Are lefties bullies?

[GostHacked]

There are bullies on the left and the right. Plain and simple.

Next thread?

[Guest American Woman]

Well thank you, thats so nice of you to say.

Now, what about this child bullying, I didn't hear about it myself.

McCain said at a fundraiser: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." Link about McCain's temper when people don't agree with him. Note all the quotes; quotes from actual people, not 'unnamed sources.'

At the beginning of Clinton's presidency, Limbaugh was talking about Socks, their cat, and then asked "Did you know there's a White House dog?" and showed a photo of 12 year old Chelsea.

Regarding a journalist who was doing a story on Limbaugh: "[W]e found out who was writing it and made a couple phone calls to the person writing it. And we said, 'You know what? We're going to find out where your kids go to school. ..."

He then went on: "And the guy started screaming on the phone, just went -- 'You can't do that.' We said, 'Watch us.' And it changed the tone of the story by about 60 percent, I would say, from what it was going to be. link

So he threatened the reporter's children to get the story the way he wanted it.

As I said, adults picking on children, threatening to harm children, is as low as it gets.

[Wild Bill]

McCain said at a fundraiser: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." Link about McCain's temper when people don't agree with him. Note all the quotes; quotes from actual people, not 'unnamed sources.'

At the beginning of Clinton's presidency, Limbaugh was talking about Socks, their cat, and then asked "Did you know there's a White House dog?" and showed a photo of 12 year old Chelsea.

Regarding a journalist who was doing a story on Limbaugh: "[W]e found out who was writing it and made a couple phone calls to the person writing it. And we said, 'You know what? We're going to find out where your kids go to school. ..."

He then went on: "And the guy started screaming on the phone, just went -- 'You can't do that.' We said, 'Watch us.' And it changed the tone of the story by about 60 percent, I would say, from what it was going to be. link

So he threatened the reporter's children to get the story the way he wanted it.

As I said, adults picking on children, threatening to harm children, is as low as it gets.

Now we can see more clearly the source of much of the confusion around this topic. It has to do with how we define left and right.

Some of us would use a dictionary. Others use people from the real world and label them into a collective group. So Limbaugh and McCain are considered the definition of rightwing or conservative.

Frankly, I consider this more than simplistic. I think its nuts! It's defining a philosophy with poster boys.

The trouble with poster boy definitions is that they are twisted into something often unrecognizable by the words and deeds of a fallible human being. Every group has its demons. A critic can form an opinion from a demonic poster boy without having a clue about a political philosophy.

If you look in a dictionary for a definition of conservatism there's no picture of Rush Limbaugh.

Sadly, too many folks rely on books with few words and lots of big pictures.

[AngusThermopyle]

So he threatened the reporter's children to get the story the way he wanted it.

Thats insane! Not only is it as low as it gets but its also illegal. He should be prosecuted.

What I don't understand is how these guys can even have a career after flapping their gums that way. I'm pretty sure that if one of our politicians started threatening peoples children and insulting them they would be flushing their career down the toilet.

[bk59]

Give it a break, Black Dog. I'm not going to claim that Alberta's Human Rights Commission is fascist (although it has threatened with prison a poor schmuck in Red Deer if he so much as sends an email about his views of gays). The OP refers to "bullies" not "fascists".

You might want to go back to the OP and read it. It quite clearly mentions fascism and implies multiple times that "left wing people" are fascist:

This topic is intended to discuss the idea that left wing people are bullies with fascist tendencies.

...

Have any of the other conservatives felt ostracized, attacked or bullied by those in disagreement? Isn't that fascism, if it happens alot?

Think of things like political correct speech. Doesn't PC essentially imply "this is how we all talk now". That sounds like a bit of a creepingly fascist concept, doesn't it?

IMV, Leftists feel like the perennial victims or unoved child of the family. When they defend their viewpoint, they do it in a way that goes beyond merely espousing an opinion. Leftists are on a crusade to correct fundamental injustices in the universe.

Once again, this applies equally to "rightists" who are "on a crusade". It also does not apply to a vast number of "leftists" or "rightists".

The Right generally leaves the individual free to choose in his or her own way - and suffer the consequences of their choices. The Left is a busybody that, for starters, wants to take my money and spend on the edification of someone else. The Left can't avoid this fundamental view that the State must intervene in people's lives. At it's base, this is what makes Leftists irritating bullies compared to those on the right.

