Why is ATS so Right Wing?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: olaru12
Jeb Bush is a dyed in the wool neocon, playing the political perception game, trying to lure in the moderates.
However when the Iran war starts, and it will, he will pretend to be the Right Wing darling to drum up the support all wars need to be profitable. It's an established "Bush" pattern. You haven't noticed?

Based on warmongering being your qualifier for neo-conism, I'm assuming you believe most of DC is neocon, including the presiding administration? Sorry to sound jaded, but trying to apply misuse of America's military and full support of the M.I.C. to one party over the other is simply not supported by recent history.

As in all things political and all wars since the Big One were political.....follow the money and who profits.

a reply to: beezzer

No. Michael Crichton leaned to the right, so his stupid dinosaurs would too. It wouldn't be a level playing field.

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

That's because Rand is more libertarian.

In terms of policy, a libertarian will hesitate to try to legislate social issues because they tend to believe in personal liberty and responsibility.

They also believe that the more you try to legislate, the more impossible it is to be fiscally conservative which is also the libertarian position.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Chris Christie's recent remarks about cracking down on marijuana legalization make him a true Republican.

They do? Are most of these Democrat governors also really Republicans, then? www.nytimes.com...

Like I said, man, I'm fringe. I'm way out there in wacko extremist land on my personal beliefs. As a result, my political positions and comments should be the easiest to shoot down... but I keep seeing people trying to define political allegiance based off of single talking points and single positions, which is a complete fool's errand! For every single so-called "true Republican" position, I can find a dozen Democrat politicians who support the same supposedly "true-Republican" position. Someone is going to have to come up with some better qualifiers to make their arguments hold water.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: olaru12
Jeb Bush is a dyed in the wool neocon, playing the political perception game, trying to lure in the moderates.
However when the Iran war starts, and it will, he will pretend to be the Right Wing darling to drum up the support all wars need to be profitable. It's an established "Bush" pattern. You haven't noticed?

Based on warmongering being your qualifier for neo-conism, I'm assuming you believe most of DC is neocon, including the presiding administration? Sorry to sound jaded, but trying to apply misuse of America's military and full support of the M.I.C. to one party over the other is simply not supported by recent history.

As in all things political...follow the money and who profits.

Burd is right. It's not one party. It's the regular asshats, both sides, that continue to allow the MIC to continue to go to the bank.... on yours and mine's dime. It beautiful when you use another's money to advance your own agenda. JFK tried and died. Reagan thought he was bigger than them...he got shot.

originally posted by: olaru12
As in all things political and all wars since the Big One were political.....follow the money and who profits.

Yeah, considering both sides of the aisle have close to equal investment levels in military stocks and big oil stocks, virtually all politicians profit from war. Partisanship plays little to no role in that as both parties are war (and whore) mongers, ESPECIALLY the closer to centrist ground they stand. Far Right doesn't want war, we want isolationism... let the world destroy itself, we'll remain here with our bowls of popcorn and our DISPROPORTIONATE RESPONSE waiting deployment should somebody decide to take a shot at US soil.

a reply to: JUhrman

The rest of the world DOESN'T fall into the traditional (or European) left/right paradigm, not as I understand it. In Europe, the argument is between fascist and communist with fascist being right and communist being left. At either end of the spectrum, you have tyranny by the government.

In the US, the axis is between anarchy and tyranny so that fascism and communism are both on the left and anarchists (who traditionally march with the leftists are actually more on the right). What the left traditionally wants is an ever increasing role for the state in controlling everything. What the right wants is a vastly diminished role for the state. The COTUS as written was intended to be a cage for the government constraining it from meddling in the affairs of the people and the states. It is as Obama has labeled it a document of negative liberties that outlines what the government may not do, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's what it's supposed to do. We are supposed to be a free and self-reliant people which is supposed to be our strength, not a flaw. And you undermine those traits when you start dictating to us what our government will do and/or force us to do.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The only problem with that is in the days of nukes, someone else's shots get really messy these days. If India and Pakistan decide to have a go at each other, their mess winds up in our laps whether we stay out of it or no.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thats an american caricature if you seriously believe we choose between fascism and communism. Actually its more like center left and center right. Fascist and communist are extreme parties here.

