BF2S Forums Rush Limbaugh Slams Obama's Response to Haiti Earthquake

JohnG@lt wrote:

Most of us in the middle really don't give a shit

you're...in the middle?

Spark wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Most of us in the middle really don't give a shit

you're...in the middle?

he is very much so. i see you don't know that much about the political spectrum...

You don't seem to either Spark. Right wing in the EU is usually only moderate right US, hence his comment.

AussieReaper wrote:

You don't seem to either Spark. Right wing in the EU is usually only moderate right US, hence his comment.

exactly...over here he'd be in the Far-right jackboot party...

yikes.

I guess the FAR-right in the US, they're the fundamentalist Christians or something yeah...but still...

ruisleipa wrote:

Spark wrote:

But given that we are talking about the US and ONLY the US I don't think "well, it's not middle in the EU!" is not an acceptable excuse - you can't ignore context like that.

aww gimme a break...I was only confirming that galt is in fact in the middle of the US political spectrum. Really? Still seems kinda amazing.

If you want to use such simplistic labels as "left", "right" and "middle", then sure... of course that's a very crude representation of political beliefs but that's the price you pay for using such a simplistic systen.

Spark wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Spark wrote:

he is very much so. i see you don't know that much about the political spectrum...

You don't seem to either Spark. Right wing in the EU is usually only moderate right US, hence his comment.

I often find right wing in the EU to be a completely different kind of right wing from the US. Much less concerned about social politics, more of a nationalist streak than the US.

But given that we are talking about the US and ONLY the US I don't think "well, it's not middle in the EU!" is not an acceptable excuse - you can't ignore context like that.

That's why I consider galt to be well in the middle - economically to the "right" but on many key social issues which a massive bulk of the right define themselves by, on the left.

Besides, I don't think philosophies such as libertarianism go well on a one-dimensional spectrum anyway.

We don't seem to have much of a debate about Libertarian/Authoritarian here in Aus which is a shame. Closest I can probably come to with it is the argument for independence from Britain. lol

AussieReaper wrote:

Spark wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

You don't seem to either Spark. Right wing in the EU is usually only moderate right US, hence his comment.

I often find right wing in the EU to be a completely different kind of right wing from the US. Much less concerned about social politics, more of a nationalist streak than the US.

But given that we are talking about the US and ONLY the US I don't think "well, it's not middle in the EU!" is not an acceptable excuse - you can't ignore context like that.

That's why I consider galt to be well in the middle - economically to the "right" but on many key social issues which a massive bulk of the right define themselves by, on the left.

Besides, I don't think philosophies such as libertarianism go well on a one-dimensional spectrum anyway.

We don't seem to have much of a debate about Libertarian/Authoritarian here in Aus which is a shame. Closest I can probably come to with it is the argument for independence from Britain. lol

I think Australians honestly don't give a shit. We don't care about how "big" or "small" the government is, only that it does what it's supposed to do. So the debate is one of competence vs. incompetence. This is actually a really interesting thing that deserves at least a thread, if not a full analysis, but yeah.

PS. Really interesting thing happened yesterday, might be worth bringing the aus politics thread back to life.

PPS. On the republican debate... I think it's a similar thing. I think everyone acknowledges that the monarchist ties to Britain are antiquated and useless, and that we'll have to drop them eventually because they are completely pointless and only lead to annoyances like 1975. But the question, again, is if we could be fucked - after all, it is pretty benign and doesn't really affect anything - now, anyway.

ruisleipa wrote:

Spark wrote:

If you want to use such simplistic labels as "left", "right" and "middle", then sure... of course that's a very crude representation of political beliefs but that's the price you pay for using such a simplistic systen.

well 'want' and want...it's not like I'm the only person on earth who does that is it?
What kind of categorisation system would you employ then?

I didn't say it was bad, I said it was crude. It gets the job done in most circumstances but it means you have to be very careful to consider the full implications of a word such as "right" or "left". You cannot judge a person's political beliefs on a paticular issue or segment of political debate, which is what I think you have done here towards his views on foreign policy and economics - which certainly bear the hallmarks of most right wingers. I mean, I believe ardently in global warming, does that make me a Green? But I also think US Gun Control is a bad idea, does that make me a reactionary-conservative? Of course not.