Ah I see. The right gives individuals the ability to choose in their own way. Except for that traditional stance on gay marriage where gay individuals would not have the choice to marry. Except for the traditional stance on abortion where individuals would not have the choice to choose.

Now there are legitimate reasons to argue both for and against those two issues. But clearly your idea that only the right cares about giving people choices is false. Likewise, your position that there is something special about "lefties" that make them "crusaders" (and presumably therefore bullies as per the topic of this thread) is false. It is unfortunate that people feel the necessity to demonize all who disagree with them in this way.

[bk59]

Now we can see more clearly the source of much of the confusion around this topic. It has to do with how we define left and right.

Some of us would use a dictionary. Others use people from the real world and label them into a collective group. So Limbaugh and McCain are considered the definition of rightwing or conservative.

Frankly, I consider this more than simplistic. I think its nuts! It's defining a philosophy with poster boys.

The trouble with poster boy definitions is that they are twisted into something often unrecognizable by the words and deeds of a fallible human being. Every group has its demons. A critic can form an opinion from a demonic poster boy without having a clue about a political philosophy.

If you look in a dictionary for a definition of conservatism there's no picture of Rush Limbaugh.

Sadly, too many folks rely on books with few words and lots of big pictures.

But we aren't defining any philosophy / ideology here. Although some people have definitely confused the "left" ideology with the actions of some extremists. The OP specifically talks about those who hold left wing viewpoints and how they act as people. You aren't going to find that in a dictionary. I think it's appropriate then to show real world examples of people from both ends of the spectrum who are acting like idiots.

In fact, thinking about it now, your post should definitely be in response to the OP. The OP certainly has tried to label a collective group as you say and (again, as you say) this is nuts. "It's defining a philosophy with poster boys." It seems like this whole thread was started because someone has tried to define an ideology by the actions of some of its adherents. It is a foolish thing to do, particularly when all ideologies have people who act in the same ways.

[Guest American Woman]

Now we can see more clearly the source of much of the confusion around this topic. It has to do with how we define left and right.

Some of us would use a dictionary. Others use people from the real world and label them into a collective group.

You have used people from the real world and labeled them into a collective group, so if you have a point, I fail to see it. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out by bk59, we aren't "defining" anything in this thread.

So Limbaugh and McCain are considered the definition of rightwing or conservative.

They sure aren't leftwing or liberal, are they?

Frankly, I consider this more than simplistic. I think its nuts! It's defining a philosophy with poster boys.

Frankly, I never said they defined the philosophy of right wingers. Never so much as insinuated it. I said they were right wing, and they are. Furthermore, you used examples of left wingers yourself ("fer instance," do Stewart and David Suzuki jog your memory?), so I can only conclude that you find your own posts "more than simplistic" and "nuts."

If you look in a dictionary for a definition of conservatism there's no picture of Rush Limbaugh.

Is there a picture of Stewart or David Suzuki or any of the other people you refer to in your posts?

Sadly, too many folks rely on books with few words and lots of big pictures.

It appears to me as if you're the one looking for pictures in the dictionary.

Again, I'm not defining anything, so let's get back to what I actually posted: I gave examples of right wing bullies who have stooped to the lowest level-- picking on and threatening children. Or do you disagree that adults picking on children, threatening to harm children, is as low as it gets?

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE: So he threatened the reporter's children to get the story the way he wanted it.

Thats insane! Not only is it as low as it gets but its also illegal. He should be prosecuted.

What I don't understand is how these guys can even have a career after flapping their gums that way. I'm pretty sure that if one of our politicians started threatening peoples children and insulting them they would be flushing their career down the toilet.

I agree with you; and I think the fact that Limbaugh not only still has a career, but a sizable audience, doesn't speak well for his 'fans.'

[bush_cheney2004]

So it's the Left that's trying so hard to prevent.....a woman's choice to have an abortion?

Speaking of being mean to a child.....ooops!

[Pliny]

This topic is intended to discuss the idea that left wing people are bullies with fascist tendencies.

It is also mostly a topic aimed at those of us conservative minded thinkers.

Question: As a conservative, have you ever found yourself in a situation where some lefty (or usually a gruop) was blathering on and on about the "conventional wisdom" being jammed down our throats by the left wing media?

Thank goodness there are sites like this where we can exchange ideas, because in the real world I see alot of bullying by the left wing.

