The extreme right versus the extreme left

[gully]

The extreme right is morally superior
The extreme left is morally superior

The extreme right will settle for nothing less then what is "right"
The extreme left will settle for nothing less then what is "right"

The extreme right is right, so there is no room for compromise
The extreme left is right, so there is no room for compromise

It all comes down to one thing...

"Principle...Principle without regard to consequences. Principle without regret. Principle that has put the world in danger.~Thomas Ball, New York, NY

Food for thought. :freak:

[CWebster]

1. The question is

who are you to decide who is who?

[gully]

2. Am I deciding?

Didn't know I was...

Believe it or not, I leave that decision up to the reader.

[CWebster]

3. Why even suggest it?

All it serves to do is divide.

[gully]

4. Why not suggest it?

It serves to provoke thought.

[Bertrand]

19. its easy to decide who is who

they are those that refuse to comprimise on their ideological beliefs.


and you can tell what each wing of the party is by their ideology and how much they refuse.

[jbm]

52. I think you're right...

I read once that homeless people are not homeless due to genetics,nor are they homeless due to circumstances or environment,but some combination of both,or either one. I think an extremist would attribute the cause solely to one or the other,but a moderate would realize that both factors must be considered.

[snooper2]

5. The Extreme Right + The Extreme Left

= a Libertarian

[gully]

7. he he...

Now thare's a win/win "sits-she-a-shon"?

[CWebster]

10. that works

;-)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. We'll I'm a moderate swing voter

stay away from the wing-nuts of either the right or left :)

[Blue_Chill]

8. I agree

well said.

[fedupwithbush]

9. Extreme people is what got us into this mess.

Bush and his crew are extreme. Some would say Nader is extreme in the opposite direction.

exceeding what is usual or reasonable; immoderate
example: extreme behaviour

very strict, rigid, or severe; drastic
example: an extreme measure

farthest or outermost in direction

Evolution to me is being able to adapt, grow and compromise. Otherwise extreme things happen. Like extinction.

[DBoon]

11. The extreme right controls the White House

The extreme left controls the latest issue of "Revolutionary Worker"

[xchrom]

12. many here are considered

extreme left.
food for thought.

[gully]

13. *Bush is in the WH due to extremists on both sides...

Food for thought.

[Rich Hunt]

39. In Europe

...people who are called "extremists" in the US would be called "liberals".

[gully]

41. What do they call those on the extreme right? n/t

[Rich Hunt]

44. fascists

They're called "fascists".

Someone upthread had it right - the real "extreme left" are the Marxist cult groups like the RCP.

[gully]

45. aahhh, interesting...

:crazy:

[David__77]

14. Left and right are pretty useless terms.

I don't think these words matter much. I support the right to bear arms, nuclear power and don't share much of the ecological agenda, does that make me "rightist"? I oppose US intervention abroad, support universal healthcare and same-sex marriage. Does that make me "leftist"? I just don't know. I think a "centrist" can be a dogmatist, if that's what you're really criticizing. I mean, "extremists" can be very pragmatic. Hell, the Communist Party endorsed Gore for president, that's pretty flexible for the extreme left, no?

[gully]

15. By extreme I mean inflexible..

I am an extreme leftist ... personally. But, I am also pragmatic. The statement is metaphoric. I think most DU'ers 'get it.'

[gully]

36. You said...

Hell, the Communist Party endorsed Gore for president, that's pretty flexible for the extreme left, no?

Yes... This is a pragmatic approach. That with which I agree. Bravo to the commies!

[PATRICK]

16. What extreme left?

I only hear a few writers and thinkers whistling in the dark while their counterparts, who need a grammar editor just to design their names, get propaganda blather and shoddy science churned out like romance novels at the goon reading level. In fact the extremists on the left (if any) have been ceded the true facts domain so completely it is wonder they have been unable to utilize even that cast off prize during recent catastrophes. We have angry populists and moderates in the thick of things, no "extreme lefties". Of course Chomsky notably springs to mind but he is far from espousing more than a reactionary view.

