It was not MY definition. It was, I think, how these terms tend, generally, to be grouped. That was all. As I wrote, a gross over-simplification. And, it tends to be used that way, in a gross, oversimplified manner. Defining the terms with any more detail than I did implies that they really mean that much. I don't think they do. They are rather empty terms with little meaning because they are used in such general ways.
Back to work. On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 15:07, Net Llama! wrote: > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Tim Wunder wrote: > > On 11/11/2004 8:54 AM, I believe that Net Llama! wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Collins Richey wrote: > > > > > >>On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:29:50 +0100, Roger Oberholtzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>wrote: > > >> > > >>>On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 10:41, James McDonald wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>What does it mean to be "left wing" or "right wing" has anyone got a non > > >>>>satirical explanation. > > >>> > > >>>Sort of (*): > > >>> > > >>>left-wing = liberal = Democrat/Labour = progressive = 'for the worker' > > >>> > > >>>right-ring = conservative = Republican/Tory = reactionary = 'for the > > >>>rich guy' > > >>> > > >>>(*) As you can see, this is a very sloppy way to describe things. But I > > >>>think this is a 'classical' grouping of these terms. Life is not so > > >>>neat. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>I keep hearing these terms and because I am non-political have no idea > > >>>>what they mean? > > >>> > > >>>I suspect many non non-political folk are in the same situation. > > >>> > > >> > > >>It's a little deeper than that. The terms "for the worker" and "for > > >>the rich guy" are purely stereotypes. The essential difference is > > >>this. > > >> > > >>The leftist believes that government should play a big role in our > > >>lives - providing benefits and controlling many aspects of our life > > >>using any funds that can be ripped off from the rest of us (high > > >>taxes). There is a strong preponderence of leftist thinking in large > > >>metropolitan areas and in the universities where the proponents > > >>believe that they know better than the rest of us by virtue of their > > >>great intellect. Many of these same leftists believe in the communist > > >>dictum that religion is the opiate of the people and that it should be > > >>suppressed wherever you find it. Many of these same leftists believe > > >>that patriotism is a relic of the past and that government should be > > >>controled by international consortiums (e.g. the UN). > > >> > > >>The conservative believes that government should be restricted to the > > >>roles designed in the constitution (small government), that the > > >>individual is responsible for his own life, and that we know better > > >>how to spend our money than the government does (low taxes). There is > > >>a strong preponderence of conservative thinking in rural and suburban > > >>areas. Many of the most religious people are conservatives, and some > > >>of these also have the belief that they know better than the rest of > > >>us. Most conservatives are patriots for there country and have no > > >>desire to see their country under the control of international > > >>consortiums. > > >> > > >>Needless to say, there are many gradations of thought in between these > > >>two poles. In the US, at least, there has been a gradual shift over > > >>the past decades toward conservative thinking and, at the same time, a > > >>growth in the more radical fringes of the left and the right. > > > > > > > > > Collins forget the footnote where he should have stated that he, himself, > > > is a conservative, and hence his few of anyone who is not a conservative > > > is heavily biased, and not quite accurate. > > > > > > > Yet your view of conservatives is not biased? Why didn't you chastize Roger > > for his biased explanation of left wing and right wing? His was equally, if > > not more, biased than Collins'. > > I never claimed thqat my view wasn't biased which is why i didn't even > make an attempt at defining them. Roger's definition was equally flawed > on both sides, so at least it balanced out, IMO. +����������������������������+�������������������������������+ � Roger Oberholtzer � E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] � � OPQ Systems AB � WWW: http://www.opq.se/ � � Nybrogatan 66 nb � Phone: Int + 46 8 314223 � � 114 41 Stockholm � Mobile: Int + 46 733 621657 � � Sweden � Fax: Int + 46 8 314223 � +����������������������������+�������������������������������+ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
