New Danger: Right-wing extremist terrorists

[Deacon]

Cid, explain to me how racism is a right-wing platform.

[JermCool]

In my eyes, you're all crazy.

I AM NOT CRAZY AND I'LL RIP YOUR LIPS OFF THROUGH YOUR ASS FOR SAYING SO!

I do have to question the whole Neo-Nazi movement as being 'right-wing' extremism, though. Right wingers are typically pro-Israel and pro-Judaism.

In terms of they guy who shot the abortion doc, sure - I get it. He's chaotic pro-life. But von Brunn is, as far as anyone can tell, a whacko nut job that had no right-wing affiliation, so why (and I think this brings up Deacon's intention of starting this thread) did a large portion of the media paint him as a "Right-Wing Extremist"?

Was it because the right-wing made such a stink after DHS issued this report (linked to Huffington Post for pure entertainment value) and they wanted to make sure Janet Napolitano was considered a prophet instead of a bully?

It's a double-standard that can be rather frustrating for those of us who are right-wingers. When those environmentalists burned down those houses in Washington last year, the words "left-wing extremists" weren't used. "Eco-terrorist" was bandied about, but only by those on the right. And this got so little attention in the media, I only heard about it on talk radio. Where was the extremist talk there?

[The Cid]

Cid, explain to me how racism is a right-wing platform.

Not just racism. Neo-Nazi. There is nothing more extreme political right than Nazis.

And Jerm, "right wing" means extreme off to the right, not EVERY DAMN PERSON ON THE POLITICAL RIGHT. Get off it. Nobody's insulting your beliefs, and that DHS memo was actually really necessary. We don't want to forget, after all, that some of our biggest threats still come from within. But by all means, take offense like they were talking about your direct set of beliefs.

[Eihger]

Cid, explain to me how racism is a right-wing platform.

Not just racism. Neo-Nazi. There is nothing more extreme political right than Nazis.

And Jerm, "right wing" means extreme off to the right, not EVERY DAMN PERSON ON THE POLITICAL RIGHT. Get off it. Nobody's insulting your beliefs, and that DHS memo was actually really necessary. We don't want to forget, after all, that some of our biggest threats still come from within. But by all means, take offense like they were talking about your direct set of beliefs.

Thats not what the public will think, they hear " right wing" and think anything shy right of apathy.

[adciv]

Not just racism. Neo-Nazi. There is nothing more extreme political right than Nazis.

Explain to me how Neo-Nazi's are 'right wing'. Explain to me how a self described Socialist Party is right wing. Tell me what about it's platform is right wing. Tell me how a guy who rants about neocons, among other things, is right wing.

[The Cid]

Tell me what about it's platform is right wing. Tell me how a guy who rants about neocons, among other things, is right wing.

Well, considering you can be politically to the right of neocons, that doesn't sway me.

The social policy of severely punishing if not killing everyone who doesn't look like or think like you? That's not extreme social conservatism?

The political spectrum measures much more than fiscal policy. It's not all about money. In the fiscal policy sense, the extreme of the "right wing" would be an anarchist, but there are more things to consider.

Thats not what the public will think, they hear " right wing"

Yeah, yeah, I know. Everyone who disagrees with you is completely idiotic and will believe whatever the liberal media tells them. Oh, and I also understand that if the shoe were on the other foot, people would freak out over the use of "left wing."

Damn that public!

[StruckingFuggle]

Before we can answer how this is or is not "right-wing", we need to know which duck, in particular, we're talking about.




As for how the murder of the abortion doctor, at least, is right wing: when you're talking about the social duck, fundamental opposition to abortion is a right-wing stance, can we all agree to that? And then, wouldn't the extreme version of a stance of opposition be terrorism?

[JermCool]

You know, I don't know that the word "terrorist" even applies.

A "terrorist" wants to promote terror (e.g. 9/11, market bombings, etc). These particular individuals wanted to kill specific targets. Murderers, yes. Terrorists? I think that could be a stretch.

[StruckingFuggle]

Kill a specific person (or one who belongs to a specific set of people) in part as a means of influencing the behavior of others.

The point of terrorism is not to cause terror, it's to cause terror as a means of causing change.

[Mav]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_ ... e_shooting

Oh look. Far-left extremists. How dare they label them so. I'm offended.

[adciv]

Well, considering you can be politically to the right of neocons, that doesn't sway me.

Like Libertarians?

The social policy of severely punishing if not killing everyone who doesn't look like or think like you? That's not extreme social conservatism?

Nope. That's more of an exteremist thing in general. Or would you classify Chairman Mao as 'right wing' for the purges in China in the early years?

The political spectrum measures much more than fiscal policy. It's not all about money. In the fiscal policy sense, the extreme of the "right wing" would be an anarchist, but there are more things to consider.