The few violent lefties, the "Weathermen" etc. were few and history and used widely by the corporate media in the same fashion as bomb throwing anarchists were in the Gay Nineties(1890s).

I would be willing to guess that the chief reason is that extremists are over compensators who are in fact too chicken to act, too ineffective to speak unless the general mood permits their worship or they are paid a lot- A LOT- of money.

Morally inferior etc. down the list. They seethe. They write lonely tracts. When the workers take to the streets or the common man gets angry they charge to the head of the real world mob as if this is vindication of their illusions or righteous crusade. The power of words at a vulnerable moment. Strong backing from power brokers. Presto- you have giants of destiny and seminal geniuses of the age.

It all boils down to "Mein Kampf".

[Q]

17. Perhaps you could give us an example...

...of an 'extreme left' position? You're shooting in the dark here.

[gully]

18. I leave that task to the reader Q.

:think:

[Q]

20. Then I'm off to 'greener' pastures...

...thanks anyway.

[gully]

22. Cheers!

Your welcome...

[WilliamPitt]

69. Promise?

[Forkboy]

75. Dont you have another thread to write Will

Letting us know how stupid we all are?

[gully]

21. I take no issues with any specific "positions." N/T

[BeFree]

25. Extreme Left

Is someone who believes in getting all the rights a human can get from the rulers.

Extreme right are people who think others should be controlled by whatever means possible. Lefties think an absolute minimum of control is proper.

[Clark Can WIN]

23. Thanks for that post and quote

It would be amusing were not so dangerous.

[denverbill]

24. I agree, but.............

For the last 20 years, the extreme left has been silent as the extreme right took control of the airwaves and the agenda.

If the extreme left remains silent, the center moves to the right.

I don't consider myself an extremist. The views I have right now differ little from the views I had 20 years ago, which were then very middle of the road.

The eagle needs both right and left wings. You can't trim off the wing-tips and expect it to fly as well.

[gully]

29. Agreed,

And, my goal is not to 'silence' anyone. It's to accept the fact that our reality, is not everbody's reality. We need people who stand up for our principals, sure. However, we need to channel said principals into results. Therein lies the dilema.

I am concerned that there are some on the left that are becoming that which they despise:

Intollerent, uncompromising, callous, self rightous, dogmatists.

One of the definitions of liberal is as follows:
"Not narrow or contracted in mind;" This is where we should differ with the extreme right. This for me is moral high ground.

~Peace

Interesting quiz?

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

[MrPrax]

26. This is Silly

What is extreme exactly?

A group that want to kill thousands of Iraqis for money, guns and power and a group that suggest, nawh--not right, don't do it...

Presumeably this would be 'extremes'.

This illustrates that centrists don't feel strongly about anything...some 'issues' are not easily compromised.

Centrists seek to eliminate contention by ignoring certain issues--but of course the problems are still there and become unavoidable.

The fact of the matter Bush and Company are not doing what most Americans believe they should do; make the country wealthy, strike out at enemies, and bring the fruits of freedom and democracy to the ignorant world...

It is simply their tactics that are being debated by 'centrists'

[gully]

31. ?

"The fact of the matter Bush and Company are not doing what most Americans believe they should do;

And, what specifically are you going to do about this? Are you going to go against him at the polls, or pursue ideological purity instead?

[Blue_Chill]

123. I don't agree

This illustrates that centrists don't feel strongly about anything...some 'issues' are not easily compromised.

Wrong. Centrists don't worry about moronic slogan type thinking and look for common sense solutions. Take Iraq for example.

Right Wingers want to control it via power and military strength.
Left wing extremists demand we pull out right away, leaving the country in chaos.

Centrists want the UN in there and to slowly decrese US control. We only want what works, not what appeals to an ivory tower sense principle.

