Changes

:I disagree with using the term ''theory'' in connection with the spectrum. There's no theory without an explanation (see [[theory and fact]], an article which I recently started).

:I disagree with using the term ''theory'' in connection with the spectrum. There's no theory without an explanation (see [[theory and fact]], an article which I recently started).

:And now I come to the main point, which is that some people resist being called "right-wing" because it associates them with [[Adolf Hitler]], the world's most universally despised man. I'd be better off calling you a 'mofo' or Obama a [[Nigger|n****]], because, "Son, them's fightin' words!"

:And now I come to the main point, which is that some people resist being called "right-wing" because it associates them with [[Adolf Hitler]], the world's most universally despised man. I'd be better off calling you a 'mofo' or Obama a n****, because, "Son, them's fightin' words!"

:Sure, we need a definition, but these political labels don't have any actual definitions, and we would be false to our readers to pretend (1) that they have definite meaning or (2) that any of us here are capable of saying what those meanings are.  

:Sure, we need a definition, but these political labels don't have any actual definitions, and we would be false to our readers to pretend (1) that they have definite meaning or (2) that any of us here are capable of saying what those meanings are.  

*I agree, Rob. I think we are all thinking too detailed, and some articles, like this one, would be better presented in a more vague, less detailed way.  Thoughts? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] ^{[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]} 20:44, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*I agree, Rob. I think we are all thinking too detailed, and some articles, like this one, would be better presented in a more vague, less detailed way.  Thoughts? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] ^{[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]} 20:44, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

**That's the hard part; I thought calling it a theory gave us the opportunity to speak in vaguaries and generalities, but we haven't got a concensus on that. So that means we gotta present detailed facts and keep misinformation out.

**That's the hard part; I thought calling it a theory gave us the opportunity to speak in vaguaries and generalities, but we haven't got a concensus on that. So that means we gotta present detailed facts and keep misinformation out.

**Repeatedly, how the problem works is this: a student becomes indoctinated into the vague concept of "Leftism";  then whatever hackneyed idea can dressed up as "leftist" becomes kosher, and whatever needs to be demonized is simply called right-wing reactionary, and no real analysis of substance or content takes place.  That why I say it should not be used as a "point of origin", but rather has only value comparatively, i.e. after detailed analysis of substance and content is completed.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

**Repeatedly, how the problem works is this: a student becomes indoctrinated into the vague concept of "Leftism";  then whatever hackneyed idea can dressed up as "leftist" becomes kosher, and whatever needs to be demonized is simply called right-wing reactionary, and no real analysis of substance or content takes place.  That why I say it should not be used as a "point of origin", but rather has only value comparatively, i.e. after detailed analysis of substance and content is completed.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still no good. This "the parties switched" theory won't wash here. GOP stands for today what it always stood for - human dignity, defense of the Union, and rights of the individual. Democrats today stand for what they always stood for, immorality, enslavement and corruption. Don't waste your time, it'll only be reverted unless you can engage in an intelligent, rational, constructive and meaningful level. Stop inserting Marxist talking points.  02:31, 10 February 2019 (EST)