Left-Wing Folk

[brightmoon]

Rights are illusions? Not these rights:

Article I - Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.

Article II - The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.

Article III - The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body, no individual can exert authority which does not emanate expressly from it.

Article IV - Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.

Article V - The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order.

From Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen (1789)

Yes by virtue of being alive I am entitled to such rights as described above.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Rights are illusions? Not these rights:

Article I - Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.

Article II - The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.

Article III - The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body, no individual can exert authority which does not emanate expressly from it.

Article IV - Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.

Article V - The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order.

From Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen (1789)

Yes by virtue of being alive I am entitled to such rights as described above.

No. You are only provided those rights by the society you are a part of and their ability to deliver on them. This is why people fight and die for what they believe in. A fact few remember or perhaps ever know.
Here in America liberals ask what we need a military for. We need it to protect our rights and our freedom.

 

[brightmoon]

[MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION] Did you read Article II? The rights themselves are "natural and imprescriptible" that means we are born with them. The goal of "political association" which means the government, is to preserve them by any means necessary which includes military force. We rely on no man or institution to provide us these rights, nor does any institution have the right to revoke them. We only rely on the institutions to conserve them.

 

[MrWonka]

Some questions for all Left-leaning members:

What draws you to the left, over the right?

What are the pros/strengths/benefits/positives/etc. of the left-wing to you?

Any other comments which might help a right-wing crank understand what they're missing.

Empathy would be #1. An ability to understand the problems of other people and a willingness to stand up and fight for those who need it the most.

#2 would be that they have a better understanding of what the purpose of a society is, what it was designed to accomplish, that it was designed to improve the lives of all it's members not just the property owners.

#3 would be a better under standing of science and rational thought including economics. While there may be some on the Left who support welfare type programs and health care reform for bleeding heart reasons,
the true intellectuals who form the basis of the parties thinking understand that it's just flat out good economics that leads to more jobs and an overall stronger society. Trickle down economics does not work, and it never has. Trickle up economics does.

 

[ImaginaryBloke]

Some questions for all Left-leaning members:

What draws you to the left, over the right?

What are the pros/strengths/benefits/positives/etc. of the left-wing to you?

Any other comments which might help a right-wing crank understand what they're missing.

Theoretical inconsistencies

 

[The Ringmaster]

I'm not exactly left wing as I do very strongly believe in gun rights and upholding the constitution. But there are some left wing leanings I have. Mostly social programs and social liberties. I believe people should be allowed to do what they want and I also believe some things like hospital costs would be better off with some government regulation and assistance.

 

[sassafras]

I'll start off by saying I don't really truly identify with the left. I just find the right to be too much of a circus to even entertain the idea of identifying with it. Asking me to identify with the left versus the right is like asking me to choose between eating a piece of old bread or eating some smelly fungus from a rock. Neither is very appealing, but I might be able to stomach the bread.

I can sum up what "draws" me to the left if there is anything and that is: progress

The right does not inherently stand for progress. Individual fiscal progress maybe, but not social or cultural progress. I suppose it's difficult for a right wing person to see their own party lacking in this area, but the age of individual achievement is over. Psychologically and sociologically striving for achievement through cooperation is most beneficial to our species. Wealth distribution is largely, globally already in place and is responsible for raising the bar for entire societies. We are in the age of Macro thinking and right wings are operating on a micro individualistic level.

That being said, I do whole-heartedly believe that the more we move toward socialism, the more dangerously close to an apathetic stagnant world we create. I have no answer here really, other than I'm glad for both parties and I think the two party system is amazing because it constantly pulls the other so that neither one gets out of control. I guess more than anything I am for both parties. It's an amazing system.

I don't really see pros/strength outweighing left over right. To me, the best option is being an independent thinker. As such, my views often fall on the Libertarian line, but I hesitate to "identify" with that as it would simply pigeonhole me into a particular line of thinking.

Positives of the left:

Social Progress
Economic Equality

You couldn't have summed up my view more succinctly.

I'm neither left nor right politically. I can see the shortcomings of both sides and people who passionately declare for one side or the other make me nervous ... especially when they do not acknowledge the consequences of their perspective and see any 'question' of their view as you declaring for the other side. Give me a liberal or a conservative who is able to talk about their party honestly, acknowledge both their strengths and weaknesses, rather than paint things in black and white, and I'll sleep a little better at night.

The way politics are handled these days, however, everyone is whipped up into a frenzy that is more reminiscent of declaring for a sports team than the future of a country.