[Guaranteed]

27. What was moderate two years ago is now a radical leftist.

I HAVE moved a ways left as a knee-jerk reaction to Bush's craziness. But for the most part I'm still working on the same moderate principles I always have, although, somehow, people have called me a liberal simply for being against the war.
That's all it takes to be a commie nowadays. Just believing you don't attack someone unless they attack you first.

[gully]

117. I'm with you. I'm a radical leftist...

who is also practical. Go figure. This 'extreme' government has driven me to extremes as well.

I desire no compromise with the radical right, make no mistake. I wan't them out in 2004. I do want centrists to compromise with leftists to assure that happens however.

But, given the venom here, I am not so sure it's possible?

[blindpig]

28. EXTREME IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

EXTREME RIGHT HAS BECOME WAY TOO OBVIOUS LATELY, BUT WHAT IS EXTREME LEFT? I DON'T REALLY SEE IT AROUND HERE. TO MY MIND, STALINIST & MAOIST WOULD FIT THE BILL, BUT THEY'RE ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST.
THERE'S SOME FOLKS AROUND HERE WHO GO CALLING DK AN EXTREMIST. THAT SPEAKS MORE OF THEIR PATHETIC SELVES THAN DK, WHO'S POLICIES ARE A DIRECT CONTINUATION OF THE NEW DEAL, THE BEST THING THE DEMS EVER DID
AS A NEWBIE 'ROUND HERE I'VE BEEN A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED WHERE THE "CENTER" IS IN THIS SUPPOSEDLY PROGRESSIVE BIT OF CYBERTURF

[gully]

32. I dont consider DK an extremist for the record...

;)

I consider an extremist as someone who is unwilling to compromise. DK did change/evolve on the issue of choice *one example*

[gully]

35. BTW, Can you define progressive for me?

"AS A NEWBIE 'ROUND HERE I'VE BEEN A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED WHERE THE "CENTER" IS IN THIS SUPPOSEDLY PROGRESSIVE BIT OF CYBERTURF."

The dictionary describes it as such...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=progressive

"Moving forward; advancing." I want to move Bush's ass on out of office.

"Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change." I want to take the steps necessary to move Bush's ass out of office.

"Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods:" I think Bush's ass out of office, will promote better conditions, new policies, ideas and methods.

Thus, I'm a progressive!

[blindpig]

53. cute

i wasn't referring to you personally. i've noticed that there are quite a few folks these parts happy to defend the dlc & corporations, institutions OF feudalism & biocide.

[aneerkoinos]

60. Hello newbie

Friendly advice: "Shouting" (CAPS ON) is considered bad manners everywhere in our wonderfull Internet world. Just pointing this out so you don't run into trouble and start unwanted flame wars on less friendly discussion boards, ;)

Wellcome to DU!

[blindpig]

79. thanks for the advice

hadn't payed it no mind(i usually use small case out of laziness). the customs of weird & obscure tribes take time learning........

[jonnyblitz]

30. and then we have the EXTREME CENTER....

:puke:

[ShaneGR]

33. the term would be "moderate"

from left to right (academic)

Extremists.... Liberals..... Moderates.... Conservatives.... Extremist

[PATRICK]

46. Lukewarn spittle

That is how the word moderate sounds in a crisis and anyone feeling cozy with that doesn't even know how the Gingrich newspeak is setting him up.
Extreme moderate sounds crazy enough to cut through the harsh insanity of wingnuts. Extreme enough to do radical things to stop radicals from killing and enslaving us all. Which is what WWII proved at the time, uprooting the worldwide fascist movement and turning against the communist monolith in the next breath. They never think "free" spoiled democracies would even try that. So now they first try harder to destroy all powerful democracies.

"They" are not extremists but real power brokers and money lords whose ideology is rightist by virtue of mammon's rewards. Intellectuals and thugs of the right are merely their servants and tools placed carefully on the bottomrungs of their pyramid. Ideologues in the view of real power manipulators are suckers even if those manipulators fervently share many of their beliefs.

