The lunatic left

[sptrawler]

Things have stepped up a notch in South Africa.

South Africa deploys 25,000 troops to quell riots and ‘strategic destruction’

In one of the largest deployments of soldiers since the end of white minority rule, the military has been activate to halt riots that have killed more than 100 people.

www.smh.com.au

 

[IFocus]

Things have stepped up a notch in South Africa.

South Africa deploys 25,000 troops to quell riots and ‘strategic destruction’

In one of the largest deployments of soldiers since the end of white minority rule, the military has been activate to halt riots that have killed more than 100 people.

www.smh.com.au

So are you saying Zuma is left? Or his supporters are left? Or the SA government is left?

 

[rederob]

So are you saying Zuma is left? Or his supporters are left? Or the SA government is left?

I think he might be saying that only the lunatics are left.

 

[sptrawler]

Im just posting reports, in response to someone raising the SA issue, I have no idea of the politics there, just that it is a bad situation

 

[sptrawler]

The thing I find interesting about the 'left', they don't accept anything other than complete capitulation of the other side, no matter what the issue is.
It is either accept everything we say as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or so help you God.
There is no middle ground in their argument, it is their way or the highway.
It really is an interesting phenomena, it is passive aggressive on steroids, yet in reality it is no better than extreme right wing.
Thank god most of the population fall in the middle. ?
My guess is the Left are buying the most papers at the moment.
The problem with that is, it disenfranchises a lot more of the middle ground and ends up alienating the very people they are trying to influence.
Just my opinion, but the time is fast approaching where the question will be asked, "Are the people you elected running the country, or are the reporters and the media running the country"?
If people decide it's the media, why pay tax? ?
It will be an interesting confrontation IMO.

 

[rederob]

The thing I find interesting about the 'left', they don't accept anything other than complete capitulation of the other side, no matter what the issue is.
It is either accept everything we say as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or so help you God.
There is no middle ground in their argument, it is their way or the highway.
It really is an interesting phenomena, it is passive aggressive on steroids, yet in reality it is no better than extreme right wing.
Thank god most of the population fall in the middle. ?
My guess is the Left are buying the most papers at the moment.
The problem with that is, it disenfranchises a lot more of the middle ground and ends up alienating the very people they are trying to influence.
Just my opinion, but the time is fast approaching where the question will be asked, "Are the people you elected running the country, or are the reporters and the media running the country"?
If people decide it's the media, why pay tax? ?
It will be an interesting confrontation IMO.

I think you are confused about what it means to be on the "left".
Guiding principles include:

• equality
• fairness
• mutual respect, and
• social advancement

If there is a middle ground to these principles, it would necessitate they be watered down.
If you are talking about the far left, then you might as well be talking about the far right, as their radicalisations do not uphold the principles of the left or right, respectively.
Your ideas about the media remain interesting. Murdoch media dominates our formal landscape, and social media is a grab bag of opinions across the spectrum.

 

[IFocus]

The thing I find interesting about the 'left', they don't accept anything other than complete capitulation of the other side, no matter what the issue is.
It is either accept everything we say as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or so help you God.
There is no middle ground in their argument, it is their way or the highway.

Like what?

And please don't quote some extreme nut case / academic etc they do not represent a progressive left view.

 

[wayneL]

Like what?

And please don't quote some extreme nut case / academic etc they do not represent a progressive left view.

You, bas, red, and that's just here on ASF

 

[sptrawler]

Like what?

And please don't quote some extreme nut case / academic etc they do not represent a progressive left view.

Like the crucifixion of Israel Folau and Margaret Court, over their differing opinion on homosexuality, to the 'progressive' left.
Strongly and ably supported by the left leaning, in the media.

 

[sptrawler]

You, bas, red, and that's just here on ASF

He did say to exclude extreme nut cases, that probably includes those with head injuries. ?

 

[SirRumpole]

Like the crucifixion of Israel Folau and Margaret Court, over their differing opinion on homosexuality, to the 'progressive' left.
Strongly and ably supported by the left leaning, in the media.

I'd just like to point out that there is an 'economic' Left and a 'social' Left, one can be one without being the other.

I would identify as being economic Left, although not all that far Left, but I'm a bit more conservative when it comes to social values.

I'd say though that those of the social Left would not be likely to be economically conservative.

 

[sptrawler]

.

I'd say though that those of the social Left would not be likely to be economically conservative.

No, they are usually just rich.
I would class myself, similar to your description.

 

[wayneL]

I'd just like to point out that there is an 'economic' Left and a 'social' Left, one can be one without being the other.

I would identify as being economic Left, although not all that far Left, but I'm a bit more conservative when it comes to social values.

I'd say though that those of the social Left would not be likely to be economically conservative.

It's a great point that none of us should ever forget. I also tread along conundrous(sic) line, being economically near right and socially near left.

 

[SirRumpole]

No, they are usually just rich.

There are a lot on the Left who aren't rich and don't want anyone else to be either.

 

[macca]

There are a lot on the Left who aren't rich and don't want anyone else to be either.

Usually the poorer folk are the lefties that espouse "we are all equal and should share our wealth, just put your money into my bank account and we can be friends"

Work ? don't you swear at me, that is a passive aggressive statement !

 

[rederob]

Like the crucifixion of Israel Folau and Margaret Court, over their differing opinion on homosexuality, to the 'progressive' left.
Strongly and ably supported by the left leaning, in the media.

Folau and Court are bigots under every definition of the word, and they have openly preached their bigotry in the literal sense.
Harmonious societies have no room for bigotry.
Segments of the media that explained their bigotry should be applauded.

 

[SirRumpole]

Harmonious societies have no room for bigotry.

Bigotry is a personal opinion.

I don't agree with what Folau said, but he had a right to say it without being sacked.

I may think that a lot of what you say is bigoted, but I'm not running around saying you should lose your job for saying it.

 

[rederob]

Bigotry is a personal opinion.

I don't agree with what Folau said, but he had a right to say it without being sacked.

I may think that a lot of what you say is bigoted, but I'm not running around saying you should lose your job for saying it.

Really?
Is the meaning of all words "personal"?
Since when?
I won't reopen the Folau debate, but bigotry is of itself not against the law.

 

[SirRumpole]

Really?
Is the meaning of all words "personal"?
Since when?
I won't reopen the Folau debate, but bigotry is of itself not against the law.

Straw man argument.

If anything is said against a minority people can cry 'racism and bigotry' because they don't like what was said rather than examine the merits of the statement.

I refer you to the Queensland University case.

 

[rederob]

Straw man argument.

If anything is said against a minority people can cry 'racism and bigotry' because they don't like what was said rather than examine the merits of the statement.

I refer you to the Queensland University case.

Completely false.
To begin, my point cannot be a straw man argument as it directly contradicts your claim.
Next, people can claim many things but they also need to substantiate them. Folau and Court made comments which are unequivocally bigoted, and that is not a matter of opinion, but of definition. The descriptors could have been favourable, balanced, or prejudicial. No reasonable person would regard the first two descriptors as appropriate.