Far left - US/UK definition

If you recognize that freedom means that some people are going to do things you don't agree with, you're a liberal.If that drives you crazy, you're a conservative.

Er, no, it's quite the opposite. The left emphasizes the individual - individual achievement, expression, lifestyle, vocation, religion, etc. It's the right that emphasizes the submission of the individual to the collective - the woman to her family, the man to his company, the voter to their party, the family to the community, the community to its nation, etc.Submission and collectivism is the domain of the right, not the left. It's ludicrous to suggest that the left, the eternal home of iconoclasts, individualists, and the avante guard focuses on the "collective." Collectivism is the balliwick of the arena of traditionalism, religionism, and nationalism - the right. Always has been, always will be.

Well, that wouldn't be possible, since I used to be on the right. As someone who's been on both sides I know that what I'm telling you is not a misperception. The overal conservative movement is evangelical conservatism. Has been for a long time. If you believe in the merit of the individual and their right to act within their freedoms, in whatever way they see fit, regardless of your religious objections, then you're a liberal. Always have been. While liberals once had a limited home within the right, those days are long over. Your side left you behind, CS.

Hrm, that's the most civil you've been so far when attempting to dodge my arguments and retreat from the issue. Congratulations on that.

For good cause, and for the same reason we're suspicious of government and religion - all three are forces that often work to curtail individual freedom. Again, the individual is paramount to the left, and something to be subjugated to the right.

No, I was a conservative, or I thought I was; I was a liberal all along, just like you. Just like you I cherish individual liberties and freedoms, and the right of persons to do things that I don't particularly agree with.I hope you'll come to the same conclusion I did, which is that the "conservative" side is the side of hypocritical moralism, nosey snoopery, and conformist subjugation to religion, government, and corporation. If you think you're on the side of individual liberty and freedom, you're very much mistaken, and I hope you come to see your error.

Absolutely false. The position of today's "conservatives" is religious hegemony, profligate spending, submission to corporate interests, and government intrusion into every aspect of our lives, all committed via whatever unprincipled, unethical acts it takes to gain and maintain power. You're a little out of date. The Bushes, starting with senior (and possibly related to his involvment in Reagan's attempted assassination) have co-opted conservatism. Maybe the party means something else in your country but in mine, there's no way to describe the party of Coburn, DeLay, and the Bush clan as the party of individual freedom and initiative.

Boogyman descriptions? I'm sorry, but these things are documented facts, and they were what were responsible for my abandonment of conservatism. Like I said I don't know how things are in Canada - maybe they're different - but here in America the right will employ any dirty trick, any ethical violation, any literally illegal act they can get away with to gain and maintain power. No, they don't. A growing majority of Americans is totally repudiating conservative hegemony. Why do you think Bush appointed Roberts, the most moderate appointee he could have gotten away with? Because pandering to the religious right isn't getting him anywhere with the American people. Because his approval ratings are the lowest they've ever been. Because public support for the positions of conservativism are literally evaporating. Why don't you tell me who John Hinkley was, and then try to make the argument that there's no connection whatsoever. Go on, try. Look it up.And how likely does it seem to you that the Secret Service got lost in Washington DC on the way to the hospital? Look, at this point in regards to the Bush clan, the position that is beyond reasonable is that everything that's happened to them on their rise to power, every lucky break they've ever had at another's expense, is the result of simple co-incidence. Anyone who asserts that it is is ignorant of the facts, in your case probably purposefully.

By definition, states can't have the power to violate the rights of the people. The 14th Amendment simply makes that obvious principle explicit.In regards to "states rights", sorry, but the "accountability moment" for that concept has passed. Perhaps you heard of it? It was called "the Civil War." Your side lost.