Far left - US/UK definition

As you know, the Supreme Court decision wasn't unanimous. I can quote the dissenting opinion, with all its legal references. Nothing will be proven, other than that it is an issue without resolution, legally or socially.It is said these days that activist courts have made proper resolution of many issues impossible, because the losing side believes it still deserves proper recourse through the democratic process. For example, had the government passed a law legalizing abortion, in recognition of the democratic will, there'd have been some measure of closure. Instead, the losing side felt the democratic will was either in opposition to the court, or not fully heard, and, regardless, not addressed by the legislatures. And thus, no closure. Perhaps, and probably, you will disagree with this argument, specifically in relation to abortion, and in general. I think it makes sense.

This is a PS. I wonder if you realize that I was quoting an article, writeen by a lawyer I believe, which, in turn was quoting the dissenting opinion of the supreme court, as well as offering its own legal opinion.

The tendency is to be anti current government. Throughout the late seventies, eighties and early nineties support was for Labour (party in opposition). New labour was supported in 1997 and tentatively in 2001, and liberal democrats in 2005 (more as a protest than a real hankering for change of government). However due to its nature the paper does not explicitly support any one party (it has no proprietor - it being run by the Scott Trust), and its readership would desert it if support was limited to a single side. As you have seen if you are a regular reader the current stance would be (largely) neutral, having little support for New Labour's curtailing of civil liberties, war in Iraq, euro-fudging, little support for Conservative's anti-european stance, war in iraq, social and economic plans, little support for Lib Dems because of their unelectability. Support for New Labour regarding running of the economy and support for Lib Dems' social policies is also evident.The Guardian is very much the paper of 'having your cake and eating it'!

unanimous decisions aren't that common, really. not in big cases, at least. the court is commonly divided 5-4. uh, yes, something will be proven. you see, one side actually won back in 1973. in that case, it WAS proven. i don't care much about precedent in the dissenting opinion -- i was just trying to prove to you that it was in fact there in the MAJORITY opinion. too bad. it doesn't get higher than the supreme court. if they want a different opinion, they'd have to find a similar case. in which case, they would probably still lose. ...it would be unconstitutional under roe v. wade. you're still not getting this bit of it, are you? the government cannot pass a law one way or the other regarding abortion. it does not have the jurisdiction until a certain point in the pregnancy. yes. and as i have clearly shown, it's opinion is wrong. that roe v. wade does not contain legal arguments and precedent is easily checked and disproven. and justices white and rehnquist can dissent all they want -- they still lost.

---

אָרַח

My impression is that it never supports the Conservative Party, although i may be wrong. I wasn't referring, though, to a fixed policy determined by owners, just to its usual political editorial policy.

You believe that the decision is infallible and without legal dissent. All I intended was to show that that is not so, and believe I have done that. Moreover, pro-abortion people are worried that a future court will overturn that decision. If that happens, would you still say:"uh, yes, something will be proven. you see, one side actually won back in 2007. in that case, it WAS proven. i don't care much about precedent in the dissenting opinion -- i was just trying to prove to you that it was in fact there in the MAJORITY opinion.

It's the Law of the Land. It is the Decision.If someday, God Forbid, it gets overturned, then that will be the Decision, the Law of the Land. And those of us who are Christian Conservatives will then work to get that Decision overturned. But until overturned, it is the Decision.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

no, i don't. there have been court cases that i disagreed with. generally, i do not. since it equates to allowing the government control over something they view as a private affair, yes, they are worried. because they think government invasions of privacy are wrong. if the court can justify that there is a legitimate state interest, yes. but i suspect that they cannot, and thus the case will not get overturned.that is -- if this roberts guy meant what he said, and isn't the kind of guy that just votes on rash opinions instead of legal precedent.

---

אָרַח

don't be silly jar. we lefties all know that bush is not ACTUALLY the president, as the decision of the people and the courts is not infallible, and there's plenty of legal dissent. nah, this whol "majority" thing doesn't actually mean squat.

