in odessa ukraine.

if this was the united states they would fly airliners into the largest financial building in nyc and blame it on terrorists

Why does that sound familiar...

Rupert Murdock is a genius

... there really is no difference between right and left. Although it seems most of the right tends to push Facism, while the Left tends to push socialism/communism. A means to the same end. Niether works long term unless under a dictatorship.

Jumping into this thread a bit late, but there are some things to correct.

The political spectrum is about the level of government control that is applied to the society being governed. The extreme far right end of this spectrum is no government control whatsoever (i.e., anarchy), while the extreme far left end is absolute government control. Fascism is a term that has been "redefined" to apply to the "right wing" in this country, but it is an ill-fitting redefinition. If you look up fascism in the dictionary, you will find the following (or something markedly similar):


1) a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2) Oppressive, dictatorial control.


I don't know anyone who is on the right end of the political spectrum who would advocate such a controlling form of government. For those that would apply the term to Bush 43, I can tell you that as a "right-winger" who is moving more and more into the libertarian philosophy (notice, that's with a lowercase "l"), I don't see either of the Presidents Bush as being very much on the right end of the spectrum. They both advocate the "New World Order" (as famously and gleefully spoken about by Bush 41), and did absolutely nothing to contain the unsustainable spending growth the Democrats desired, while getting very little - if anything - in return, in terms of political philosophy.

The problem with the right wing is they believe they know how everyone should live, like they do, and want to create laws to enforce it. Liberals believe in live and let live as long as you are within the laws of the land and if a discrimination is noticed in the laws you work to change it.

I see liberalism as allowing the change to accomodate the changing world, I see conservativism as staying stuck in the past and we have a terrible past to overcome here in these here United States.

I see ... so seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, complete bans on smoking in private businesses (such as bars or restaurants), all-encompassing gun-control legislation (in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution), mandated government-run education, oppressive taxes on a multitude of items designed to discourage certain behaviors ... these are NOT put into place to tell people how they should live? These are "live and let live" policies? Really?



How convenient it is for you to see things in such terms, considering that you are so obviously a liberal yourself. One of the things I hear and read constantly from people on your side is that those on the right view things in a way that is too simplistic, too "black-and-white" ... and yet here you are engaging in that exact type of "my side is good, the other side is evil" rhetoric.

Jumping into this thread a bit late, but there are some things to correct.

The political spectrum is about the level of government control that is applied to the society being governed. The extreme far right end of this spectrum is no government control whatsoever (i.e., anarchy), while the extreme far left end is absolute government control. Fascism is a term that has been "redefined" to apply to the "right wing" in this country, but it is an ill-fitting redefinition. If you look up fascism in the dictionary, you will find the following (or something markedly similar):


1) a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2) Oppressive, dictatorial control.


I don't know anyone who is on the right end of the political spectrum who would advocate such a controlling form of government. For those that would apply the term to Bush 43, I can tell you that as a "right-winger" who is moving more and more into the libertarian philosophy (notice, that's with a lowercase "l"), I don't see either of the Presidents Bush as being very much on the right end of the spectrum. They both advocate the "New World Order" (as famously and gleefully spoken about by Bush 41), and did absolutely nothing to contain the unsustainable spending growth the Democrats desired, while getting very little - if anything - in return, in terms of political philosophy.

The main differance I see is the Dems would rather spend on people and the repuublicans would rather recycle tax money into defence spending and other forms of croney capitalism.

The main differance I see is the Dems would rather spend on people and the repuublicans would rather recycle tax money into defence spending and other forms of croney capitalism.

Depends on what side of the fence your on as to which "News" channel is better.

It's not that way for everybody. Many people are looking for news that is the most factual and with the least bias.

Oh and Communist News Network is THE most factual huh...PTFFFFFFF that idea is funny right there, I don't care who you are that's funny!