Anyway, as a conservative, have you ever experienced this bullying?

Discuss.

Well, although I lean toward Conservatism it is only because it holds the promise, in it's name "conservative", to stem the tide of creeping socialism.

There is a nebulous concept, expressed in the opening sentence referring to "left-wing fascists" of extreme left and right - they are both socialist. They have their differences but they are both totalitarian and thus fall under the concept of "bully".

Neocons are in fact ex-socialist liberals that have placed themselves on the extreme right. You will find that left-wing socialist liberals sound a lot like right wing neocons. Perhaps with different issues but the same tactics. The centrist liberals are soft on socialism and the right wing centrist conservatives are also soft on socialism. A true conservative is one that resists change, and since change is in the direction of more socialism today, it is against the growth of the State. Conservatives stand for the status quo and I would not have been a conservative in the days of King George the III. I would have been a liberal, I consider myself more conservative today.

In answer to the question about being bullied by the left. The less people think they are expressing an opinion they confuse as fact, the more they are inclined to use bully tactics. I don't consider myself a bully, I do consider myself strongly opinionated. If they just said it was their opinion and not the sole claim to truth they wouldn't have to bully.

How do I know global-warming...er..."climate change" (latest buzz word) is being artificially created. I know one fact - the mean temperature over the last century went up 1 degree. Doesn't sound like too much of a problem to me. But hey...we should take care of our environment anyway. We could live without the rhetoric and the sky is falling prophecies though. I guess some people think those tactics necessary to get any action - I call that bullying.

A word about bullying. It stems form the persons concept of support and agreement which makes him brave. One person can always be overwhelmed by a bigger person or two people or a crowd of people. The individual who will stand up alone is not a bully. I am sure he would appreciate support, as anybody would.

The ideas that held in place by the force of law or force alone will disappear when the force disappears. The ideas that will stand through time do not need enforcement or the strong arm of law they will just be accepted.

Marriage needs no law. We know what it is and it is about future generations. It isn't about getting government benefits or being accepted in society. Do we need a law?

[DrGreenthumb]

The Right generally leaves the individual free to choose in his or her own way - and suffer the consequences of their choices. The Left is a busybody that, for starters, wants to take my money and spend on the edification of someone else. The Left can't avoid this fundamental view that the State must intervene in people's lives. At it's base, this is what makes Leftists irritating bullies compared to those on the right.

Are you bloody serious? The left can't avoid the fundamental view that the state must interfere in people's lives???? The right leaves the individual free to choose his or her own way??? So in this little fantasy world you live in...are there unicorns?

The right can't avoid the fundamental view that everyone is free to live how the right think they should live....or face the consequences that the rights deems fit for your transgression is more like it.

Don't tell me the right respects the individual while righty politicians are passing laws allowing police spy cams looking at our houses with helicoptors so they can make sure we are not growing any plants righties don't approve of. You know why cops need phone taps, flir cameras and snitch lines to bust people fore pot crimes??? because there is nobody making complaints against the pot people. No Victims, nobody feels they have been wronged.

The right wing has a lot of gall to accuse the left of suppression of individual rights.

[BC_chick]

Hey Jerry,

Sorry to hear you feel that way. As a lefty I do my utmost to respect other people's opinions. I'll never forget a women's studies professor who said the biggest challenge facing feminism is to not fall into the same dogma it has historically fought against. I take those words to heart and value them.

As for the kid who snickered at you, she was a kid. Period. I have a 20-something friend who is also against conservative values. That attitude is more rebel than it is leftist. Remember, in the 60's it was not trusting anyone over the age of 30. I tell my friend too that he should respect differing opinions, though I know at that age I was just as stubborn.

If it's any consolation, I know a 24 y.o. woman who identifies strongly conservative. I respected her opinions, but it turned out she can't stand us bleeding-hearts. Is she a bad person? Nah, she'll probably grow out it and realise that you don't have to agree with people in order to respect them.

Oh, and if it's any consolation, as a lefty I feel that I have to make my opinions more "centre" too at parties. Throwing out things like "CPC supporters don't like non-white immigrants" and "corporate greed is the modern-day slavery" doesn't exactly trigger happy conversations either.

So no, the backlash isn't just against your people, happens to both ends of the spectrum. T'is life.

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

[Wild Bill]

You have used people from the real world and labeled them into a collective group, so if you have a point, I fail to see it. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out by bk59, we aren't "defining" anything in this thread.