---

אָרַח

Yes. This is what usually happens. Has there been a single post from the opposition here that attempts an objective recognition of the various viewpoints?P.S. As you can tell from my next post, it might be a good idea for you to address mick's Message 60 in more detail.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-25-2005 05:34 AM

Since this Message 60 of yours was nominated and seconded for a POTM for its supposed clarity, I have to object. This clarifies absolutely nothing concerning the topic we are discussing.Comparing US newspapers to UK version tabloids is nothing short of a smear. Where is your evidence? I ask, in this supposedly evidence-based site which isn't and this objectivity-based site which isn't. American newspapers have exactly the same format, dividing between the presumably neutral objective news in the front section and the pages devoted to political and other subjective opinion farther in -- and the size and format difference between newspapers and tabloids is also identical from the sound of it. So the formal division is comparable apparently on both sides of the Atlantic.Yet on a thread devoted to establishing some criteria for defining left v right in the US and the UK, you don't even discuss the political slant of the Guardian's COMMENTS section in order to illuminate the topic of this thread. I skimmed it and I find it to reflect the typical (leftist) politically correct need to smear Christianity along with Islam in a discussion about how "religion" produces terrorism, although with *perhaps* a more conservative slant than I'd expect to find in US comment in its willingness to denounce the perpetrators as motivated by Muslim religion, as US media is likely to ignore the religious aspects of terrorism altogether it seems to me. However, that's arguable because of the lumping together of all religion when it's ONLY Islam that has produced terrorism, which the left here does with just as much ideological categorical zeal.If you disagree, remember that this is a thread for establishing criteria and this is my contribution to the definition of leftist PC from my point of view. List your own. That's what the thread is for.The Guardian's news story about the events does seem to me to be admirably neutral and objective, however, but assuming that all US newspapers violate such a standard is unwarranted, nor has it been shown that the Guardian consistently maintains that standard, without showing its colors in word connotations or topic emphasis or other clues, perhaps even in this story in ways that I'm overlooking. I'd also point out that these clues have been mentioned on this thread only in reference to US mainstream network TV reports, US newspapers not having been discussed.I wish Canadian Steve had commented more on this post as he is the one who called the Guardian leftist.I hardly ever look at the POTM threads as I know how UNobjective most of the criteria are and just dismiss it as an in-group mutual admiration society, but being presently engaged in this topic I decided this one demanded a response. This post illuminates ABSOLUTELY NOTHING pertinent to the topic of the thread in which it appears. It makes a wild accusation of American newspapers without offering one iota of evidence; its claim that UK distinctions between news and commentary differ from US standards is absolutely false; and he did not address AT ALL anything to illuminate the difference between right and left either in the UK or the US, OR answer any attempt to establish such criteria by others on this thread. The post is a ridiculous candidate for a POTM if EvC cares about its claim to objectivity.I'm posting this on both threads or at least linking it.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-25-2005 05:15 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 07-25-2005 06:07 AM

I showed exactly how the "facts" Ted Turner gave about Israel and the Palestinians are politically leftist in Message 87.In a nutshell, his "facts" imply a false moral equivalence between the unjustifiable unprovoked terrorism of the Palestinians and the defensive actions of Israel to end the terrorism.This pot-shotting without addressing the argument is another example of why this thread is a lost cause.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-25-2005 05:39 AM

See that test doesn't quite work in the UK - The Guardian is pretty much "anti-whoever is in".The Sun is the most read paper in the UK and openly on the right of the debate. It has supported both Labour and the tories.The Mirror would be a better example - it has never and I would guess will never support the tories. However it does regularly call for blair to resign and condemn the current labour Govt.(But since the labour party is right-wing anyway...)

Hang on a minute Faith, I'll not say too much, as you might be composing a reply to my other message as I type, but let's not get too carried away with the back-slapping shall we? The post you replied to was immediately followed by one by CS trying to debate a specific claim. He's not entirely innocent on the generalisation and scaremongering either: And while I believe that you are trying to stimulate debate on the subject (and I hope that you will be willing to continue once witching hour arrives), your posts aren't exactly perfect examples of objectivity and free of stereotypes: There are two main problems I see with the kind of discussion that you are tring to propagate (apart from the obvious risk of topic drift):

1. Politics is a deeply subjective topic. It's pretty tricky not to let your own political opinion colour statements when defining 'Left' and 'Right'. I will openly admit that my posts are not free of little digs at what I perceive as 'Right-wing'.
2. As I have been trying to get at, Left vs Right is relative and varied. People might think of themselves as socially liberal and yet economically conservative, for example. In addition, it is very hard to define people's views with convenient labels such 'Leftist' and get any real meaning from them. Conversely, it is very easy to label people without really tackling what makes them take up such views.

I'll leave it there for now.

---

Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinis alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

I'll let others discuss the tabloid/POTM issue. However, this leaped out at me: I think you might have forgotten about a certain group of Irish Catholics, or perhaps Irgun, the Jewish terrorists? Islam is not alone, I'm afraid.