There's no radical left in America.

While I was in college, I purchased supplemental insurance through the college as part of my tuition. It paid for knee surgery and shoulder surgery from a skiing injury and a rugby injury. You should check into that.

0 Replies

This thread seems to have gotten off topic (what else is new? Cool

) and driven its originator from the flow.

We have had one definition of the radical left.

It only seems fair that we get a definition of the radical right, especially since there are so many on this thread that agree that there is no radical left but there is very definitely a radical right.

It might be pushing things but could someone also tell me who some members of the radical right are? And please don't bother to answer if it's some lame response like "There are too many to name."

The ancillary discussion healthcare is interesting, but if we could, I'd like to get back to the original topic. If not, that's fine too, we can save this for another day.

Do those who believe that there is a radical left also believe there is a radical right? Are they of a comparative size and degree of influence or does one surpass the other?

I can't recall if any of our European friends have joined the discussion, but I feel certain that they would comment that compared to the rest of the world there is no left (radical or otherwise) in America. Do you think that's the case, and is it at all relevant how the political spectrum in America compares that in of the rest of the world?

Thank you

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

and driven its originator from the flow.

I'm just kind of lurking at this point. It has gotten off topic but there are some great posts from both sides. I was disappointed that the thread got off to a rocky start but picked up in the middle and it's made for some interesting reading during the last couple of days.

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
and driven its originator from the flow.

I'm just kind of lurking at this point. It has gotten off topic but there are some great posts from both sides. I was disappointed that the thread got off to a rocky start but picked up in the middle and it's made for some interesting reading during the last couple of days.

Welcome back rover

Care to answer my questions from your perspective?

0 Replies

Well I don't believe that there is a radical left that has any influence on our society, but there is a huge radical right and they are in power right now. So obviously I would put Bush in that category along with his vice president and most of his cabinet. I would say that about 50% of the republicans in congress are radically right.

Most of political talk radio is radically right. They have to be radical or people wouldn't listen. Because it would be boring. I'd say that most of the liberal talk radio that's out there is middle of the road. That's why it's not doing as well in the ratings. But they are starting to close the ratings gap. Mainly because Bush keeps messing up!

Among many other issues I would say that anybody that thinks that the bible overrides the U.S. constitution is radically right. But I wouldn't put people that want to keep the words "Under God" in the pledge in the far right category, mainly because the majority of Americans want it in there. I do not want those words there so I am left of center on that issue. But I'm not radical left because I'm not trying to get them removed. People that are trying to get it removed would be radically left. So, there is a small radical left element in this country. But they are so small and insignificant that they will never get anything accomplished. They are only speaking so loudly on this issue because they have separation of church and state on their side. The radical right are those that want to eliminate separation of church and state.

Radically right people would include pharmacists that deny a customer's prescription because they disagree with abortion. But someone that disagrees with abortion wouldn't be radically right. They are only radically right if they impose their beliefs on others and infringe upon someone's rights in the process.

Pornographers are radically left. People that are trying to stamp out pornography are radically right. The rest of us in the center just buy the stuff.

I could go on and on, and probably will add more later, but this is enough for now.

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

I could go on and on, and probably will add more later...

Please don't.

It is obvious that you have a skewed perception of reality: e.g. Conservative radio personalities are radical right while Liberal radio personalities are moderates.

If someone declares that Martians are invading the Earth through our dental fillings, do we need them to get more specific?

I gave you the opportunity to be reasanble and you threw it in my face.

Goodnight Gracie!

0 Replies

roverroad, under your description, our founders would be radical right. They were to the right of George Bush I think without question.

The fact that the current Democrat leaders and past presidential candidates had some pretty radical left ideas is a pretty good indication to me that there are alot more radical leftists around than those in the radical right. There has to be for people like that to be elected. These guys are all big time leftists. One only needs to look at what they've said. Things like Bush may have known about 911 before it happened, the internal combustion engine is the biggest threat to mankind, American soldiers commit atrocities on a regular basis, etc. I consider these types of attitudes to be pretty far out in left field.

For those that think Bush, Cheney, and others are radical right, I would challenge somebody to come up with something to demonstrate that assertion. That leaves me scratching my head for sure.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Goodnight Gracie!