[gully]

34. True...

It all comes down to what is practical.

I am a leftist, but dont believe that an effective Government is one that only represents 'me.'

[buddhamama]

37. i don't understand

does moderate equal practical?

"I am a leftist, but dont believe that an effective Government is one that only represents 'me.'"




that's great but where this rosey argument breaks down is when you get into the nitty-gritty.


example. Gay Marriage or Civil Unions. Now, the right and even some moderates are not going to feel 'represented' if the Federal Government were to pass legislation recognizing Civil Unions.
But, by not passing that legislation, the GLBT community and those who support their human/civil rights are not being represented.

This is to be expected because situations are not black and white and everyone is not in agreement. See how tricky it can be. there comes a time though, when you need to make a stand.

[gully]

40. You make an excellent point.

Buddhamama said~example. Gay Marriage or Civil Unions. Now, the right and even some moderates are not going to feel 'represented' if the Federal Government were to pass legislation recognizing Civil Unions.
But, by not passing that legislation, the GLBT community and those who support their human/civil rights are not being represented.

This is to be expected because situations are not black and white and everyone is not in agreement. See how tricky it can be. there comes a time though, when you need to make a stand.

ABSOLUTELY, and I think Howard Dean took a stand on this in Vermont, KWIM?

Also, our 'agenda' is a obviously a consideration, which is why I'm a democrat.

I am as narrow as it comes when I speak about what's important. I sit atop my moral highground scoffing at Republicans. Why, because they are intollerent. I am an example of the pot calling the kettle black. But, come election day, I will to do what's best for the 'liberal' agenda overall.

You also said~"that's great but where this rosey argument breaks down is when you get into the nitty-gritty."

Here's some 'nitty gritty' Bush is in the White House. The harm he has unleashed on the world and the US, goes with out saying. What are we going to do about it? He is digressive. The longer he's in, the deeper the hole we have to climb out of.

That's the nitty gritty as I see it.

Make sense?

[buddhamama]

42. so this was about ABB?--

i've taken a vow not to discuss the campaigns of the various candidates or the upcoming election. there's a lot going on right now that i'll be focusing my energy on. not arguing the finer points of extremism,etc.

my previous post was not a calling out.
i just wanted to point out to you how complicated the representing everyone is.

[gully]

43. No it's not about ABB, nice try though.

;) It's about choosing our battles, I think it's rather simple really.

Buddhamama said~"i just wanted to point out to you how complicated the representing everyone is."

And, I wanted to point out how complicated it is to beat your head against a wall.

[buddhamama]

47. "And, I wanted to point out how complicated

it is to beat your head against a wall."

then you failed miserable.

it is very easy to beat your head against a wall.
what's difficult is deciding when it is necessary and sticking to it, no matter how painful.

[gully]

48. We'll have to agree it disagree, once again..

you said~"what's difficult is deciding when it is necessary and sticking to it, no matter how painful."

Thankfully they make helmets for people who beat their heads against walls ... so as to protect them from 'themselves'... :tinfoilhat: Tastless humor, I know. ;)

However, beating your head upon a wall is not only painful, but futile. And in the case of GWBUSH vs. The American people, it's deadly as well.

[buddhamama]

51. you're right, again we disagree

you're bringing up Bush and choosing battles and the American people. so it is about ABB!

my dedication to the issues has nothing to do with whom i will vote for.

let's back up.

you said something like 'effective goverment...doesn't only represents me.'

and i pointed out to you how 'someone somewhere' no matter what your position is going to feel unrepresented.

voting for a particular pol doesn't change my positions or issues.
all it does is set my course in being represented.
going back to the Civil Union example. whether i vote or not, or whom i vote for, i still support Civil Unions. that legislation may not come about right away, but i'll keep beating my head against the wall until it does, because it is something i strongly believe in.
and if others feel unpresented because of it, well, sorry.

i think a big problem you and i have in communicating is that, you're a literalist and i tend to speak figuratively.

