Also, sitting on the fence points to cowardice, and the unwillingness to acknowledge certain unpleasant facts: Repubs are racists, Herman Cain and other black conservatives, like Clarence are useful idiots, who can be propped up to make racists say (even to themselves) see? we're not racist after all. Why are Democrats different? CAUSE THEY SUPPORT STUFF THAT ACTUALLY HELPS BLACK PEOPLE!! Sigh ... its not rocket science, ladies
And if you wanna be the only black man in a white land, go to Sweden
AMEN!! People are getting sick and tired of the Extremeist BS Talking Points while noisy, do not address the REAL issues that people are concerned about.
i defend neither side...i want someone representing me who appeals to my hopes and dreams instead of making me fear the other side....i want someone who understand hey the other side is right on this issue....i want someone who doesn't hide behind an issue or run away from it..i want someone who ask the American people to do something for their country...we cant have divisions in our government and expect things to get done...ill go ahead and say it...obama 'o8 lol
Fair enough. I too am skeptical of that moniker. :-)
Actually, that name is less about me and more about the true capabilities of all humanity. We as homo sapiens are brilliant beings. We just don't know it yet as a species.
There are more than two types of opinions in this world. People like Bill O'Reilly would have us think otherwise: that there are two types of people of this world, "traditionalists" (a phrase coined by Bill which is academically meaningless) and "secular progressives" (another meaningless made-up term of Bill's). Many people can't see the ridiculousness of separating all people of this world into two political camps.
On a personal note regarding the video, it's refreshing to see some people talk about the extreme limitations of the "left/right balance" of politics. Viewing the world through the lens of it existing in a "left/right" reality is beyond ridiculous.
The 'far' reaches of either wing is fascism, which shows why the left/right dichotomy is useless and doesn't actually apply to the ideologies people hold to in the real world - which is exactly why I don't use those terms, and didn't here. Ponder that, o thinker of great "depth."
That's also incorrect. Fascism is not on both ends of the left/right spectrum. Bear in mind that the left/right spectrum isn't even objective, it differs in its meanings depending on who you speak with. Which is another argument in favor of discarding its use from most political discussions, it's not a very helpful tool.
Please bear in mind that I'm speaking about the historical uses of the terms. Today people who identify with conservatism or libertarianism sometimes try to salvage the 'left/right' dichotomy by removing fascist ideologies traditionally identified as 'right wing' (Nazism, Mussolini's Fascism, old style imperialism) to the 'left wing' but it's to no avail because the dichotomy was popularized by people on the other side.
@Brilliantbeing It's very true, the spectrum is actually a circle. If you put a line on one part of it that is where a lot of people are now gravitating, the extremities of both sides of the argument. My philosophy is to forget about the spectrum all together and get back to brass tax, I am human, I am male, I am alive, I am going to die...what do i do with this? It's much more simple that way.
@Brilliantbeing i agree that rightwing extremist Hitler and leftwing extremist Stalin are essentially the same. But it does NOT follow that normal rightwing and normal leftwing are TOO. how so?
Todays rightwing is extremely hypocritical about what they say they stand for:
They say family values but they vote for cheaters like Vitter, mccain, gingrich, guiliani, ensign, sanford
They say fiscal responsbility but have NO problem with DeeeFense spending going WAAAY overboard.
@Brilliantbeing why do you feel the need to transcends polarity? Society IS highly POLARIZED! Right wingers are simply saying: we don't wanna give our tax money to poor blacks! thats ALL theyre saying! That is the only thing theyre true about! In all other things, they are highly hypocritical. & they're delusional. They wanna cut back spending on health care, then complain bout high costs, cut back spending on education, then complain about stupid pupils, cut back on TSA then complain bout bombs
That is the real world reality, because it's the historical truth as to the roots of those ideologies, not a suggestion as to whether or not they should be accepted.
Further, anyone who tries to come up with a mix of the two (even if it's done under the guise of 'thinking independently') likely isn't as "thoughtful" as they like to believe, as it reveals an ignorance about the inherent incompatibility of the two differing views of human nature.
You're wrong, components of various political ideologies can be combined to form solutions towards solving political issues/problems. No offense, but you need to educate yourself quite a bit more before you continue sharing your ignorance regarding political ideologies.
You didn't understand my point, so let me say this again for the benefit of those at lower reading levels: I provided no defense of the terms 'left/right' nor did I even make mention of them.
I'm talking about the historical roots of the two views of human nature from which the major political ideologies arose, going back at least to Godwin's view of human perfectibility on the one hand and the tragic view of human nature captured by Christian philosophers and Smith et al on the other hand.
You're wrong on both counts. The historical roots of both conservatism and liberalism are not rooted simply in views of human nature. Also, I am unfamiliar with Godwin, and whoever he is, he isn't an important historical figure regarding the origins of these classical ideologies. I also don't know why you use the term "tragic" to explain Smith's view of human nature.