They sure aren't leftwing or liberal, are they?

Frankly, I never said they defined the philosophy of right wingers. Never so much as insinuated it. I said they were right wing, and they are. Furthermore, you used examples of left wingers yourself ("fer instance," do Stewart and David Suzuki jog your memory?), so I can only conclude that you find your own posts "more than simplistic" and "nuts."

Is there a picture of Stewart or David Suzuki or any of the other people you refer to in your posts?

It appears to me as if you're the one looking for pictures in the dictionary.

Again, I'm not defining anything, so let's get back to what I actually posted: I gave examples of right wing bullies who have stooped to the lowest level-- picking on and threatening children. Or do you disagree that adults picking on children, threatening to harm children, is as low as it gets?

Looking back at the links you made to my earlier posts, I have to admit you're right! I WAS guilty as charged!

Labeling is an insidious thing, isn't it? Still, I still don't believe I lack company.

As for McCain and Limbaugh, I have a problem defining them as rightwingers or conservatives. Limbaugh in particular. American "rightwing" is something unique and particular to that country's culture. They don't fit my idea of conservatives at all.

America uses a lot of political labels in ways that I can't understand. They seem to define Libertarian as some sort of gun-toting survivalist anti-government hillbillies. Much different than my understanding.

I'm more partical to the political definitions given by Bill Gairdner in his book "The Trouble With Canada".

So while I would agree that adults picking on children is low I might not agree that certain individuals doing it are good examples of rightwing thinking. Limbaugh is just an arrogant boor, IMHO.

Still, even a broken watch is right twice a day.

Perhaps I'm an exception but I link left and right to liberal and conservative in political philosophy. For this reason I would define Canada's Liberal party as liberal in name only. Their words and actions don't jive. The same with the Tories, for that matter. Here in Canada only the NDP seem true to dictionary definitions. The big two are more like baseball teams, where often you see the same players end up on different teams. Their only real differences are in their jerseys.

[August1991]

I'll skip over differences between "fascism" and "fascist tendencies". I really don't want an argument comparing "bullies" and "fascists". I understood what Jerry wrote and I think he has a point.

Ah I see. The right gives individuals the ability to choose in their own way. Except for that traditional stance on gay marriage where gay individuals would not have the choice to marry. Except for the traditional stance on abortion where individuals would not have the choice to choose.

bk59, you and AW both made reference to the Right's opposition to abortion and gay rights as evidence of the Right being closed-minded.

Well, abortion exists in the US and Canada and the (social) conservatives who oppose it accept this state of affairs. One can understand how they view this issue as protecting life. Who is tolerant?

As to gay rights, gays live, get jobs and (in Canada) get married. There are many jurisdictions in the US that respect civil unions. Some on the Right might raise their eyebrows but they tolerate this. One can understand how they view marriage as an important institution in life.

You both missed another issue where the Right is accused of being a bully/fascist: marijuana use. (ETA: Dr. Greenthumb got it above.)

It's no surprise that all these issues concern social conservatives. Well, I find all leftists to be social leftists. Leftists by nature get involved in social questions that are often better left to individual choice.

But if we're going to throw around terms like bully, fascist etc, what do you think of the idea of taking money forecfuly from me and giving it to some pet do-gooder project that, you think, will improve the world? Not only do I have to listen to someone berate for being immoral, bigotted, racist, backward - in short, not progressive - I have to pay for this lesson too.

An example? The CBC costs Canadian taxpayers $1 billion/year. It's filled with people who think and act like high school teachers. In their own way, they are leftist bullies.

There are bullies on the left and the right. Plain and simple.

Next thread?

GostHacked, you have entirely missed the point. Edited August 3, 2008 by August1991

[Riverwind]

The deepest pathologies in the climate policy debate can been seen in this comment in today's NYT column by Paul Krugman:

"The only way we’re going to get action [on climate change], I’d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral."

...

Climate change is the new locus of the U.S. culture wars. Unlike the abortion issue which was turned into a referendum on morality by the political right, the climate issue is fast becoming a referendum on morality by the political left.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/

In think the comparison between climate change and abortion is particularly appropriate because both camps use science way to justify using the more of the state to impose their morality on those that disagree.

[bk59]

I'll skip over differences between "fascism" and "fascist tendencies". I really don't want an argument comparing "bullies" and "fascists". I understood what Jerry wrote and I think he has a point.

