Are you sure that’s what they’re saying? If so, you may be confusing leftists and racists…
Is it not possible that both a “leftist” and “rightist” could believe in individual rights and respect the individual?
Leftists are the ones with the pointy hoods and white robes, I think.
On the first point, no doubt about it. Maybe we connect with different groups of leftists, but I’d advise you to give it a try. See if a leftist can discuss vouchers for five minutes without saying something disparaging about ghetto parents.
On the second point, it’s definitely possible. I’ve seen very little of it from leftists, but enough to know it’s possible.
BTW, do you believe “If you’re smart enough to earn it, you’re smart enough to spend it?” You didn’t comment on that. 
Alternate response: Is this just one more example of a leftist who can’t respond without showing contempt for another human being? Or am I reading something into this?
Not to start a debate or anything here, but Kerry’s views on issues are spelled out on his web site.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/
Agree or not, you can’t say he doesn’t have an opinion.
You do realize Hitler was a “rightist” don’t you?
Do your beliefs align with his?
I’ve done so in the past. I’ll concede that there are “leftists” out there who would oppose vouchers on racist grounds, but there are legitimate reasons to oppose vouchers (I’m sure somewhere in the GD archives there’s a thread on vouchers full of their non-racist opponents), and I doubt that all, or most, “leftists” share the views of those you’ve spoken to. And I’m sure that somewhere there’s a “rightist” justifying his support of vouchers in a racist manner, but again, I highly doubt that all, or most, “rightists” share that view. There’s wackjobs on both sides of pretty much every debate, but most people’s views, while differing, are fairly reasonable.
Perhaps I’m starting to show my lack of sleep, but I’m not quite sure what you mean. Could you explain?
I meant nothing more than to creatively disagree with your position.
Ya. Sure. The leader of the National Socialist party, who is on record as favoring socialized health care and land redistribution for poor farmers, is a Right-winger. :rolleyes: Whatever.
Saying that Hitler was a Right-winger may be a useful fiction that the Left needs to repeat to itself, but that don’t make it so. That Hitler was also a bit racist and known to be a tad authoritarian is more important than that, but Hitler was a Leftist. Sure, Hitler may not have been as far to the Left as Stalin, but they would have been sitting on the same side of the aisle.
I will point out that your question implies that wealth is the product of intelligence. Ninety five percent of all people die in the same economic class they are born in. Smarts ain’t got a whole lot to do with it. Your phrase would more accurately be rephrased, “If you’re lucky enough to earn it, you’re lucky enough to spend it” and you’ll see why your ideas are full of shit.
http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/history/bl_hitler_rise_of_nazi.htm
http://www.aicgs.org/at-issue/ai-ruschmann.shtml
Need more?
You’ve said this before in a “I believe” sort of way many times. But this is the first time I’ve seen you use numbers. Do you have any evidence for this at all? Not trying to be rude, or anything, I’m just curious.
Aldebaran,
many people are:
- evil;
- pig-headed and;
- ignorant.
Often all three at once. It’s a sizeable constituency.
Salaam.
Well, first of all, having read and reread the OP several times now, I can’t say I find it “condescending.”
“Appalled” might be a better term.
I can understand that. Bush appalls me, too. So do people who mindlessly support him. Then again, rabid aggressive mindlessness in the pursuit or support of ANY cause appalls me. I’ve NEVER understood how someone can be so willing to cut his own throat in support of a leader who ain’t got the best interests of the country or his own people at heart.
I’d die for my country, sure… but I ain’t gonna die for Wal-Mart, or Pfizer, or even Halliburton. No matter how much Dick and Ashcroft and the boys wanna tell me that they are all one and the same.
Patriotism is one thing… but Bush is not America. A lot of people don’t seem to understand this. Then again, a lot of people never understood that Nixon wasn’t America, either, at least not until he resigned and got in the big helicopter and flew away. And even then, they didn’t wanna hear that they were wrong.
Bush is a President who took command of a country at peace with a burgeoning economy, and within four years the economy’s in a shambles, we have thousands fewer jobs than we did when he started, and we’re fighting two separate wars. Sure, 9/11 could be blamed… but 9/11 was not quite three years ago. Man, we cleaned up half the PLANET in only FOUR years, 1941-1945!
But, then, the men in charge back then weren’t “improving education” by screwing it sideways, “improving the economy” by frittering away a tax surplus, then cutting taxes for the rich, and starting wars in Iraq for reasons that change periodically, based on whichever way the political wind is blowing.
To answer your question, Aldebaran, I have no freakin’ clue. I’m appalled, too. Not condescending. Appalled.
Which Jihadis?
How can you say Bush isn’t America? He won the election and has had consistently high approval ratings. He isn’t terribly liked in the big cities but as far as I can gather, middle America loves him.
More useful fiction? Nah.
Your first cite in no way contradicts what I said. Nazism and Communism may have been in conflict, but that in no way makes one Right just because the other is Left. Both ideologies share many ideas. Too many to make one the polar opposite of the other. Nazism can be summed up as low-grade socialism with some racism tacked on. The added helping of racism doesn’t push them to the ther end of the spectrum.
Your third ‘cites’ makes little sense:
Oh? I was unaware that left-wing groups do not stress the differences of social groups. I suppose I must accept the National Organization of Women as a right-wing extremist ideology? Or the Black Panthers? Or Mecha? The list of left wing groups that use one of the above mentioned criteria goes on for quite some time. That cite is just plain stupid.
Zogby: Bush approval hits record low of 42%, Kerry leads Bush 47/42
CNN/Time: Bush disapproval (49%) higher than approval, Kerry leads Bush 51/46
Take a look at this graph of Bush’s approval throughout his presidency. There’s a downward trend since 9/11, with the start of the war and Saddam’s capture providing small, fleeting bounces.
For a guy who “wasn’t America”, how did he win one of the biggest landslides in American history?
The very simple answer to the OP is this: sometimes the American voter has to choose between getting a kick in the ass, and a huge kick square in the f*cking nuts!
As others have said, why would I vote for someone who is completely opposite to my positions? As a social/economic conservative (with some libertarian slants) I find W. a bit (just a bit) of a kick in the ass. But John Kerry would definately be a huge kick square in my f*cking nuts. I will vote for Bush in 2004.
But pkbites, isn’t it a kick square in the bizzalls to vote for someone so flagrantly dishonest, partisan, and corrupt as Bush? Would it not be better to vote for Kerry, or a third party candidate, and not be complicit in the trainwreck that is the Bush administration? At some point, doesn’t a candidate’s stunning disrespect for American democracy overrule their politics?
For what it’s worth, if Bush was a Democrat who I agreed with on most issues, my answers would be no, no, and no. I can see your point, pk; this is just a roundabout way of saying that.
no, yes, no. I think. Damn confusing post.