Sorry if it got too complicated for you. Come on back if you decide you want to have a conversation.

okie,
Our founders were definitely not to the right of Bush. How do you come up with that assessment? Are you basing that on their religion? Because our founding fathers weren't Christians and they didn't found the government on Christianity. If you want links to back that up I will provide several.

I don't want this to get into a debate over why I hate Bush, but if you don't see Bush as a radical and far to the right, but instead, more to the middle of the road than we are living in two different countries. This is a man that tramples over our constitution and says it's just a piece of paper. He takes neo fascism farther than any president has ever taken it. He tramples all over the working class, that doesn't make him middle of the road.

0 Replies

I just joined this forum but here we are again, people like yourself claiming Bush is a radical right winger. That is an absolutely incredible belief. I've been around to watch politics since the 50's, my friend, and Bush in the 50's would have been considered a liberal. One of your Democrat Party's candidates, Hubert Humphrey was considered a liberal then but now he would be a right winger based on what you are saying.

As far as our founders being Christian, I don't know where you get your information, but virtually all of them were members of established orthodox churches of the colonies.

If you've attended college in recent years and swallowed the indoctrination there, it could explain your beliefs. Maybe you can enlighten me on where your opinions were most influenced from, from parents, teachers, friends, ?? How old are you and what perspective of history do you have here?

P.S. I am a member of the working class and I don't feel trampled on. Do you and I live on the same planet?

0 Replies

Okie
FYI
The Faith of our Founding Fathers, by Dean Worbois

Quote:

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I just joined this forum but here we are again, people like yourself claiming Bush is a radical right winger. That is an absolutely incredible belief. I've been around to watch politics since the 50's, my friend, and Bush in the 50's would have been considered a liberal. One of your Democrat Party's candidates, Hubert Humphrey was considered a liberal then but now he would be a right winger based on what you are saying.

As far as our founders being Christian, I don't know where you get your information, but virtually all of them were members of established orthodox churches of the colonies.

If you've attended college in recent years and swallowed the indoctrination there, it could explain your beliefs. Maybe you can enlighten me on where your opinions were most influenced from, from parents, teachers, friends, ?? How old are you and what perspective of history do you have here?

P.S. I am a member of the working class and I don't feel trampled on. Do you and I live on the same planet?

Then you aren't paying much attention okie.

The 4th year in a row, real wages for the middle class have declined. You are probably earning less today in real dollars than you did 4 years ago.

Hubert Humphrey would be a RWer today? Based on what? Cite me a single program proposed or championed by Humphrey that would make him RW. Bush would hardly have been a liberal in the 50s. Spying on US citizens wasn't proposed by liberals then. Liberals were for the minimum wage in the 50s. Bush is against it. Liberals were for civil rights. Bush has done little to nothing for civil rights. Humphrey introduced legislation for health care for the aged in 1949. Humphrey pushed through the Test Ban treaty. (which Bush is proposing to go around.)

0 Replies

As a European, from my point of view, American politics is skewed to the right. Frankly, the Democrats don't seem very left-wing to me and I'm thinking because of the right-wing nature of most of the country, they can't be too left.

Most of the time, America's enemy was Communism, which was supposedly left-wing. It was only natural for America to distance itself from the opposing side as much as possible. Quite a few left wing elements that seem perfectly normal in Europe, thus were sacrificed.

That's not to say that America is insanely skewed over to the right. That would be ridiculous. You're not as right-wing as Nazi Germany was, I can tell you that. Although sometimes the patriotism you guys show can be quite scary.

The thing is, the right is far more vocal in America than what passes for the left. Perhaps this is what gives us Europeans the impression that your country's political spectrum is skewed.

Still, I cannot judge properly until someone shows me a few Democratic pledges. You know, what they planned to pass off as law.

How many times have the Democrats tried to introdude a National Healthcare System, for example?