[gully]

66. As I said it's a matter of priority

on the issues...

i.e. are children in poverty more or less important then the civil union issue? *figuratively speaking of course*

"i think a big problem you and i have in communicating is that, you're a literalist and i tend to speak figuratively.

Funny, I thought the opposite was true ;)

[Forkboy]

38. More food for thought

In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current. -- Thomas Jefferson

[sandnsea]

49. Principle without listening

to any other view. "Contempt prior to investigation is guaranteed to leave a man in ever-lasting ignorance." A quote from someone, I don't remember who. Being a liberal means not relying on dogma in order to progress forward, even dogma from the left.

[gully]

50. What an awesome post

:toast:

Off to life now. See you all tomorrow!

[CentristDemocrat]

54. I'm trying to figure out which is worse.

The far right or the far left.

[Forkboy]

55. Neither

it's the squishy,don't stand for anything,never rock the boat,defenders of the status quo centerists.

[CentristDemocrat]

57. Yeah, the centrist philosophy has gotten us NOWHERE

</sarcasm>


Politics = compromise


Once it doesn't become compromise it is a fascist state. What you want.

[Forkboy]

59. And a world

where millions starve,where millions are exploited,where injustice runs rampant and where corruption is a way of life is what you want.

[charlie]

61. Politics = Compromise

Tell that to the jihad Republicans, who've been ascendant since adopting scorched earth tactics decades ago.

[gully]

67. Then lets get them the F out of office! n/t

[Raenelle]

56. There is no extreme left in this country.

Once you figure that out, a lot of these "moral equivalence" mind-fucks disappear.

[buddhamama]

58. awesome !

well put, Raenelle :toast:

[noiretextatique]

68. kudos, raenelle...this is so annoying

some seem to gloss over the power issue when assigning these moral equivalency arugments. there is NO equivalent of the radical right on the left. to suggest so is dishonest and intellectually bankrupt.

[gully]

82. Wow, more deep stuff from the introspective and open minded...

:eyes:

[noiretextatique]

87. try it...if you can

maybe you will actually post something substantive...someday.

[gully]

89. Cute, I see you learned a new big word today..

"substantive" and you spelled it right too! :thumbsup:

[gully]

116. Funny, The extreme right feels the same way...

They don't consider themselves 'extreme.'
hmmmm :freak:

[noiretextatique]

119. it's clear that you are an extremist

you really should have that projection problem checked out.

[G_j]

62. what was MLK? Ghandi? certainly people of principal.

how much were they willing to compromise? Were they dangerous? Well, at least to the status quo they were.

I read letters in my local paper that refer to
the Sierra club as "environmental extremists". These waters are just too muddy.

[gully]

76. Funny you should mention that...

As Dr. King spoke about this issue:

"An individual has not started living fully until they can rise above the narrow confines of individualist concerns to the broader concerns of humanity. Every person must decide at some point, whether they will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment. Life's most persistent and urgent question is what are you doing for others?"~Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Democracy and violence can ill go together. Evolution of democracy is not possible if we are not prepared to hear the other side."~Mohandas K. Gandhi

[noiretextatique]

77. both were murdered

and neither of them were "moderates."

[gully]

81. Who said they were moderates...

As per usual the topic went over your head.

Here, you seem to understand this... :hurts:

[Forkboy]

83. I think the point is

that moderates maintain the status quo and never really affect any real change.

[gully]

86. Ya'll aren't gettin it...

That's ok. I still like ya Forkboy.

"Democracy and violence can ill go together. Evolution of democracy is not possible if we are not prepared to hear the other side." ~Ghandi...

[Forkboy]

91. I get the quote

but hearing the other side and going along with them when they're destroying you are two different things.

Anyways...if you respond and I don't it's because it's Friday at 4:00 and time for me to start my once a week drinking session so I can bop around to some music (now my music...THAT'S extremist...Pig Destroyer here I come!!! :) )

Have a good night all!!!!