I mean obviously there are differences between individual left or right wingers but it's fair to say that broadly speaking they subscribe to similar views on most issues isn't it.

Yes, so you have to be more careful. And be more thoughtful when some says that they are 'middle' than discarding it outright based on the viewpoints on a segment of issues.

Not that YOU'D ever be so simplistic is it?

Spark wrote:

I often find right wing in the EU to be a completely different kind of right wing from the US.

That's why I consider galt to be well in the middle - economically to the "right" but on many key social issues which a massive bulk of the right define themselves by, on the left.

Of course it's a crude representation smarty pants, but if you can come up with anything better I'm sure we'd love to hear it.

I think this backs up my point. Context is critical, and my point is that you have to be far more cautious and careful when assessing the validity of labels. Given that a label will mean something else depending on where you are or what you are talking about, this kinda underlies my point of it being more than just left/right - there is a whole context and whatnot behind the label that you have to take into consideration.

Besides which, I'm fairly confident in saying he knows his own views better than you do.

Lastly... lose the permanently sarcastic, arrogant attitude dude. I know I sound like lowing here, and I don't really care - it grates.

Anyway, I've dragged this topic off enough.

Last edited by Spark (2010-01-15 04:29:53)

lowing wrote:

Its bubbalo all over again, I swear.

that's a bit harsh, lol. i don't think he'll post a photo of three guys including himself and then get all surprised when everyone guesses correctly ("the smug one" rofl).

you  have to admit though, bubs certainly added spice to the place... even if he was (and is) unmatched in his ability to catalyse a flamewar.

lowing wrote:

Reading all of this right wing evil, left wing righteous crap makes me cringe.

Conservatives are not evil, in fact, generally speaking, they are more generous than liberals. Conservatives help people in need and want to. What they do not want is have their hard earned money stolen from by the stroke of a pen. We believe in earning your keep through YOUR efforts, not the efforts of others.

What liberals do is vote ( steal) the money away from someone else and give it away, then claim generosity and selfless acts of kindness, and humanity, as if THEY are the ones sacrificing. Quite genius actually. Wouldn't expect anything less from a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I think you're talking about conservative and liberal cartoon characters lowing. It's okay, easy mistake to make.

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Reading all of this right wing evil, left wing righteous crap makes me cringe.

Conservatives are not evil, in fact, generally speaking, they are more generous than liberals. Conservatives help people in need and want to. What they do not want is have their hard earned money stolen from by the stroke of a pen. We believe in earning your keep through YOUR efforts, not the efforts of others.

What liberals do is vote ( steal) the money away from someone else and give it away, then claim generosity and selfless acts of kindness, and humanity, as if THEY are the ones sacrificing. Quite genius actually. Wouldn't expect anything less from a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I think you're talking about conservative and liberal cartoon characters lowing. It's okay, easy mistake to make.

and I think you are dismissing the argument.

Dismissing the argument that is based on broad, black and white assertions regarding the charitable nature of liberals vs. conservatives?

You're not making an argument lowing, you're just inflicting your opinion on everyone. I know there are polls and studies out there that claim liberal households give less than conservative households in terms of charity every year (something like $400 less on average) but even if these studies were statistically robust they would still only account for the American liberal mindset. Europe, generally speaking, has a liberal/socialist leaning and it still donates a great deal in terms of charity and aid, both at a national and individual level... and that's even with our "evil" socialist tax systems.

Look at this map of the world (Notice how if you add up all the socialist countries from 3-10 it equals more the US):

Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-15 06:52:54)

FEOS wrote:

(doners)?

Braddock wrote:

http://economicsociology.files.wordpres … ntries.jpg

hmmm...interesting...

FEOS wrote:

My comment WRT state vs. personal donations was to cage the comparison, as your map and comments were referring to state donations, while lowing's comment was referring to personal donations.

There are no diagrams to verify this but I wouldn't be surprised if personal vs. state donations balanced out across the liberal/conservative divide... by that I mean perhaps the smaller state donations & greater personal donations in the US roughly equates to the greater State donations & smaller personal donations in Europe. It would be interesting to see but sadly it's a lot harder to get trustworthy figures for individual donations across an entire nation/continent.