Luckily you don't have to differentiate between the two terms since the OP used both of them to describe "lefties" and their behaviour. Anyway, my point was simply this: Black Dog was simply responding to the arguments put forth in the OP and subsequent posts. You can ignore those parts if you want, but others chose to address them.

bk59, you and AW both made reference to the Right's opposition to abortion and gay rights as evidence of the Right being closed-minded.

I never said anything even close to that. Please actually read what I wrote. In fact, I even said, "Now there are legitimate reasons to argue both for and against those two issues." That is hardly calling anyone closed-minded.

You seem to think that "The Right generally leaves the individual free to choose in his or her own way" and that "the Left" just likes to intervene as "busybodies". Except that there are two traditional right wing stances that seem to limit an individual's choice. My point was simply this: you have oversimplified both the views on the right and on the left and neither of those viewpoints can claim exclusive title to advocating for an individual's freedom to choose how to live their lives. Depending on the issue, there are stances on both sides where an individual's freedom to choose is limited.

But if we're going to throw around terms like bully, fascist etc, what do you think of the idea of taking money forecfuly from me and giving it to some pet do-gooder project that, you think, will improve the world? Not only do I have to listen to someone berate for being immoral, bigotted, racist, backward - in short, not progressive - I have to pay for this lesson too.

Yes, yes. Just like left wing people are forced to pay for right wing spending priorities when a right wing government is in power. Does that make all right wing supporters bullies? Fascists? (Hint: the answer is no!) So when a left wing government is in power, does that spending make all left wing supporters bullies? (Hint: the answer is the same as before!)

GostHacked, you have entirely missed the point.

GostHacked, your point was right on. Bullies exist on both sides. A few extremists does not make an entire ideological group into bullies. Or fascists. Or anything else.

For every story of a left wing person harassing a right wing person there is a story of a right wing person harassing a left wing person.

[Guest American Woman]

bk59, you and AW both made reference to the Right's opposition to abortion and gay rights as evidence of the Right being closed-minded.

I never said any such thing. I never even insinuated that "the right is closed-minded." What I did do is make reference to the Right's opposition to abortion and gay rights as evidence that your claim that "the Right generally leaves the individual free to choose in his or her own way - and suffer the consequences of their choices" is not true.

Well, abortion exists in the US and Canada and the (social) conservatives who oppose it accept this state of affairs. One can understand how they view this issue as protecting life. Who is tolerant?

Of course the conservatives who oppose legalized abortion don't "accept it." If they did, they wouldn't be protesting against it, trying so hard to change the laws. No abortion clinics would have been blown up and no doctors who perform abortions would have been murdered. No woman entering a clinic for an abortion would have to pass through a crowd of protesters. So where does this "tolerance" you speak of come into play? I don't get that at all.

As to gay rights, gays live, get jobs and (in Canada) get married. There are many jurisdictions in the US that respect civil unions. Some on the Right might raise their eyebrows but they tolerate this. One can understand how they view marriage as an important institution in life.

Oh, yes. The people on the right who oppose gay marriage are doing nothing more than raising their eyebrows. They are all tolerating it. There's been no major attempt to prevent gay marriages from becoming legal and no violence, ever, against gays. Only a bit of eyebrow raising.

But if we're going to throw around terms like bully, fascist etc, what do you think of the idea of taking money forecfuly from me and giving it to some pet do-gooder project that, you think, will improve the world? Not only do I have to listen to someone berate for being immoral, bigotted, racist, backward - in short, not progressive - I have to pay for this lesson too.

What do you think of the idea of "forcefully" taking money from me (I'm using quotes because to my way of thinking, neither one of us is having it "forcefully" taken from us as we're both free to leave our nations and live elsewhere) and giving it to the military to engage in a war that some 'war mongers' thinks will improve the world? Not only did I have to listen to people berate me for being unpatriotic, a traitor, and tell me I can't support the troops if I don't support the war, I have to pay for this lesson (which I think is actually making me more unsafe) too.

An example? The CBC costs Canadian taxpayers $1 billion/year. It's filled with people who think and act like high school teachers. In their own way, they are leftist bullies.