[noiretextatique]

92. isn't this a tad hypocritical?

given your original post? or are you saying it's only the "extremes" that aren't willing to hear the other side? doesn't your post invalidate the position of the "extremes," and indicate your unwillingness to listen? :shrug: but...maybe it's just me.

[gully]

94. It's just you...

Most people actually understood the post.

[gully]

120. Are you refering to the Ghandi quote? or something I said. n/t

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gully]

88. I didn't consider them extremists.

So "put a sock in it." :freak: Hope I broke that down into terms you could 'grasp.'

As usual, your ignorance/intollerance is showing.

[noiretextatique]

95. oh brother...why do i bother

do you have some sort of comprehension problem? read the post below. your insults are simply projections of your own inferiority...you should get that checked out.

[gully]

97. Grasping at staws again ey?

:hi:

[noiretextatique]

101. here's a suggestion

when attempting to engaging in an intellectual battle, be prepared with some actual arguments. that way when you are defeated, you will still have some remant of dignity and credibility left. it's been fun, as always (though i know it's bad form to beat up on weaker opponents) but i've got to clean my apartment. until the next :spank:

[gully]

102. one would have to be presented with actual intellect

beyond "put a sock in it" and :hurts:

You offer no intellect.

You hurl personal insults and say nothing. The only person you 'beat up' is yourself when you continually prove your ignorance.

See how that works?

[G_j]

90. yes that is why I mentioned them

they were dangerous and that is perhaps what made them important and vital.


Also, Notice that Ghandi said, understand the other other side, but did not even entertain the possibiliy of using their tactics (violence).

[gully]

96. Right... however, I disagree that they were dangerous.

;-)

[G_j]

99. not to you or I perhaps...n/t

[gully]

110. They were extremists to the extremists...

funny how that works ;)

[noiretextatique]

98. thanks, G_j...this person seems intent

on misunderstanding. i can understand, given the lack of coherent thought it took to write the original post.

[gully]

100. Funny, most people understood the point...

Im not surprised at your lack of comprehension however.

[G_j]

104. quite a love fest

have you two met already?? lol

:toast:

[noiretextatique]

118. yep...the voice of the extreme center and i

have tangled before in another thread. the pattern:

posts ridiculous black/white argument
changes tune slightly when challenged
resorts to childish tactics (name-calling/spelling, etc) when ridiculous argument is soundly defeated
claims no one understands the argument (apparently, because the poster's intellectual prowess) :scared:
pretends to seek argrement and discussion
but is really advancing an agenda, like the rest of this ilk
thinks no one gets any of this

lather, rinse, and repeat, ad nauseum :puke:

[gully]

121. hmmmmm

... Let's talk about 'the pattern'

*Claims those that may disagree are - "ridiculous, intellectually bankrupt, dishonest and brain dead"

*Resorts to "childish" tactics as noted above, when respondant is unwilling to take bait.

*Later acts bewildered and confused (accusing respondant of a "comprehension problem") when one doesn't respond to said non-argument

*Usually involved in a tag team of former Nader voters who don't like discussions about pragmatism and bash those that disagree in succession

*Claims a reasoned intellectual argument was given at some point in discussion, then claims defeat for not getting a 'response' to personal insults (which are what so called argument consists of)

*Again claims intellectual superiority and declairs self 'winner'

*Thinks one is superior and enlightened beyond those that differ in opinion.

Has major issues with inflated ego and narcissism

Makes great subject matter for the OP I'd say.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[buddhamama]

64. there you go again, noiretblu

making sense. :hi:

[noiretextatique]

65. hey buddhamama...sheesh

:hi: it seems the "extreme center" is acting up...again.

[gully]

70. Here you guys are gonna need this....

:tinfoilhat:

[noiretextatique]

71. this is more appropriate

:hurts: for this :puke:

[gully]

72. I like this one better.

Edited offensive Nader pic...

