campus-freedom

        Meanwhile, one of the most Right wing, Conservative universities in the US invited Bernie Sanders to speak:

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ech-annotated/

        I make that distinction to show that in general, the non-Left to include the Right have far more belief in free speech and guarding it than the Left does.



        If net neutrality could limit only non Leftist speech the Democrats and Left would be clamoring for it. But, they know that many corporations operating various services on the net may well use it to limit their speech so they oppose it.

        By comparison, the Democrats and Left were all for a return to The Fairness Doctrine that would have mostly crippled Right wing talk radio and the major (by volume of viewers) news outlets like Fox while leaving the minority Left wing talk radio and cable underdogs like MSNBC alone.

        You want business hindrance? Which part of the political spectrum is in favor of closed shop laws and forced union membership? Which party fought tooth and nail against the Beck decision and laws that would allow union members to withhold any money in dues for political purposes?

        Which part of the political spectrum wants public funding of all candidates even though that means your and my tax money would be going to candidates we might not support?
        The Left loves to shout "Fair and Equal!" But their fair and equal is a literal one, not one of equal opportunity. You're good at something, really good at it? The Left wants you held back, taxed, or otherwise penalized for your success while giving a handout to the incompetent, lazy, or unsuccessful because that's "fair."
        Sorry, while this is well put it's more of the two wrongs make a right argument I just spoke against. I already know how bad the left is, so none of this is news to me. Point is, it still does not justify the freedom issues found on the right. Being better than the left, is not a solid argument at all. It's simply a way of avoiding the need to address, or excusing, the issues within the party.

        That's all I'll say on that as I fear we'll just end up going in circles. But, keep in mind I don't particularly disagree with your assessment of the left. I just don't feel it's at all productive to avoid the issues on the right on the basis of "we have our issues, but are still better". If Cruz for example is elected, free speech and liberties will be hurt and that's unacceptable regardless of what's going on in the left.
        "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
        - Benjamin Franklin

        The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
          Sorry, while this is well put it's more of the two wrongs make a right argument I just spoke against. I already know how bad the left is, so none of this is news to me. Point is, it still does not justify the freedom issues found on the right. Being better than the left, is not a solid argument at all. It's simply a way of avoiding the need to address, or excusing, the issues within the party.

          That's all I'll say on that as I fear we'll just end up going in circles. But, keep in mind I don't particularly disagree with your assessment of the left. I just don't feel it's at all productive to avoid the issues on the right on the basis of "we have our issues, but are still better". If Cruz for example is elected, free speech and liberties will be hurt and that's unacceptable regardless of what's going on in the left.
          Go back and see what I originally wrote.

          Basic freedoms:

          Left: The government defines and regulates these according to society's needs.

          Right: Free press, speech, religion, art, etc., are essential to society and the government can only regulate these to the least possible extent. The individual should have the maximum degree of freedom to act and pursue their life goals without government interference.
          What I was stating were the ideals of the Left and Right as generally practiced by both. Sure, you can point out the mote in God's eye if you want but that hardly makes a case for a general rule.

          As generally practiced, the Left is far more willing to use government and restrict individual freedoms than the Right is. It doesn't mean the latter won't try to some extent too, only that the Left far and away does more to restrict individual freedoms than the Right does.

          As a sort of rule of thumb, the Left uses government and law as a first resort to restrict individual freedoms often solely for the purpose of preventing their point of view from being challenged. The Right uses government and law as a last resort to restrict individual freedoms and then mainly to prevent some general harm arising from a particular misuse of those freedoms.

          That concept was the original intent of the thread's opening question: What does the Left and Right in the US believe?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            Go back and see what I originally wrote.



            What I was stating were the ideals of the Left and Right as generally practiced by both. Sure, you can point out the mote in God's eye if you want but that hardly makes a case for a general rule.

            As generally practiced, the Left is far more willing to use government and restrict individual freedoms than the Right is. It doesn't mean the latter won't try to some extent too, only that the Left far and away does more to restrict individual freedoms than the Right does.

            As a sort of rule of thumb, the Left uses government and law as a first resort to restrict individual freedoms often solely for the purpose of preventing their point of view from being challenged. The Right uses government and law as a last resort to restrict individual freedoms and then mainly to prevent some general harm arising from a particular misuse of those freedoms.

            That concept was the original intent of the thread's opening question: What does the Left and Right in the US believe?
            The issue there is that the right in the US doesn't behave as the right should in your model. The libertarian fraction of Americans who would represent the right in your model are not what is referenced when Americans say "the right".