I'm not even going to start playing that game. You could name things that your tax money goes to that you don't agree with and I could counter with an example that I don't agree with only to have you come back with another example, then I'd have to come back with another example, and on and on it would go. All of us have some of our tax money go towards things we don't agree with. That's not exclusive to the Right, and if it's bullying on the part of the Left to make the Right pay for things that they don't agree with, then it's bullying on the Right to make the Left pay for things that they don't agree with. And if you don't see that, then you are willfully blind.

So I'm sticking to my original statement that anyone who cannot see that there is bullying on both ends of the political spectrum is willfully blind. I'm also still waiting for someone to give an example of a prominent Lefty picking on/threatening children.

Edited August 3, 2008 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Looking back at the links you made to my earlier posts, I have to admit you're right! I WAS guilty as charged!

It's good to see that you recognize it and nice to see you admit it. Thank you for that.

Labeling is an insidious thing, isn't it? Still, I still don't believe I lack company.

I think painting everyone with the same brush and being blind to the behavior of only one portion of the population is more insidious than labeling; I think it's generally accepted that registered Democrats lean left of center while Republicans lean right of center.

As for McCain and Limbaugh, I have a problem defining them as rightwingers or conservatives. Limbaugh in particular. American "rightwing" is something unique and particular to that country's culture. They don't fit my idea of conservatives at all.

They may not fit your idea of conservatives, but they are.

America uses a lot of political labels in ways that I can't understand. They seem to define Libertarian as some sort of gun-toting survivalist anti-government hillbillies. Much different than my understanding.

I'm not familiar with that definition. Where are you getting that from?

I'm more partical to the political definitions given by Bill Gairdner in his book "The Trouble With Canada".

I'm not familiar with that book, either; therefore I can't comment on his definitions. I'm curious, though, so when I have time I'll do a search on it.

So while I would agree that adults picking on children is low I might not agree that certain individuals doing it are good examples of rightwing thinking. Limbaugh is just an arrogant boor, IMHO.

I never said they were a "good" example, I said they were an example. Furthermore, Limbaugh has a large following, and it's not made up of liberals. So if millions of conservatives support him and listen to him, then I do think he's a "good example" even though I didn't present it as such. As for McCain, he's the republican's choice for POTUS, so again, I think it's fair to say he's a "good example" too.

Perhaps I'm an exception but I link left and right to liberal and conservative in political philosophy. For this reason I would define Canada's Liberal party as liberal in name only. Their words and actions don't jive. The same with the Tories, for that matter. Here in Canada only the NDP seem true to dictionary definitions. The big two are more like baseball teams, where often you see the same players end up on different teams. Their only real differences are in their jerseys.

I know that Canadians do tend to see things the way you see them; they don't see a big difference between Democrats and Republicans because there's not the difference that you have between the NDP and the Conservatives (or is it the Tories who are the most conservative?) Many Canadian liberals also don't see the Liberal party as liberal, likely because they themselves are 'far left' and the Liberal party isn't.

At any rate, as I said earlier, I think it's generally accepted that Democrats are left of center while Republicans are right of center; and I think it would be accurate to say that the Liberals and NDPers are left of center while the Conservatives and Tories are right of center. Do you think that would be a fair assumption/statement?

Edited August 3, 2008 by American Woman

[Wild Bill]

At any rate, as I said earlier, I think it's generally accepted that Democrats are left of center while Republicans are right of center; and I think it would be accurate to say that the Liberals and NDPers are left of center while the Conservatives and Tories are right of center. Do you think that would be a fair assumption/statement?

Close enough for rock and roll! Although I should point out that Tory is just another term for the Conservative Party, just as Grit describes the Liberals. These terms date from Merry Olde England.

There's a new term you've probably heard that perhaps is more useful to such discussions. It's "Statist". Statists can be right or left. Basically they want the State to control everything. They are great at rationalizations to deny their goals, like championing free speech as long as you don't say anything politically incorrect. They want government standards, programs and laws for pretty well anything.

The ultimate in "nanny staters", I guess. I would say Canada has fallen much further down this path than America. Sometimes things seem kinda confining. Perhaps it will change.

Maybe the reason I feel that more "lefties" are rude and bullying is that I live in an area that traditionally supports the NDP and Liberal parties.

[Guest American Woman]

Close enough for rock and roll! Although I should point out that Tory is just another term for the Conservative Party, just as Grit describes the Liberals. These terms date from Merry Olde England.

I didn't realize that Tory was just another name for the Conservative party. I thought Canada had four main political parties as opposed to our two. By "main" political parties, I mean parties represented in Parliament.