 

[JJJA]

Empathy would be #1. An ability to understand the problems of other people and a willingness to stand up and fight for those who need it the most.

#2 would be that they have a better understanding of what the purpose of a society is, what it was designed to accomplish, that it was designed to improve the lives of all it's members not just the property owners.

#3 would be a better under standing of science and rational thought including economics. While there may be some on the Left who support welfare type programs and health care reform for bleeding heart reasons,
the true intellectuals who form the basis of the parties thinking understand that it's just flat out good economics that leads to more jobs and an overall stronger society. Trickle down economics does not work, and it never has. Trickle up economics does.

Is this a fact?

 

[Skarekrow]

Is this a fact?

http://www.faireconomy.org/trickle_down_economics_four_reasons

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-santens/trickledown-economics-mus_b_8527636.html

https://psmag.com/the-imf-confirms-...omics-is-indeed-a-joke-207d7ca469b#.iehji6v0l

 

[JJJA]

http://www.faireconomy.org/trickle_down_economics_four_reasons

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-santens/trickledown-economics-mus_b_8527636.html

https://psmag.com/the-imf-confirms-...omics-is-indeed-a-joke-207d7ca469b#.iehji6v0l

After reading this and numerous other articles, I would simply say that this particular debate involves a bunch of right and left wingers spitting at each other over what the government should or shouldn't do.

I think I'll give this one a miss.

 

[Skarekrow]

After reading this and numerous other articles, I would simply say that this particular debate involves a bunch of right and left wingers spitting at each other over what the government should or shouldn't do.

I think I'll give this one a miss.

The US is prime example as to why it doesn’t work in a Capitalist society...Reagan drastically changed tax rates when he took office, which has brought us nothing but economic bubbles, that pop, one seemingly worse than the last.
The economic inequality in the US is pathetic and a direct result of “Reaganonmics”.
The 30+ year experiment in stupidly low tax rates and loopholes, subsides, off-shore havens, tax laws written by the corporations, etc. is over - it has failed.
It did not result in “all boats rising with the tide”.

 

[Skarekrow]

[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION]

Also, if you wanna really try and pick on “left-wing folk” (like anyone leaning that way has something wrong with them...more and more labels).
Anyhow, the “Conservative right-wing” which likes to paint itself in the US as the party of “fiscal responsibility” has failed each and every time.
Both parties are one and the same...we are now pretty solidly an Oligarchy.

Can’t say Obama hasn’t added to it...but the whole notion that Reaganomics (or trickle down economics) has somehow been good for the US is laughable.

 

[Skarekrow]

Just so those of you in Europe and the surrounding regions know, the term liberal here has a different connotation than it does there.
“Neoliberalism" is the US equivalent of “Conservative right-wing”....just fyi.
“Left leaning folk” prefer “Progressive” as opposed to the conservative stagnation.



U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren

40 mins ·

Speaker Paul Ryan just announced the Republicans’ “poverty agenda” – and it looks more like an agenda for creating poverty than reducing it.
In fact, if you look closely, Paul Ryan’s new plan is just a shiny repackaging of Paul Ryan’s old plan: Keep huge tax breaks and special loopholes open for billionaires and giant corporations, gut the rules on Wall Street, then say there’s no money for Social Security, for Medicare, for education, or anything else that will help struggling working families.

Speaker Ryan has fancy new buzzwords, but the American people won’t be duped.
It’s good to see that progressives are ready with a serious agenda to tackle poverty: one that lays out policies to boost wages, improve access to good jobs, ensure fair scheduling at work, and provide real ways to help families get ahead.

We need to fight for policies that level the playing field for working families, rather than set them back.

Paul Ryan is set to roll out a conservative economic agenda.
Here’s a progressive response to it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ic-agenda-heres-a-progressive-response-to-it/

​

The report identifies the core challenges we face: Income has stagnated among most American workers as the top one percent continues to capture an enormous chunk of the income gains in the aftermath of the recession.

Making matters worse, the costs of middle class life, such as child care, higher education, and health care, have been rising faster than wages.

“This squeeze on families’ budgets has made it even harder for Americans to gain a foothold in the middle class,”
the report says, adding that 105 million Americans are either living in poverty or are on the edge of it, with countless families finding themselves unable to save for the future, turning to high-cost borrowing to muddle through, or vulnerable to “financial shocks” that could trap them “in an inescapable cycle of debt.”

