Has America Gone too far left?

Before you star shouting flat earther creationist (which I am not) just consider the following points:

News/Media: It is no secret that the news media and Hollywood in general are left leaning. But yet, FOX News is the only media organization that is so-called "fake" "Bigoted" and with an agenda? And then, whenever you try to explain to them, why FOX thinks it's fair and balanced, (Because it actually seeks out the non bias opinion of the right/republican party.) You get attacked for even thinking about changing the channel.

Education: Education is no better. You get the public schools that teach liberal progressive agendas that go unnoticed and even in the most private Christian Universities. I took a class called the Catholic Tradition and it was all about New Age Progressive-ism even going so far as to say that the Church has always been "liberal." Personally I think Politics shouldn't even be in a religious course. So-Called "liberal arts" colleges shouldn't force people to take artsy fartsy classes especially if you want to take more business courses to further your education and "progress" your future goals. Education is today, all about memorizing and not about thinking for yourself, or how to make money doing what you love (if possible)!

Government: Government has grown increasingly huge ever since GWB and Obama. Of course others are to blame as well, but they have done the most damage. It's still a toss up between Obama and Bush, but I think they are neck and neck with how much the government has expanded under their perspective administrations. The Constitution is being ripped apart by every politician and lawyer out there. So much so, that our justice system is corrupted beyond belief! We also spend way more money within our means and liberals seem to be ok with this because Bush did it too.

Society in General: Society wants to progress farther and the farther we progress it seems the more and more people complain. The rich have more money, the Christians are celebrating Christmas, the government's out to get me, I can't afford to go to college boo hoo! We complain about the stupidest littlest things sometimes. I don't understand why people are so jealous of others in this society. You can have everything your target has as well, if you want it badly enough. You just have to work at it and try and never give up! Whatever happened to that very conservative message. Don't expect handouts.

So I ask every liberal here, What's wrong with smaller government? Believing in God? Spending within your means, and working hard?

No.

There is no 'left' in American government, there is only differing degrees of right.

Left wing does not mean more government, in fact at its extreme, anarchism, there is no government.

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...

Right-wing has always meant authority, state control. Left-wing being libertarianism, anti-state.

As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

anarchism.pageabode.com...

You have all been conditions to support the 'right', conservatives, in order to maintain government, not reduce it. The right has always been about centralized and authoritative government. Extreme right wing is fascism.

www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

right wing
right wing
 
noun
1.
members of a conservative or reactionary political party, or those opposing extensive political reform.
2.
such a political party or a group of such parties.
3.
that part of a political or social organization advocating a conservative or reactionary position: The union's right wing favored a moderate course of action.

dictionary.reference.com...

Traditionally the right allows the government to do what it wants to maintain the status quo. The right were state-interventionists meaning they support state intervention in the economy, nationalism, not worker control as in socialism for example. If you are for government reform, as in less government, that would put you on the left.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


You clearly believe so.
Many may agree with you.
But many also believe the opposite of you.

But, if we are a culture and civilization that determines its own path, there is no such thing as "too" liberal or conservative.

Of course, the reality is that you are asking a question and seeking a simple answer. There isn't one.

Maybe the problem is that we are a very large nation Where too many people at forced into buying into a very limited political spectrum.

I wish the progressive movement had not taken (or was it labeled) liberal. I feel I am fairly liberal in a libertarian type sense.

I feel strongly that the constitution, while not perfect, is one of the best documents we as humans have.

It's preamble is "WE THE PEOPLE..." all in caps too.

I read in places that some of the founding fathers didn't mind the town halls being used as churches, so long as everyone had fair use.

Doesn't sound like separation of church and state to me. Although I do agree that no church or dogma should be in charge of this country, I do feel that people should be free to worship (or not) as they see fit as long as it does not interfere with the natural rights of others. As for atheists getting upset that people celebrate Christmas, well to be honest more people celebrate it not as what it was originally for, nor for the christian claims, but as an economic force. (gimme, gimme, gimme and spend, spend, spend).

I do feel that most of the people in charge (those that have been voted into office) tend to be "Leftist" or "Statist".

It appears to me that the majority of both Dems and the Repubs both march to the same tune in the same direction, difference being that some sprint, while others mosey.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77


So I ask every liberal here, What's wrong with smaller government? Believing in God? Spending within your means, and working hard?

edit on 18-12-2011 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)

Answers:

The Conservative definition of smaller government equals killing all programs that benefit the people, while eliminating any retirement opportunity for our senior citizens when they are too old to work, while letting corporations go unregulated allowing them to get away with murder so to speak, eliminating all workers rights, ridding fair ethical business standards and guidelines, and destroying our environment while they are at it.

The Conservative definition of believing in God is to faithfully live by some filthy barbaric despicable fictional book of pagan plagiarism that encourages hate, sexism, racism, violence, wars, and killing.

The Conservative definition of spending within your means, actually mean that everyone barely be able to pay their electrical bills and rent each month while carrying the ENTIRE TAX BURDEN so that the wealthy dont ever have to pay a dime for anything.

The Conservative definition of working hard is to eventually have Americans working for $2.00 an hour, 100 hours a week, with NO overtime pay, NO benefits, and NO retirement plan.

No way!!!!!!! WE THE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY BURDENED ENOUGH without the Devil Conservatives making our lives even more dreadful.

Conservatives can SHOVE IT!!!!!!

reply to post by HangTheTraitors


Wow, its hard to believe someone can be brainwashed so.

You do know there is no "left" and "right" only "right and wrong". People are still stuck in the left right paradigm?

Simple answer.
There is only criminal bankers/leaders and the decent people in society. The haves and the have nots, those who seek eugenics and those who seek variety. Those who want it all and those who want to share.