Also its very funny you would consider the country that created the patriot act as leaning more to anarchy than statism.

The US parties are extremely far from the anarchist stance.

originally posted by: ketsuko
their mess winds up in our laps whether we stay out of it or no.

This is where the cost benefit ratio comes into play. On the national level, do we receive a benefit (previously known as "spoils") equal or exceeding our costs of action? Conversely, do the financial savings of staying put meet or exceed the cost anticipated in the aftermath of whatever is going to go down?

Personally, I pretty much feel that India Pakistan is or should be between India and Pakistan with international interests only focusing on "How will you two compensate us for cleaning up whatever mess spills into our land from your screw ups?"

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

Far Right doesn't want war, we want isolationism... let the world destroy itself, we'll remain here with our bowls of popcorn

Somehow, in this world of (oxymoronic) 'Free Trade Agreements', I don't think you'll be able to isolate America from the rest of the world... not when Corporate America is benefiting from the cheap labor that international trade affords. Yay for Reaganomics.

Perhaps that popcorn might the only American product available to you... the bowl not so much.

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: ketsuko

Thats an american caricature if you seriously believe we choose between fascism and communism. Actually its more like center left and center right. Fascist and communist are extreme parties here.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that's the axis. Those are the extreme ends. Just like there are very few true anarchists here and true communists/fascists. But the wrangling that goes on takes you back and forth on the axis between those two extremes. You aren't going to get there very often.

Obviously, there are exceptions. Italy and Germany reached one end. The USSR hit the other. The rest of you bounce around in between which keeps you from living in tyranny.

For us it's a bit different. At one end we have state controlled tyranny of one form or another and at the other end we have complete anarchy. We bounce around between more and less personal liberty.

And who said anything about the parties? They have little to do with right and left.

a reply to: ketsuko

I have yet to see which US party leans to more anarchy. The GOP pushed for a police state. Both your parties are the opposite of anarchy.

So your spectrum is between different forms of tyranny if I follow your logic since only these two parties ever rule the country.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

With conventional weaponry, I'd agree, but with radiation and fallout ... It gets less clear cut. They won't be in a position to compensate and clean up themselves, let alone anyone else they ruin. Not to mention, I think we'd have to stand in line behind China.

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: ketsuko

I have yet to see which US party leans to more anarchy. The GOP pushed for a police state. Both your parties are the opposite of anarchy

I repeat -- where was I talking about parties? Parties have nothing to do with left and right. You sound exactly like the people who want to equate Republican with Conservative.

a reply to: ketsuko

So you're saying that a libertarian looks more conservative than he really is on paper?

👣

a reply to: ketsuko

We are talking about politics. Anarchist have zero political power in your country. At best we are talking about hippies attending the burning man.

There are anarchists here too and they don't do politics neither.

We are talking about the American political spectrum. Anarchists are irrelevant in politics

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: ketsuko

I have yet to see which US party leans to more anarchy. The GOP pushed for a police state. Both your parties are the opposite of anarchy

Quite frankly few people understand anarchy. Punk rock exploited the term but didn't understand the philosophy. Anarchy is the epitome of personal responsibility.

a reply to: intrepid

The epitome of personal responsibility is no government at all.

Anarchists can never win an election in the current american system. They truly ate not part of the spectrum. Someone who chooses not to vote in the US simply gives a mandate for the biggest party to govern him.

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: ketsuko

So you're saying that a libertarian looks more conservative than he really is on paper?

👣

I'm saying that I'd trust a true libertarian before I'd trust a liberal. The libertarian may be a complete libertine, but he also believes in and understands the meaning of live and let live which means I will be left alone. At the same time, he believes that I should be entitled to keep the lion's share of what I earn and he'll safeguard my personal rights. I'll stand with him on that.

But hey, I am a libertarian conservative. I live my life conservatively and believe that's the best way and will defend those beliefs, but I'm usually not going to support laws to that effect (abortion is the big difference but it's to defend another human's right to life).

But on the converse that also means I think people should be responsible for themselves and their actions and the consequences of those actions. That generally means I get branded as cold and mean.