0 Replies

Okie

Quote:

A surprise awaits America's highest earners when they file their 2006 tax returns. Their taxes are going down again - whether or not Congress passes the investor tax cuts the lawmakers have been promising. On New Year's Day, two additional tax cuts will kick in, allowing people who earn upward of $200,000 a year to claim bigger write-offs for a spouse, their children and other expenses, like mortgage interest on a vacation home.
The bolstered write-offs were enacted in 2001, but with a delayed start date because of their high cost: According to congressional estimates, the new breaks will cost $27 billion over the short term, exploding to $146 billion from 2010 through 2019. By then, most of the benefits would flow to taxpayers who make more than $1 million a year.
With the United States deep in debt, at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Congress voting last month to slash programs for health care and student loans, and with a debilitating shortfall building in Medicare, the decision by Congress to let these particular tax breaks take effect now is flabbergasting.

During his first year in office, President George W. Bush set off a tax-cutting frenzy when he proposed to give back the Clinton-era budget surplus via hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. The tax cuts of 2001, followed by those of 2002 and 2003, have busted the budget. The surplus - the original rationale for the tax cuts - is long gone, replaced by a deficit projected to reach $530 billion by 2015, if the cuts are made permanent.
And yet Bush and Congress persist with tax cuts - for people who don't need the extra help and for purposes that have nothing to do with the country's obvious problems.
It's a heck of a way to begin the new year.

Tax cuts for the wealthy are sacrosanct. The needy should fend for themselves.
Sort of reminds me of what Marie Antonette said when told the people had no bread to eat. "Let them eat cake"

0 Replies

The only echo of the 50's that can be seen in our government today is the similarity between Bush and Senator Joseph McCarthy, He championed fear of communists as a weapon and Bush uses fear of terrorists. Same tactic different times bring different boogie men.

0 Replies

The Democrats are in many ways much more to the right than they used to be in the 60s, but that reflects a right leaning voter base.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

The only echo of the 50's that can be seen in our government today is the similarity between Bush and Senator Joseph McCarthy, He championed fear of communists as a weapon and Bush uses fear of terrorists. Same tactic different times bring different boogie men.

And a barely audible echo it is; only heard, if at all, because the word "fear" is always associated with the word "threat."

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Then you aren't paying much attention okie.

The 4th year in a row, real wages for the middle class have declined. You are probably earning less today in real dollars than you did 4 years ago.

Hubert Humphrey would be a RWer today? Based on what? Cite me a single program proposed or championed by Humphrey that would make him RW. Bush would hardly have been a liberal in the 50s. Spying on US citizens wasn't proposed by liberals then. Liberals were for the minimum wage in the 50s. Bush is against it. Liberals were for civil rights. Bush has done little to nothing for civil rights. Humphrey introduced legislation for health care for the aged in 1949. Humphrey pushed through the Test Ban treaty. (which Bush is proposing to go around.)

Hubert Humphrey was soundly against abortion, as was Edmund Muskie. Just one example. Gay marriage proposals then would not have seen the light of day. JFK believed in tax cuts to stimulate the economy, so he believed in trickle down, he tried it and it worked. If you want to talk about Civil Rights, don't try to convince anybody that Democrats led the way historically. Welfare programs, yes. Civil Rights, no. I would imagine Humphrey was a big welfare and big government guy, yes I would agree, but so is Bush. He has pumped more money into the Federal Dept. of Education than almost anybody and now has come up with the Prescription Drug plan, neither being right wing conservative programs. Per war policy, who took us into Vietnam big time, answer, your beloved LBJ. Actually, Nixon was a liberal in some respects and tried price controls, which only accomplished the opposite effect. Talk about Bush and civil rights, who has had more minorities in high cabinet positions these days? Spying on Americans has not only been proposed, it has been done by most administrations in the last 50 years, including your beloved Clinton. I would say in the war on terror, spying on Americans communicating with terrorist figures is not only called for, it is absolutely essential. And I would point out there was no war on terror in the 50's where a Bin Laden was attempting to possibly smuggle a suitcase nuclear device into American to perhaps kill a few hundred thousand or millions of people. If Bush does not intercept terrorist suspected communications, he is not doing his job plain and simple.

As far as the economy, most Americans are living better today than ever in history. I remember the 50's.