Once again: There is no left and right.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
Before you star shouting flat earther creationist (which I am not) just consider the following points:

News/Media: It is no secret that the news media and Hollywood in general are left leaning. But yet, FOX News is the only media organization that is so-called "fake" "Bigoted" and with an agenda? And then, whenever you try to explain to them, why FOX thinks it's fair and balanced, (Because it actually seeks out the non bias opinion of the right/republican party.) You get attacked for even thinking about changing the channel.

You lost already, homes. If you are getting attacked it is because of how you present yourself or who you choose to present yourself with. I have no need to attack when I can simply point out to you that FOX itself is the one that went to court and proudly claimed they tell lies for entertainment and fought for the right to do so while calling it news and won. Until you have that kind of ammo on your so called "left" media you lose. Also, please list your two favorite left leaning AM radio shows. All the media is liberal, right?

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

So I ask every liberal here, What's wrong with smaller government?

Nothing, why don't you conservatives get that? Having a huge government made up of bankers who spend all day giving themselves raises to make up new rules is not something liberals invented.

Believing in God?

Well, aside from everything? There really is nothing right about it and if you are suggesting on need to believe in your god in order to be a good person then there really is no talking to you.

Spending within your means, and working hard?

edit on 18-12-2011 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)

Last Rep president charged everything to the nations credit card while this president is getting crap for trying to pay that all off.
The real world is much prettier than Megan Kelly but you might never know.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


How can the media be 'left-wing', when it does everything to maintain the status quo?

How can it be 'left wing', when even the most so called 'liberal' stations still support capitalism, private ownership of the means of production?

First thing Americans need to do is study classical politics. Get an understanding of where it all comes from, and why it is still the same way, but has been twisted in name only to fool you.

The USSR did the same thing, fooled its people into supporting the state by claiming it was something it wasn't. Then the US scapegoated it as an enemy to justify spending your money on the military. Classic fascism, yet you all still think capitalism makes you free.

Wait,...which of the two parties is the one that supports the Constitution?


Oh, right....

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Classic fascism, yet you all still think capitalism makes you free.

edit on 12/18/2011 by ANOK because: typo

If we had true capitalism with respect of property rights; it would make us free. But we have crony capitalism aka fascism which is not capitalism. Capitalism gets a bad wrap because people don't know the difference between the two.

Originally posted by Rothbard
If we had true capitalism with respect of property rights; it would make us free. But we have crony capitalism aka fascism which is not capitalism. Capitalism gets a bad wrap because people don't know the difference between the two.

There is only one version of capitalism, that is the 'private ownership of the means of production'. It is inherently cronyism, and always has been. It is just making itself more obvious at this time.

Fascism is not crony capitalism, even though under fascism it certainly could be. Capitalism is an economic system and grantees you nothing. Freedom only comes to those lucky enough to own capital. Those that don't are at the mercy of the private owners to be allowed the privilege of a 'job'.

'Property rights', or the right to exploit labour, is the problem. Not your personal property, but the right to use property to exploit those who do not own capital. The problem is people coerced to work for less than they produce. Workers have to produce more than they are paid for, in order for the 'private owner' to make profit.

Private property is what makes some Kings, and most of us peasants.

The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign — for all these titles are synonymous — imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once . . . [and so] property engenders despotism . . . That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse . . . if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings — kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion? Proudhon, 'What is Property'

And that is what we have, a government of proprietors (capitalists, ruling classes), and it is chaos and confusion, no?

The liberty and security of the rich do not suffer from the liberty and security of the poor; far from that, they mutually strengthen and sustain each other. The rich man’s right of property, on the contrary, has to be continually defended against the poor man’s desire for property...

Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; then if property is a natural right, this natural right is not social, but anti-social. Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions. Proudhon

Property ownership creates the hierarchy, and inequality, that is abundant in society and the cause of our discontent.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Too far left?
I also thought that, after bush had to borrow the money to invade Iraq. From the COMMIES. lol Gone are the days when there was a ` red under the bed`. Now they are not under the bed, they are in it.

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

So I ask every liberal here, What's wrong with smaller government?

Nothing, why don't you conservatives get that? Having a huge government made up of bankers who spend all day giving themselves raises to make up new rules is not something liberals invented.

No, but liberal politicians have been just as eager to loot the gravy train every chance they get. The Republicans don't make up the totality of Congress, you know?

Believing in God?

Well, aside from everything? There really is nothing right about it and if you are suggesting on need to believe in your god in order to be a good person then there really is no talking to you.

Would you say then that believing in God(s) is evil? If so why? Please provide empirically verifiable objective evidence. Isn't it just as likely to be your subjective moral opinion and not a fact? Freedom of religion is protected by the Bill of Rights along with other speech. Don't like it? I suppose you could try and change it, legally and peacefully I'd hope. And unless I missed something, the OP said NOTHING about being REQUIRED to believe in God(s) to be good, you interpreted it as such and are now putting words in his/her mouth. I agree you should avoid discussing this with the OP, since you seem to have trouble grasping what he's actually said.

Spending within your means, and working hard?

edit on 18-12-2011 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)

Last Rep president charged everything to the nations credit card while this president is getting crap for trying to pay that all off.
The real world is much prettier than Megan Kelly but you might never know.

Obama hasn't been all that eager to cut back on spending though has he? Since Obama was elected we've continued to spend billions yearly financing the War on Terror, he signed ARRA into law at the cost of 787 billion with little of the transparency he promised and little actual recovery. Requests to audit the Federal Reserve and hold it transparently accountable to the American people have also fallen on deaf ears. It seems likely Obama will pass an equally staggering debt on to whoever finally succeeds him.

Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin tarnished by crony corporatism and an indifference to the challenges faced by real people.