 

[Eventhorizon]

Really good article centered on impassioned ignorance, perbaps better known as the foundation of the liberal agenda.
http://personalliberty.com/liberalism-age-impassioned-ignorance/

 

[Eventhorizon]

We are getting a good look at liberals foundational mindset these days. Violence at Trump rallies and ask most liberals in a comfortable setting and they will say, "well what does he expect." Ask about the assassination attempt on Trump and they will say, "Well what does he expect. "

Im looking for and into any groups that want there to be voting regulations. You must be of a certain intelligence, be informed at a certain level of world and national events past and present before being allowed to vote. I think ita reasonable and necessary at this point.

 

[Elegant Winter]

We are getting a good look at liberals foundational mindset these days. Violence at Trump rallies and ask most liberals in a comfortable setting and they will say, "well what does he expect." Ask about the assassination attempt on Trump and they will say, "Well what does he expect. "

Im looking for and into any groups that want there to be voting regulations. You must be of a certain intelligence, be informed at a certain level of world and national events past and present before being allowed to vote. I think ita reasonable and necessary at this point.

It does seem like a lot of liberals find violence perfectly acceptable if it's used against their enemies and not to disrupt their safe spaces.

 

[Skarekrow]

Really good article centered on impassioned ignorance, perbaps better known as the foundation of the liberal agenda.

http://personalliberty.com/liberalism-age-impassioned-ignorance/

Really good article centered on impassioned ignorance, perbaps better known as the foundation of the conservative agenda.
The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science - and Reality

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...cated-conservatives-deny-science--and-reality

We are getting a good look at liberals foundational mindset these days. Violence at Trump rallies and ask most liberals in a comfortable setting and they will say, "well what does he expect." Ask about the assassination attempt on Trump and they will say, "Well what does he expect. "

Im looking for and into any groups that want there to be voting regulations. You must be of a certain intelligence, be informed at a certain level of world and national events past and present before being allowed to vote. I think ita reasonable and necessary at this point.

Make sure that they’re white also....and not poor....or maybe not gay...or who else do you want to disenfranchise...we really have to make sure no liberals vote right?
Because all liberals are stupid and uninformed.
As if Trump is some kind of genius or something because he is rich.
He has yet to lay out his plan for anything...other than his fucking wall and killing everyone in the middle east....where does he stand on any of the actual issues?
No one really knows.
For every person who says they were assaulted by liberals I bet I can find 2 assaults by Trump supporters.
His own party hates him.
And in the polls he is doing terrible...that’s why he fired his Campaign Manager the other night.

 

[Skarekrow]

It does seem like a lot of liberals find violence perfectly acceptable if it's used against their enemies and not to disrupt their safe spaces.

The same can be said of conservatives.
Or the religious right-wing.
Or open carry nut-jobs who bring their AR-15 to Arby’s because they are so brainwashed into thinking they’ll be attacked at any moment...which is statistically false.
Now if you lived in Syria...then by all means, open carry all you want.
I fear the guy who carries the gun out of irrational fear (based on the statistic evidence) more than the one who carries the gun out of necessity.

 

[Elegant Winter]

The same can be said of conservatives.
Or the religious right-wing.
Or open carry nut-jobs who bring their AR-15 to Arby’s because they are so brainwashed into thinking they’ll be attacked at any moment...which is statistically false.
Now if you lived in Syria...then by all means, open carry all you want.
I fear the guy who carries the gun out of fear more than the one who carries the gun out of necessity.

Sure, but the difference is most real conservatives don't pretend to be peace-loving hippies.

As for the kind gentlemen who enjoy exercising their rights as Americans by carrying weapons around, that's fine. It's what our Founding Fathers wanted.

 

[Skarekrow]

Sure, but the difference is most real conservatives don't pretend to be peace-loving hippies.

As for the kind gentlemen who enjoy exercising their rights as Americans by carrying weapons around, that's fine. It's what our Founding Fathers wanted.

There are plenty of “liberals” who find defending our country perfectly acceptable, though they may disagree with conservatives on the reasons for doing so.
I served in United States Coast Guard and I defended my nation...I specifically joined them because I disagree with being shipped overseas to kill someone I have never met for reasons that don’t actually make America any safer....you have to score higher on testing and requirements than all the other branches of the military to be accepted btw before someone infers I’m ignorant for leaning to the left in my views.
They wanted a “Well regulated militia” i.e. The National Guard, if they want to defend the country they can go sign up.