Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,495
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 411:
Line 411: − + Line 492:
Line 492: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Political Spectrum (view source)
Revision as of 07:31, February 10, 2019
, 07:31, February 10, 2019→Recent edits
: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.
Better to describe the views of various thinkers or parties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Better to describe the views of various thinkers or parties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Labeling it a theory is the easiest route; elsewise we need good, solid, factual cites for any claim or generalization. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:*Why not go with the first two paragraphs, and leave it? That is enough to explain the term. Concise is good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::*The rest of the stuff is real good, and we're gonna need it sooner or later. And I have much, much more. But I still think the best alternative is to label it a theory, and that will eliminate a lot of contentious disputes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::*Okey-dokey by me. It will need to be protected, I am assuming, for a while, to avoid constant wholesale change? Do we have a template notice to warn against lots of changes, pending posting about it here? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
== Asked a question ==
I was wondering if anyone was interested in making a Conservapedian political spectrum quiz. There are many quizzes like this online, but not all of them are trustworthy or accurate. If we made one, it could accurately guage our location on the political spectrum with a wide range of political issues and answers that range beyond two polarized answers. Also possibly "Libertarian" and "More Government" as areas on the spectrum to go with "Liberal" and "Conservative". Does anyone feel as though [http://www.isidewith.com/ iSideWith.com] already does a good enough job with this? --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:42, 20 January 2017 (EDT)
==Recent edits==
Marxist bull. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 01:44, 10 February 2019 (EST)
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)