One last observation about the economy. Face it, we live in a world economy now, not because of Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, whoever. The world has gotten closer together. Because of the lower standard of living in other countries, combined with the track record of unions and other factors driving our standard and wages up here, manufacturing of goods is moving overseas. Not Bush's fault. To compete in this economy, you must educate yourself for higher wage jobs or find your niche here in the service sector, otherwise you will be stuck flipping hamburgers for minimum wage. Not Bush's fault. But even at minimum wage, with proper management, you can still live more decently than 50 years ago, but you won't live in a 2500 square foot home with a 3 car garage like many do. Such a home was unheard of in the 50's. Now it is commonplace. Why do you think people are streaming across the border into our country? If it was so bad, they would stay where they are.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Okie
FYI
The Faith of our Founding Fathers, by Dean Worbois

I read all of your dope from Dean Worbois. I don't know who that guy is, but a simple search of the internet turned up literally reams of stuff by the man on liberal websites. Some of it refers to the subject of homosexuality in the Bible, with him apparently trying to make some case about that, I don't know what, but really I could care less. He must be your liberal handbook reference these days.

Without going into alot of detail here, it is obvious that he selectively extracted his quotes to support his case, which is clearly anti-Christian or anti-religious. And I have no way of knowing if his quotes are accurate, but even if they are, I can clearly see how they can be taken out of context. One must recognize that yes, these men wanted to avoid what had happened in the old country, whereby churches were intertwined with government. I won't deny that. That is obvious and quite known by all. I would agree that many were even perhaps anti- organized religion. It may surprise you that I am myself. However, to take his case to the point of those men being anti-God or not being deeply full of personal faith in one God, I would strongly disagree. I think you can take the Declaration of Independence and a host of writings, including our laws, and it is clear that our framework of laws are based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. Simply read and study the Old Testament law and the connections and principles should be clear.

Take a look further down in history and nobody can deny that Lincoln was deeply religious, although perhaps not involved in a particular denomination. I don't think we are talking about the prominence of denominations here, we are talking about personal religious faith in one God, after the manner of the Judeo Christian tradition.

Also, how do you explain the common occurrence of religious sayings and other references to God in many of our institutions, in branches of government, on our money, carved in memorials, our Declaration of Independence, you name it. It started from Day 1 and has persisted into current times. Your Democrat hero, FDR, referred to his faith, our country's faith, many references, he also prayed, yes prayed, concerning our war effort. I only use him as an example. Virtually all presidents have. Even Clinton claimed he did.

To now suggest our country had nothing to do with religious faith is not only wrong, it is utterly preposterous.

But just in case you think I want to establish some "religious theocracy," let me relieve your paranoia, I don't. However, I think to outlaw all reference to God in governing is not only ill advised, but a very slippery slope. On what basis may I ask would any law have any reason to exist?

0 Replies

Okie,
Your posts all show that you have a right wing agenda and they only prove the point of this thread. You should be on radical right wing radio because you could easily fill in for Shawn Hannity. You have a lot to say in your posts, but like Hannity you make outrageous far right statements.

I have read from multiple sources, not just from this guy on the internet that the founding fathers were not all Christians and they actually wanted to separate the government from religion. They put it in the constitution for crying out loud.

Go to the library, you will find several books that discuss religion and the founding of America. This isn't people trying to rewrite history. It's people trying to keep history in tact because it has been well altered by today's text books.

Nobody denies that there has been a lot of religious influence in our government. Most of it happened in the 1900's. But to imply that our founding fathers were God fearing Christians and that they designed our government right out of the pages of the bible is just flat out wrong.

0 Replies

I am not arguing with you about separating organized religion from government. I am simply asserting that the founders believed in God and the government they established clearly demonstrate that fact, and that many religious principles (not denominations) are intertwined in our nature of government.

We agree that organized religion was not a part of government. You are trying to take it a step further and assert the men were not religious. I disagree. I have no desire to have the government run by religion. What I do object to is the suggestion that you cannot be religious to be involved in government. And I am beginning to hear that hint coming over the horizon.

I see that nobody's rights are being violated. I think we need tolerance and respect for each others beliefs, thats all. We can just agree to disagree.

0 Replies

There's no radical left in America.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know