Did you miss my posts earlier when I went over a few various axes? And also, the extreme of right wing in fiscal sense would not be anarchy. The extreme of right in a law sense would be. In a fiscal sense, you could still have laws governing behavior (as it is another axis) without spending any money or levying taxes.

As for how the murder of the abortion doctor, at least, is right wing: when you're talking about the social duck, fundamental opposition to abortion is a right-wing stance, can we all agree to that?

Nope. A lot of people on the 'left' oppose abortion as well.

And then, wouldn't the extreme version of a stance of opposition be terrorism?

Nope. Depends on if be 'extreme' you mean 'violent' or just 'very much'. For example, Extreme Pacifists.

[The Cid]

Well, considering you can be politically to the right of neocons, that doesn't sway me.

Like Libertarians?

...Are pretty much off the spectrum. Fiscally, the Libertarians are way off to the right, but I'd call the idea of giving people a whole lot of personal freedom more of a "leftist" thought. Social conservatism, as I've come to understand it, involves restricting personal freedom in order to make society "nicer" for everyone. As you might imagine, the Libertarian ideal is quite removed from restricting anything too much.

I've always considered the Libertarian Party to be extreme social liberals and fiscal conservatives. It just so happens that giving people more personal freedom means that the government can spend less money. You're still looking at everything on an economic scale, and I'm really not sure that's how it works Adciv.

Here. Let me sum it up with some questions:
-Would you consider the legalization of drugs to be off to the right?
-Which side of the political spectrum is for wild military spending, and for growing the power of military?
-Where do you imagine the Libertarians might fall when it comes to the military?
-If the "right" is exclusively for small government that spends as little public money as possible, I can group both major parties on the "left." You're okay with that, right?
-Where would the extreme of the extreme--a fascist dictatorship--fall on your political spectrum? Because I've been given the impression that such a dictatorship is the farthest possible end of the political "right."
-The Iranian Government: left or right?
-The idea of expanding civil liberties and personal freedom: socially left or socially right?
-In your vision of the political "right," what's the ideal stance on foreign policy?
-How about immigration?
-How about civil rights?

Oh, and one last question:
-Eigher is the only person who's even come close to giving me a reason why anyone on the political "right" should be offended by the phrasing "right wing terrorist." I'll turn to asking you: give me one good reason the phrasing should matter. To anyone.

Did you miss my posts earlier when I went over a few various axes? And also, the extreme of right wing in fiscal sense would not be anarchy. The extreme of right in a law sense would be. In a fiscal sense, you could still have laws governing behavior (as it is another axis) without spending any money or levying taxes.

Social conservatism must be a real leftist ideal then...

[adciv]

-Eigher is the only person who's even come close to giving me a reason why anyone on the political "right" should be offended by the phrasing "right wing terrorist." I'll turn to asking you: give me one good reason the phrasing should matter. To anyone.

Because it is used by those of the opposite label to associate, deride, discredit and refute those who are XXX wing. You believe in XXX therefore you are just like XXX terrorist and should be...

Did you miss my posts earlier when I went over a few various axes? And also, the extreme of right wing in fiscal sense would not be anarchy. The extreme of right in a law sense would be. In a fiscal sense, you could still have laws governing behavior (as it is another axis) without spending any money or levying taxes.

Social conservatism must be a real leftist ideal then...

*sigh* apparently you didn't read it at all (last paragraph), especially where I went over how the 'left' tries to exercise just as much control over behavior as you believe the 'right' does. See same post for pretty much the rest of your "Let me sum it up with some questions". You keep trying to take what is a >5 dimensional chart and superimpose it down to one dimension.

[The Cid]

Because it is used by those of the opposite label to associate, deride, discredit and refute those who are XXX wing. You believe in XXX therefore you are just like XXX terrorist and should be...

Not everyone on the "right" is right-wing! Up until literally this discussion, I had always heard "_____-wing" used to designate someone who was way off to a side. Most people--including pretty much everyone here--falls somewhere in the middle between the two "wings." I, for example, do not consider myself on any "wing." (Maybe a right defenseman. I'm a pretty large guy, I bet I'd make a good enforcer.)

And really, it seems like your sentiment here comes from the belief that everyone who disagrees with you is absolutely stupid and does whatever people tell them. Because you certainly aren't expecting people to be reasonable.

If you can't expect people to be reasonable you have no reason to worry about what they think.

[adciv]

I've heard 'wing' to basically used as left-wing, right-wing and some small remainder of the population being moderates. No 4th option.

As to those who disagree with me, not all of them being absolutely stupid. And no, I don't expect people to be reasonable, they are human after all. Oh, and I do care what 'unreasonable' people think. Why? Because a number of them try to get laws made that then impact what I can and can not do.