:nopity:

[Forkboy]

73. This is where you lose me gully

your automatic assumption that anyone whose to the left of you voted for Nader.There ARE dems to the left of you as well you know.

[gully]

78. I dont' assume that Forkboy...

Sorry, I'll edit it, so as not to distract from the OP. Thanks for mentioning that ;)

[noiretextatique]

74. this perfectly illustrates the idiocy of your thread

trent lott: white supremacist and darling of the CCC...and a US senator
vs.
ralph nader: consumer advocate and failed presidential candidate, who got only 2.74% of the vote, and who holds NO elected office.

as i said: a silly, intellectually bankrupt, dishonest equating of the two, fit only for :hurts:

btw, only the braindead think the green party and ralph nader are "extremists."

[gully]

80. When you have anything substantive to say, I'll reply...

Thus, don't expect to hear back.

Only a true sage can come up with poinant words such as these:

"put a sock in it"

[noiretextatique]

84. you standard tactic when your sily argument is shot out of the water

:scared: clearly, you have nothing sunstantive to say, hence this thread.

[gully]

93. Wow there's that word again...

Good job! :thumbsup:

[gully]

107. Yea, "put a sock in it"....

that's right up there with "nuh-uh," or "nah nah nah nah nah."

[gully]

106. I see,

when you have nothing to add to the conversation, attack the OP? You continually manage to 'distract' in this manner. I find it amusing, really. Not to mention transparent, "intellectually bankrupt and dishonest."

I've placed you on ignore in order to make my experience here, a more intelligent one.

:hi:

[Iverson]

103. the extreme center

The extreme center castigates the extreme left, yet works with the extreme right.

The extreme center rails against stances of moral superiority with a stance of moral superiority.

The extreme center is correct, so everybody else must compromise.

... and so on.

[Rich Hunt]

115. "compromise"

Unfortunately, the centrists' idea of "compromise" is often deciding which "interest group" to toss from the lifeboat.

[ulysses]

105. food for thought? a rice cake, maybe.

The extreme right is morally superior
The extreme left is morally superior

The extreme right will settle for nothing less then what is "right"
The extreme left will settle for nothing less then what is "right"

The extreme right is right, so there is no room for compromise
The extreme left is right, so there is no room for compromise

Thank you, at least, for finally proving that the issue is left and center, not Green and Dem...

[gully]

108. Thank you for 'getting it'

:)

And BTW, Rice cakes are nutritous and delicious, mmmm.

My thread was about a lack of tolerance, I used left/right paradigm because I thought it would provoke thought/discussion here.

I found it went over the head of many 'extremists' ;) however, go figure?

[ulysses]

109. oh, I've said that for years

Next time someone wrings their hands over how the Democratic leadership really, really does value leftwing votes and activism, I'll send them to you. :D

[gully]

111. Please do...

~Peace

[ulysses]

112. heh

~Peace

Don't bet the bank.

[gully]

113. heh...I wont...

:P

[gully]

114. BTW, Greens and Dems need to work together...

But there are extremes in everything and I don't think the extremists on either side are willing?

Thank goodness for folks like Granny D...

*Note the sig line

[Forkboy]

122. I'm back!!

"BTW, Greens and Dems need to work together..."

I;m sooo glad you said that.I couldn't agree more.The thing is...we need toavoid the language that's turning each other off...and concentrate on the ideas both parties are talking about.

Forget Nader...he wasn't really representitive of the Greens,and he wont be in 2004.Listen to their platform,and take to heart thje parts of that sound right,and make sense to you (for me that's much of the platform,for you it may not be the whole thing,but there's still much that I think even you could agree with).

Greens need to se that the Dem party,for now,gives them their best chance to get their ideas heard ona national scale,and maybe even implemented.

I don'txthink the Greens and dems are all that different from one another,and I believe the best chance for both lies in some kind of compromise.