There's a new term you've probably heard that perhaps is more useful to such discussions. It's "Statist". Statists can be right or left. Basically they want the State to control everything. They are great at rationalizations to deny their goals, like championing free speech as long as you don't say anything politically incorrect. They want government standards, programs and laws for pretty well anything.

The ultimate in "nanny staters", I guess. I would say Canada has fallen much further down this path than America. Sometimes things seem kinda confining. Perhaps it will change.

No, I had never heard of that term before. Something else for me to search. Is that a new party in Canada?

Maybe the reason I feel that more "lefties" are rude and bullying is that I live in an area that traditionally supports the NDP and Liberal parties.

That's a real possibility. Someone said earlier (I forget who), and I agree, that it likely depends on where one lives. For example, evidently people in Canada who supported the war were subjected to rudeness and insults while the opposite was true here in the States. And when it comes to defining 'left' and 'right' for things like war, it just doesn't hold water. All the supporters in Canada couldn't have been right wing and all the critics left wing; ditto everyone who supported the war wasn't right wing and all those opposed left wing.

Edited August 3, 2008 by American Woman

[Wild Bill]

No, I had never heard of that term before. Something else for me to search. Is that a new party in Canada?

Oh Dear! Not at present!

Perhaps we should speak more softly and not give them any ideas...

[Wild Bill]

It's good to see that you recognize it and nice to see you admit it. Thank you for that.

Well, I always like to stand out in a crowd!

[DrGreenthumb]

An example? The CBC costs Canadian taxpayers $1 billion/year. It's filled with people who think and act like high school teachers. In their own way, they are leftist bullies.

I'm sure when we look at the costs of the war on plants, the real total costs from lost taxes to all the money paid out to everyone from cops to crowns to prison guards, and probation services it would dwarf the cbc's annual budget. The government declared cost of the war on drugs is but a tiny fraction of the actual cost. I'm sure you understand that when my hard earned tax money goes to fund the war on people who use medicinal herbs like cannabis, it pretty much pisses me off. Its actually even worse than the CBC example for me, because even though you disagree with the CBC you can decide not to "take part" in it by not watching, not accepting their ideas and nobody will "punish" you. You see even though the government has taken your money and put it towards something you may not agree with, you are not actually funding a witchunt against yourself like we are. I am paying the state to hunt me down and try to imprison me, how do you think THAT feels? I can't just decide to turn the channel, and not take part in their drug war. Using the criminal law to force your ideology on others is about as bully as a government can get. Charges for simple possession of pot are up over 30% across Canada since the conservatives have been in power, so people who say that the new pot law C26 will not target personal possession do not know what they are talking about. Even under the same laws we already have they have targeted pot users 33% more across this country than any previous government of Canada. The new law they are trying to pass further erodes our privacy rights, and makes even harsher punishments available to a government that has already proven that they WILL TARGET POT USERS.

[Pliny]

I'm sure when we look at the costs of the war on plants, the real total costs from lost taxes to all the money paid out to everyone from cops to crowns to prison guards, and probation services it would dwarf the cbc's annual budget. The government declared cost of the war on drugs is but a tiny fraction of the actual cost. I'm sure you understand that when my hard earned tax money goes to fund the war on people who use medicinal herbs like cannabis, it pretty much pisses me off. Its actually even worse than the CBC example for me, because even though you disagree with the CBC you can decide not to "take part" in it by not watching, not accepting their ideas and nobody will "punish" you. You see even though the government has taken your money and put it towards something you may not agree with, you are not actually funding a witchunt against yourself like we are. I am paying the state to hunt me down and try to imprison me, how do you think THAT feels? I can't just decide to turn the channel, and not take part in their drug war. Using the criminal law to force your ideology on others is about as bully as a government can get. Charges for simple possession of pot are up over 30% across Canada since the conservatives have been in power, so people who say that the new pot law C26 will not target personal possession do not know what they are talking about. Even under the same laws we already have they have targeted pot users 33% more across this country than any previous government of Canada. The new law they are trying to pass further erodes our privacy rights, and makes even harsher punishments available to a government that has already proven that they WILL TARGET POT USERS.

So you are saying the Liberals were no good at law enforcement and the conservatives are doing a better job?

It is people who haven't read the Bill who do not know what they are talking about. Have you read it?