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
              The issue there is that the right in the US doesn't behave as the right should in your model. The libertarian fraction of Americans who would represent the right in your model are not what is referenced when Americans say "the right".
              Nobody ever meets the "ideal" totally, Left or Right. But, you can see most of what I wrote in both's positions. I also think it's a big reason today that the Right appears so discombobulated. There is considerable debate about exactly where they should be on things, while the Democrats have pretty much just become the party of the Progressive Left.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                Nobody ever meets the "ideal" totally, Left or Right. But, you can see most of what I wrote in both's positions. I also think it's a big reason today that the Right appears so discombobulated. There is considerable debate about exactly where they should be on things, while the Democrats have pretty much just become the party of the Progressive Left.
                Sure, but it also has to do with the differences in relative, contemporary terms (as they're used by the people) versus a hypothetical model. And it's also worth noting that many issues possess overlap, but practically and in terms of motivation.

                For example, in the American context supporting "free speech" isn't a hallmark of the left or the right - both believe in the principles of free speech but not the hypothetical "absolute" free speech.

                Or one can look at the perennial hot-button topic of abortion and the fact that both groups present their issue through the lens of personal rights, and the concept behind what is being argued becomes muddled.

                And then you get into the topics which are commonly associated with the left or the right by the people and within shorthand political science, but which are (with that strict model) actually on the opposite end of the spectrum.

                Gay marriage? Should be on the right (the removal of state barriers to gay marriage) but is celebrated by the left.

                Strong national defense? Should be on the left (increased state spending and the power of the government) but is touted by the right.

                That is why one must always understand and accept that the terms of left and right, as used by Americans, is not according to any sort of logical model. There are some vague assertions which can hold true, but when it comes to discussing these terms in the context of contemporary American usage, they're far from consistent.

                Comment


                • #53
                  If you want the overarching difference between Left and Right it really boils do to this:

                  Both want "Fair and Equal" treatment of individuals and such. The difference is in how that is defined and accomplished.

                  For the Left "Fair and Equal" is a literal, measurable, and tangible thing. That is, the Left finds it unfair there are rich and poor, those who are better educated and those who aren't. Yes, this isn't completely consistent but it's a very widely held concept that everyone should be equally accommodated and obtain equal outcomes.
                  The way they want to do that is by force of government. That is, make laws and use taxes to redistribute wealth, and other assets such that everyone gets an equal share.

                  On the Right they too want "Fair and Equal." But their version is one of opportunity not outcomes. That is you have an equal opportunity to enter the market, get an education, or whatever. It's up to you to make what you will of that opportunity. They see government as a protector of those rights and a referee to ensure everyone plays fairly.

                  On some of the above topics:

                  The Left sees abortion as being primarily about equality of women to engage in sex without serious economic consequences. Abortion is but one way to prevent an unwanted child while allowing women equal access to "recreational sex" / sex without consequences men have. Of course, they unequally apply this as they don't want to give men a say in whether a child they helped conceive should be aborted or not...

                  For the Right they see this as variously a religious, equal opportunity, and moral issue. As such they debate it morally rather than economically like the Left does.

                  Gay marriage is the same way: Left see this as "Fair and Equal" or you should be able to marry the person of your choice regardless of gender. They also see this as an economic issue (spousal rights). But, then they have problems with other unique forms of marriage like polygamy or incest. So, their argument is trying to make something "Fair and Equal" but falls on a sword due to the complexity of the subject.

                  The Right, again sees this as a religious and moral issue. They want to discuss what the purpose of marriage is and the effect on society of changing that.

                  Strong defense? The Left sees military power as little more than a super SWAT team / police force. They see it being used in a coalition with other nations against a rogue nation that needs to be "brought to justice." That is, it is about criminal acts and the military is used to bring those who create wars to trial for their crimes. It isn't a tool of foreign policy because strong nations could take advantage of weak ones, and that isn't Fair and Equal.

                  The Right sees the military as an instrument of foreign policy. They see a strong military as necessary to keep enemies of the state / nation at bay. There is no debate about it being used to bring some offending nation to justice but rather simply the military is to stomp that nation into leaving theirs alone.

                  So, for the Left the military is a tool of Social Justice. For the Right the military is a tool of national policy.

                  While the lines can sometimes blur, mostly because there are all sorts of shades of grey between Left and Right, I think my original list hits pretty close to one that can define the two and with debate over the details sort out all the variations.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Definitely don't want those greedy and "evil" "non-profit" corporations like Sierra Club, GreenPeace, etc. throwing money at our politicians to influence their votes and legislation.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      If you want the overarching difference between Left and Right it really boils do to this:

                      Both want "Fair and Equal" treatment of individuals and such. The difference is in how that is defined and accomplished.

                      For the Left "Fair and Equal" is a literal, measurable, and tangible thing. That is, the Left finds it unfair there are rich and poor, those who are better educated and those who aren't. Yes, this isn't completely consistent but it's a very widely held concept that everyone should be equally accommodated and obtain equal outcomes.
                      The way they want to do that is by force of government. That is, make laws and use taxes to redistribute wealth, and other assets such that everyone gets an equal share.