The best explanation of all of this that I know of is Thomas Sowell's 'A Conflict of Visions.'
If you're unfamiliar with William Godwin, you probably don't really have the ability to decide what his impact was on these ideologies, now do you? Without him there might not have been a Hagel et al.
Smith's views, and the view of the Scottish enlightenment and Christian philosophers up through the ages, is of an inherently imperfectible human nature, often called the tragic view of human nature.
The reason that the two sides talk 'past one another' is because they derive from two extremely different worldviews. Basically, modern liberalism reduces to the view that the government is an instrument of morality, that is, it exists to right wrongs ('social justice'). Modern conservatism reduces to the view that individuals are too fallible for power to be concentrated in one place, and must be spread out over institutions beyond (but including) the govt.
That's the textbook definition but not the real world reality. Nuance blurs those lines considerably. Thinking people know this. They refuse to pledge allegiance to a Liberal or Conservative flag. Left/Right thinking is for cartoon characters like Limbaugh and Franken, not thoughtful American citizens.
Agreed, but his definitions are no 'textbook'. Actually, he is wholly incorrect in regards to the academic understandings/definitions of conservatism and liberalism (in both the classical and modern undertstandings).
Those are both incorrect explanations of both neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. I recommend you learn a little more about the classical political ideologies before sharing your uninformed ideas.
Garrard and Theo has taken a bold step towards awakening voters and politicians. I believe it's time for us to reinforce this message so that we are not taken for granted in the political process any longer.
Also, sitting on the fence points to cowardice, and the unwillingness to acknowledge certain unpleasant facts: Repubs are racists, Herman Cain and other black conservatives, like Clarence are useful idiots, who can be propped up to make racists say (even to themselves) see? we're not racist after all. Why are Democrats different? CAUSE THEY SUPPORT STUFF THAT ACTUALLY HELPS BLACK PEOPLE!! Sigh ... its not rocket science, ladies
And if you wanna be the only black man in a white land, go to Sweden
zploek 7 months ago
Why do black people always use the word "germaine"?
Is it because of Jermaine Jackson?
iwantithere 9 months ago
@iwantithere because they're educated
zploek 7 months ago
Left and Right keep people from the Middle, where true sanity lives.
IChIDH 9 months ago 4
Republicans (AfricanAmericans) are simply corporate-leeches. They all want money, despite their once proletariat association.
Serene2012 1 year ago
AMEN!! People are getting sick and tired of the Extremeist BS Talking Points while noisy, do not address the REAL issues that people are concerned about.
JipJDB 4 years ago
i defend neither side...i want someone representing me who appeals to my hopes and dreams instead of making me fear the other side....i want someone who understand hey the other side is right on this issue....i want someone who doesn't hide behind an issue or run away from it..i want someone who ask the American people to do something for their country...we cant have divisions in our government and expect things to get done...ill go ahead and say it...obama 'o8 lol
Shinrah001 3 years ago
I'd like to add I'm skeptical about a person who names him or herself "brilliantbeing". :-)
hueyot 4 years ago
Fair enough. I too am skeptical of that moniker. :-)
Actually, that name is less about me and more about the true capabilities of all humanity. We as homo sapiens are brilliant beings. We just don't know it yet as a species.
Brilliantbeing 4 years ago
There are more than two types of opinions in this world. People like Bill O'Reilly would have us think otherwise: that there are two types of people of this world, "traditionalists" (a phrase coined by Bill which is academically meaningless) and "secular progressives" (another meaningless made-up term of Bill's). Many people can't see the ridiculousness of separating all people of this world into two political camps.
hueyot 4 years ago
On a personal note regarding the video, it's refreshing to see some people talk about the extreme limitations of the "left/right balance" of politics. Viewing the world through the lens of it existing in a "left/right" reality is beyond ridiculous.
hueyot 4 years ago
Think a little deeper. Ponder this, cmitchz: Far left = Far right.
Also, let me hear an original thought from you. A thought that transcends polarity.
Brilliantbeing 4 years ago
Oh brother.
The 'far' reaches of either wing is fascism, which shows why the left/right dichotomy is useless and doesn't actually apply to the ideologies people hold to in the real world - which is exactly why I don't use those terms, and didn't here. Ponder that, o thinker of great "depth."
cmitchz 4 years ago 2
That's also incorrect. Fascism is not on both ends of the left/right spectrum. Bear in mind that the left/right spectrum isn't even objective, it differs in its meanings depending on who you speak with. Which is another argument in favor of discarding its use from most political discussions, it's not a very helpful tool.
hueyot 4 years ago
Please bear in mind that I'm speaking about the historical uses of the terms. Today people who identify with conservatism or libertarianism sometimes try to salvage the 'left/right' dichotomy by removing fascist ideologies traditionally identified as 'right wing' (Nazism, Mussolini's Fascism, old style imperialism) to the 'left wing' but it's to no avail because the dichotomy was popularized by people on the other side.