I have and I don't think it targets simple possession. It is only an "amendment" to the Drug and Controlled Substances Act so you have to compare the original with the amendment, which I haven't done. I imagine it is about harsher penalties for possession for the purposes of trafficking. There are also added aggravated conditions outlined such as; "for the benefit of organized crime".

At the pro marijuana web-sights they get a little hysterical about it as I imagine they are more concerned with trafficking offenses, which is more what the amendment is about, as opposed to possession. Possession for the purposes of trafficking has to be proven. There was nothing in the amendment about simple possession.

If you have under 200 pot plants for the purposes of trafficking, and trafficking must be proven, you get a mandatory sentence of 6 months. The Cannabis Culture website histrionically states "the possession of one pot plant will result in a mandatory 6 month sentence.

Because you smoke pot quite often you believe that everyone else should, or at least they should have the option. It would make you feel better and you could lose your paranoia - that hunted feeling. There is a differing opinion from yours concerning mind altering drugs. It is their opinion that the legalization of marijuana would not be on the whole beneficial for the country. Their opinion used to be that of the majority and so the law was made. A growing number of people feel the law should be changed and marijuana should be decriminalized or made legal.

I suppose civil disobedience is a way to accomplish change but you will have to be prepared to face the consequences.

Until the law changes you can't argue that the Conservatives are bullies for just wishing to enforce it or make it more difficult for drug-pushers who are pushing drugs on children at schoolyards.

Are the left bullies? They are the ones that will make the most laws regarding social engineering in my opinion.

Extreme leftists and rightists being of a socialistic bent will tned toward totalitarianism,

[blueblood]

I'll skip over differences between "fascism" and "fascist tendencies". I really don't want an argument comparing "bullies" and "fascists". I understood what Jerry wrote and I think he has a point.

bk59, you and AW both made reference to the Right's opposition to abortion and gay rights as evidence of the Right being closed-minded.

Well, abortion exists in the US and Canada and the (social) conservatives who oppose it accept this state of affairs. One can understand how they view this issue as protecting life. Who is tolerant?

As to gay rights, gays live, get jobs and (in Canada) get married. There are many jurisdictions in the US that respect civil unions. Some on the Right might raise their eyebrows but they tolerate this. One can understand how they view marriage as an important institution in life.

You both missed another issue where the Right is accused of being a bully/fascist: marijuana use. (ETA: Dr. Greenthumb got it above.)

It's no surprise that all these issues concern social conservatives. Well, I find all leftists to be social leftists. Leftists by nature get involved in social questions that are often better left to individual choice.

But if we're going to throw around terms like bully, fascist etc, what do you think of the idea of taking money forecfuly from me and giving it to some pet do-gooder project that, you think, will improve the world? Not only do I have to listen to someone berate for being immoral, bigotted, racist, backward - in short, not progressive - I have to pay for this lesson too.

An example? The CBC costs Canadian taxpayers $1 billion/year. It's filled with people who think and act like high school teachers. In their own way, they are leftist bullies.

GostHacked, you have entirely missed the point.

The right being determined as a bully is dependant on ones point of view.

Take for example the Iran debate and where lefties and righties stand on it. In my opinion the right is on this issue not going to allow appeasement. That policy has failed, case in point world war 2. The US which is right wing will not allow that sort of nonsense to happen again. They view it as better to piss off one part than to risk the world going to hell in a handbasket.

The right on gay marriage is IMO defending the rights of a church minister or justice of the peace not being to forced to marry gays. I've heard leftists say that they should be forced to. Who's rights are being trampled. As for marriage, I believe the concept in today's society is totally dated and useless.

As for marijuana use, the right IMO is not risking the free for all that used to be the wild west when everything was legal and it was a free for all. IMO the only reason alcohol was made legal again, was because of established rich domestic alcohol producers. Had liquor been made in stills instead of in factories before prohibition, booze would still be illegal. It was the lawlessness and chaos of the wild west that resulted in prohibition and the prohibition of mind altering drugs, and the tough criminal laws in the US that still exist today. Oh and in the days of the Wild West when everything went, orgainized crime was a much bigger problem.

I wouldn't consider the right as bullies, just they won't take much for risks and consider the lesser of two evils.

As for the left being bullies, one only needs to look at the young people from the Cuban baseball team defecting in the most right wing province in Canada.

Edited August 4, 2008 by blueblood