                      On the Right they too want "Fair and Equal." But their version is one of opportunity not outcomes. That is you have an equal opportunity to enter the market, get an education, or whatever. It's up to you to make what you will of that opportunity. They see government as a protector of those rights and a referee to ensure everyone plays fairly.
                      But your explanation doesn't cover non-state exercises of power or what is actually considered "fair and equal". A society dedicated to opportunity whose society is utterly and completely racist would still be on "the right" even though there is no equality of opportunity in practice.

                      And how does one equate equal opportunity with unequal circumstances? Does anyone really believe that a a short man has just as many opportunities as a tall man in the business world? Because if a short man has to work harder than someone else to get the same outcome as a tall man, then he didn't have an equal opportunity to begin with - the different level of effort required demonstrate that.

                      Or is it fair and equal in opportunity in the sense of telling someone in a wheelchair that "everyone has the same opportunity to climb these stairs behind me"?

                      On some of the above topics:

                      The Left sees abortion as being primarily about equality of women to engage in sex without serious economic consequences.
                      I don't think I've ever heard a leftist or a woman say that to me. Who told you that?

                      Abortion is but one way to prevent an unwanted child while allowing women equal access to "recreational sex" / sex without consequences men have. Of course, they unequally apply this as they don't want to give men a say in whether a child they helped conceive should be aborted or not...
                      Maybe they're just giving men the same fair and equal opportunity to get pregnant and have an abortion as women have.

                      For the Right they see this as variously a religious, equal opportunity, and moral issue. As such they debate it morally rather than economically like the Left does.
                      Which doesn't change the fact that it is a state intervention - aka part of the left - in what the right should nominally want to get the government out of. Thus being against abortion - wanting to make it illegal or even restricted and controlled - is a clearly leftist stance according to this model, because it is attempting to restrict the individual by law for some greater good/to protect the disenfranchised/etc.

                      Yet being against abortion is widely held as a hallmark of the right in America.

                      Gay marriage is the same way: Left see this as "Fair and Equal" or you should be able to marry the person of your choice regardless of gender. They also see this as an economic issue (spousal rights). But, then they have problems with other unique forms of marriage like polygamy or incest. So, their argument is trying to make something "Fair and Equal" but falls on a sword due to the complexity of the subject.

                      The Right, again sees this as a religious and moral issue. They want to discuss what the purpose of marriage is and the effect on society of changing that.
                      This still doesn't address that wanting the government to intervene by defining marriage is still a leftist approach, according to the model. And again, that would be contrary to how Americans widely use the terms or understand the issue.

                      One has to recognize that there are so many exceptions to the rules that there is no simple definition that will clearly place an issue on the left or right (in the American understanding of those terms) accurately and consistently.

                      Heck, because so much of politics is relative, it also depends greatly on just who is judging the issue itself.

                      Strong defense? The Left sees military power as little more than a super SWAT team / police force. They see it being used in a coalition with other nations against a rogue nation that needs to be "brought to justice." That is, it is about criminal acts and the military is used to bring those who create wars to trial for their crimes. It isn't a tool of foreign policy because strong nations could take advantage of weak ones, and that isn't Fair and Equal.

                      The Right sees the military as an instrument of foreign policy. They see a strong military as necessary to keep enemies of the state / nation at bay. There is no debate about it being used to bring some offending nation to justice but rather simply the military is to stomp that nation into leaving theirs alone.
                      Which still involves a strong state government using force to obtain a result - something that should be a hallmark of then left but is, instead, widely seen as part of the right.

                      And even if one tries to approach the left solely on the terms of the slogan "fair and equal" it still doesn't address the right's "equality of opportunity". If your army starts stronger than mine, then there was no equality of opportunity - you started stronger.

                      So, for the Left the military is a tool of Social Justice. For the Right the military is a tool of national policy.

                      While the lines can sometimes blur, mostly because there are all sorts of shades of grey between Left and Right, I think my original list hits pretty close to one that can define the two and with debate over the details sort out all the variations.
                      The problem is that, as I pointed out, the exceptions point to flaws in trying to make sweeping generalizations about left vs right in the context of the American understanding.

                      When the "left" can hold very important views that better fit the model as a belief of the "right", then the model becomes less accurate. Maybe more predictive, since it tries to offer the ability to slot things into the system to predict whether they're on the left or right, but it's also much less accurate.

                      The old model clearly states that pro-choice is part of the left. Under this model, there's little reason not to include pro-choice as part of the right when going by those definitions.

                      I could make a compelling case that the terms as used by Americans are not so easily quantifiable along a graph and are better served as a simple binary descriptor used on an issue by issue basis.

                      Now, one can use a larger graph to document issues to some degree, but even then one cannot use right and left in a way the average American will understand. Do you tell them that the average American is X=2 on gun control, republicans are X=3, the democrats are X=-2, and the NRA are X=5?

                      When it comes back down to it, the American concept of left and right are just not used in a logical, quantifiable manner. And if one wants to understand what an American means when saying something is on the left or the right politically, they'd likely get the wrong answer using the complex systemic approach.

                      Otherwise you'll just confuse people if you try to tell them that believing in drug legalization is a hallmark of the right.

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X