Otherwise, we seem to agree.
cmitchz 4 years ago
@Brilliantbeing It's very true, the spectrum is actually a circle. If you put a line on one part of it that is where a lot of people are now gravitating, the extremities of both sides of the argument. My philosophy is to forget about the spectrum all together and get back to brass tax, I am human, I am male, I am alive, I am going to die...what do i do with this? It's much more simple that way.
Poonard 1 year ago
@Brilliantbeing i agree that rightwing extremist Hitler and leftwing extremist Stalin are essentially the same. But it does NOT follow that normal rightwing and normal leftwing are TOO. how so?
Todays rightwing is extremely hypocritical about what they say they stand for:
They say family values but they vote for cheaters like Vitter, mccain, gingrich, guiliani, ensign, sanford
They say fiscal responsbility but have NO problem with DeeeFense spending going WAAAY overboard.
zploek 7 months ago
@Brilliantbeing why do you feel the need to transcends polarity? Society IS highly POLARIZED! Right wingers are simply saying: we don't wanna give our tax money to poor blacks! thats ALL theyre saying! That is the only thing theyre true about! In all other things, they are highly hypocritical. & they're delusional. They wanna cut back spending on health care, then complain bout high costs, cut back spending on education, then complain about stupid pupils, cut back on TSA then complain bout bombs
zploek 7 months ago
That is the real world reality, because it's the historical truth as to the roots of those ideologies, not a suggestion as to whether or not they should be accepted.
Further, anyone who tries to come up with a mix of the two (even if it's done under the guise of 'thinking independently') likely isn't as "thoughtful" as they like to believe, as it reveals an ignorance about the inherent incompatibility of the two differing views of human nature.
cmitchz 4 years ago
You're wrong, components of various political ideologies can be combined to form solutions towards solving political issues/problems. No offense, but you need to educate yourself quite a bit more before you continue sharing your ignorance regarding political ideologies.
hueyot 4 years ago
You didn't understand my point, so let me say this again for the benefit of those at lower reading levels: I provided no defense of the terms 'left/right' nor did I even make mention of them.
I'm talking about the historical roots of the two views of human nature from which the major political ideologies arose, going back at least to Godwin's view of human perfectibility on the one hand and the tragic view of human nature captured by Christian philosophers and Smith et al on the other hand.
cmitchz 4 years ago
You're wrong on both counts. The historical roots of both conservatism and liberalism are not rooted simply in views of human nature. Also, I am unfamiliar with Godwin, and whoever he is, he isn't an important historical figure regarding the origins of these classical ideologies. I also don't know why you use the term "tragic" to explain Smith's view of human nature.
hueyot 4 years ago
The best explanation of all of this that I know of is Thomas Sowell's 'A Conflict of Visions.'
If you're unfamiliar with William Godwin, you probably don't really have the ability to decide what his impact was on these ideologies, now do you? Without him there might not have been a Hagel et al.
Smith's views, and the view of the Scottish enlightenment and Christian philosophers up through the ages, is of an inherently imperfectible human nature, often called the tragic view of human nature.
cmitchz 4 years ago
The reason that the two sides talk 'past one another' is because they derive from two extremely different worldviews. Basically, modern liberalism reduces to the view that the government is an instrument of morality, that is, it exists to right wrongs ('social justice'). Modern conservatism reduces to the view that individuals are too fallible for power to be concentrated in one place, and must be spread out over institutions beyond (but including) the govt.
cmitchz 4 years ago
That's the textbook definition but not the real world reality. Nuance blurs those lines considerably. Thinking people know this. They refuse to pledge allegiance to a Liberal or Conservative flag. Left/Right thinking is for cartoon characters like Limbaugh and Franken, not thoughtful American citizens.
Brilliantbeing 4 years ago
Agreed, but his definitions are no 'textbook'. Actually, he is wholly incorrect in regards to the academic understandings/definitions of conservatism and liberalism (in both the classical and modern undertstandings).
hueyot 4 years ago
Those are both incorrect explanations of both neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. I recommend you learn a little more about the classical political ideologies before sharing your uninformed ideas.
hueyot 4 years ago
Well said gentlemen, I couldn't agree more.
romanerdstrom 4 years ago
At least they are trying.
TheFilteredLight 4 years ago
Garrard and Theo has taken a bold step towards awakening voters and politicians. I believe it's time for us to reinforce this message so that we are not taken for granted in the political process any longer.
Choiceiii 4 years ago