This guy is redefining what “left” is then? Cause when I think left I think Communism, Marxism, NAZIism, etc. When I think right I think Islam, Roman Empire, that sort of thing.

Left = state
Right = enterprise

Yes, these are pathetically simplistic definitions. I do live in a country in which your Democratic party is regarded as to the political right of our most right wing party though, keep that in mind. And what I see every day horrifies me. There are actual international conferences that won’t come here now, for fear of being prosecuted under “hate speech” laws.

If my blog or posts are hosted in Canada, I can actually be JAILED for criticising feminism under “hate speech” laws.

That’s the political left for you.

Neither side of the spectrum is lily-white. But the tendency of the left to sermonize is all it takes to make me dislike it intensely.

You now seem pre-disposed to not listen to him– perhaps the idea that “left” could possibly mean anything other than “liberal” is completely foreign to you– but Smith gives a fuller explanation of the difference in here, and perhaps its title alone will entice you: “What’s the Matter With Liberals?”

The Left is about SMALLER gov’t? LESS intrusion? Huh?

The left, via PC-ism, has introduced legislation on everything from whether or not you can restrict access to your business, to what you are allowed to SAY in a public place…….wow, I can’t even think right now. Let’s just say this is the most convoluted twist of logic I’ve ever seen.

The left is about the State. The collective.

It’s about Hate Speech/Crime laws (bad thoughts = crime/more severe crime? WTF??) It’s about increasing levels of intrusion in our lives.

All of the intrusions listed above would have been impossible had government not done them first. As to where the biggest threat to individual liberty, autonomy and privacy is:

“Good intentions” from the government, hands down. They’ve proven that time and again the world over.

Maybe it’s a bad strategy. Maybe it’s too late to redefine it. Maybe there’s just too many people out there, like you, who instantly see bright red the instant anyone uses the word “Liberal”. Because even though I’m sure I don’t agree with you on many issues, the fact is that you and I could be fighting for a lot of the same things. I don’t want to alienate you, I want to work with you. If one stupid word gets in the way of this, let’s chuck out the word.

So you’re not a Liberal. Are you a Lefty?

That’s a good read….and germaine.

anyway, as a Canadian, I am more than familiar with American Television. Hell, I’ve even been to the States once or twice! But I daresay I have about as much familiarity with economics and human motivation as anyone else, and I have to ask:

Why is the fact that Liberal agendas (like expanding the availability of mortgages to encompass more minorities to increase their share of home ownership (a laudable goal, I might add) continually escape the “menu of things responsible for this mess” when I watch TV?

It’s not that I object to the principle….I most certainly don’t. I just don’t understand how Liberal-, or Progressive-thinkers are automatically supposed to be right, 100% of the time, or the sky will fall!

Keep in mind, I live in the very city where nationalized Health Care was born as a concept in Canada. A province which has had an NDP (socialist) government for over 80% of it’s history. A Province widely regarded as Communist, in a country that most Americans view as only slightly removed from a Communist country….. so I think I’m not ill-informed on the effects of Socialism, or Liberalism (given the fact that our (national) Natural Governing Party actually is called the Liberal Party…and lives up to the name).

What I can tell you is this: the vast majority of Socialists would better be described as Socialites, or failing that, Academics. Scratch a Socialist and you’ll find his/her income depends on the Govt in some way, shape or form (in a relatively significant manner).

Most of us are sick and tired of still more tax breaks, and programs for and to help special interest groups, like single Moms, or minorities, or those with bad credit. Because the net result of most of these expensive programs is almost always an even bigger problem, that requires more resources, staff, and taxes (whoah, let me get you a chair, I’m sorry to shock you like that)…a self-perpetuating bureaucracy? Perish the thought.

Frankly, I think the Liberal Agenda of bringing minority families up to “parity” with white families (assuming there is a need, and that this is indeed a priority) would be far better served by…..well, just stop kicking the legs out from under the guys all the time.

Really. How is a minority man supposed to be “responsible” when he’s surrounded by both racist (which we both agree is a bad thing) as well as sexist (and that one belongs to feminism) messages daily? How is he supposed to get ahead when he owes 75% of his take home pay in Child Support? Or worse, is in jail for inability to pay? How is he supposed to avoid these issues when he has no right to decide if he wants to be a parent, and is also afforded the least effective (and numerically sparse) methods of birth control? With an educational system that has decided he doesn’t matter, and even if they did care, the curriculum would put him at a disadvantage by it’s very nature?

More importantly, given the way he is regarded and addressed in society, why would he bother?

All of these are issues that arose due to Liberal politics. All of those Liberal policies likely began with the desire to help these people out, a mindset I can definitely get behind, especially given my economic status. But NONE of them would have happened if any of the enactors had an iota of understanding of human nature.

Either that, or this is exactly the desired effect.

(shiver)