The Science of Fox News: Why Its Viewers are the Most Misinformed

[Brass]

Quote from Epic:

Are we not willing to consider the idea that the existence of both "right" and "left" is necessary to prevent the undesirable aspects of either ideology from running amok?

The middle ground is always the more considered view. Few answers lie at the extremes.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Epic:

Are we not willing to consider the idea that the existence of both "right" and "left" is necessary to prevent the undesirable aspects of either ideology from running amok?

I thought they were BOTH already running amok.

 

[Epic]

Quote from Lucrum:

I thought they were BOTH already running amok.

I would argue that you are correct only because of the extremists in both ideologies. Other than maybe during the civil war, this has to be the most polarized era in US politics.

I view left and right in much the same way that I view executive and judicial. Sometimes they work toward a common end, but many times they simply serve to keep the other in check.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Epic:

I would argue that you are correct only because of the extremists in both ideologies. Other than maybe during the civil war, this has to be the most polarized era in US politics.

Personally I wish we'd either divide into two or more smaller countries like we should have done in 1860. Or go ahead and get the next civil war over with so we can move on already.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Lucrum:

Personally I wish we'd either divide into two or more smaller countries like we should have done in 1860...

So that the South could have continued to enjoy the perks of slavery?

 

[Epic]

Quote from Lucrum:

Personally I wish we'd either divide into two or more smaller countries like we should have done in 1860. Or go ahead and get the next civil war over with so we can move on already.

I'd rather see the emergence of a stronger third party. Libertarianism seems to be the best fit right now.

Dem = socially liberal and fiscally liberal
GOP = Socially and fiscally conservative
Libertarian = Socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

IDIOCY = socially conservative and fiscally liberal

I pointed out that fourth group because that is precisely where the GOP has been headed. I can make a rational argument in favor of any of the first three, but no rational argument can be made in favor of the fourth. It would just be an epic failure compared to the other three and the party would self-destruct within a matter of only a couple elections.

 

[Epic]

Quote from Brass:

So that the South could have continued to enjoy the perks of slavery?

That would depend on whether the democrats still maintained control of the south.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from Brass:

Social hierarchy is the very essence of Right Wing, which I noted earlier:

In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been defined as the support or acceptance of social hierarchy.[1][2][3] Inequality is viewed by the Right as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1] whether it arises though traditional social differences,[4] or from competition in market economies.[5][6]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

And, as we have seen, all of the dictatorial regimes under discussion were very much about hierarchy. The more extreme, the more hierarchical, with the relative few controlling and manipulating the majority.

True Left Wing is much more egalitarian:

In politics, the Left, left-wing and leftists are people or views which support social change to create a more egalitarian society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Egalitarianism:

Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.

http://www.answers.com/topic/egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is the very antithesis of authoritarianism. Therefore, no dictatorial regime is truly Left Wing. Don't allow yourself to get drawn into the hype.

And in response to your question, I consider myself to be center left: social liberal and fiscal conservative. Please don't ask me to explain it further, as I have already done so in the past and more than once.

egalitarian in what sense? the word has seemingly contradictory meanings from the link you posted, and is ambiguous. This is just theoretical nonsense. Every dem and repub could be considered egalitarian. Friedman and Keynes are both egalitarian? Locke and Marx? I believe in natural rights, so did the founders of this country, our entire legal system is based off of these ideas. You can't believe in natural rights AND Marxism, which is essentially the assimilation of private property (a natural right). I also agree with the Friedman concepts of free markets, so I guess I'm egalitarian as well.. yet you and I do not share the same political or economic views so what good is it to describe oneself as egalitarian?

I, and I think most people, view left and right as a quick way to describe an individual's economic stance, not form of govt. Laissez-faire is farthest right, keynes and socialism are somewhere in the middle or center-left, and Communism is the the farthest left. As far as social hierarchy, there has never been a system of govt which doesn't have one. I think it is naive to believe that such a system would be sustainable or even possible. in a free market the best able to compete are going to prosper the most.. what is more fair than that?

Authoritarianism is a form of govt, not an economic system. Anarchy, not egalitarianism is its antithesis.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Brass:

So that the South could have continued to enjoy the perks of slavery?

So that 620,000 Americans could have lived.
So that the US federal government's power could have been kept in check and or states rights been respected.

Slavery would have died out within several decades anyway, without the war.

 

[Trader666]

This from the ignoranus who couldn't even parrot a central idea from a book by Stephen Hawking he claims to have read.

Quote from Brass:

Sorry, Piggy, but you're just being a parrot:

Quote from Brass:

And until you do so, you will be little more than a parrot.