In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist has been defined as the support or acceptance of social hierarchy.[1][2][3] Inequality is viewed by the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1] whether it arises through traditional social differences[4] or from competition in market economies.[5][6] The political terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, and were a reference to where people sat in the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the president's chair were broadly supportive of the institutions of Ancien Régime[7][8][9][10] The original right in France was composed of those supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.[11] The Right invoked natural law and divine law to explain the normality of social inequalities.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics True Left Wing, by definition, CANNOT be authoritarian, except when it is bastardized for rhetorical political expediency (but then it is actually no longer Left Wing): In politics, the Left, left-wing and leftists are people or views which generally support social change to create a more egalitarian society.[1][2][3][4] They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that should be reduced or abolished.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics People who cannot think critically generally rely on predigested labels (and charts) that free them from doing so. Enter Max, jem and Tom B.
You twist words and logic to fit your ideological view. You have deluded yourself for almost 60 years. I guess it works for you.
Why would anyone want to make a bet with you? You still claim that Mao and Stalin were right wingers. You have no integrity. The chance of you honoring a bet is almost zero.
nice image. I think you would have to put most of these et leftists up between hitler and stalin in the stalin quandrant and most (certainly no all of the right) between ghandi and freidman in the freidman quandrant.
Agree. Nobody should enter into a wager with Brass and expect to be paid or have him honor the agreement. He would invent various reasons to welch. Of course, getting rid of him would be a very good consolation prize and possibly worth it depending on the size of the wager.
LOL, right after he gets his ass kicked he will simply proclaim "I win," like a 2 year old, and then take the ball and go home...
I was pegged to the right(obviously) just below Friedman, here is a link to the test if you want to see where you stand. (thx to piggybank for posting this site) http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
I think it's great that you know how to spell the word. I suspect it's as close as you'll ever get to understanding it.
My conservative brethren, some of you seem to be singling out brother Brass, as a high risk in the area of not making good on a bet. But, let me remind you that you should never place a bet with any liberal. They have proven that they can't be trusted in matters of money. Remember "hope and change"? When brother "O" said that, many didn't realize what kind of "hope" and what kind of "change" he was talking about. Of course, now we know. But, to be fair, I wouldn't trust brother John Boner any further than I could throw him. However, I'd come more near entering into a bet with a conservative (not a rino) than with a liberal.