Who's the most right-wing poster on this message board?

[Keystone Phil]

OK, Phil, name some far left positions I hold then.

If you have called yourself a "far left extremist" (as you have in the past) isn't that enough? You've failed in the past when it came to finding out how I was a "extreme conservative" and you know it.

[A18]

OK, Phil, name some far left positions I hold then.

Wage caps. Stacking the courts. Dismantling the United States military. Taxing the hell out of cigarettes.

[bullmoose88]

Because abolishing all regulations regarding marriage, drugs, prostitution, and porn are sooo right-wing.  Right.

Right-wing?  I just said you weren't moderate.

Anarcho-capitalism is not moderate by the conventional definition of the wold, whatever you'd like to argue.

but anarcho-capitalism isn't exactly a right ideology either.

[Nation]

Because abolishing all regulations regarding marriage, drugs, prostitution, and porn are sooo right-wing.  Right.

Being extreme right on one issue and extreme left on another issue doesn't make you a moderate.

[J-Mann]

I love when people throw around that I'm far right yet can't back it up. Cashcow and J-Mann that is something you have to learn about me. I am not far right and when people insist that I am, I ask for details to which I can never get an acceptable response.

It's an internet message board, kid - it's not like I'm trying to get to know you personally.  I think you're right wing because of what you've posted (or what I've read).  If you are far different in real life, or posts that I haven't seen indicate that you're not a righty, so be it; I'll never know.  I think it's a bit amusing that anyone who has been labeled as a rightist in this thread has come back insisting that they're a moderate, as if being a right-winger is something horrible.

[Gabu]

OK, Phil, name some far left positions I hold then.

Wage caps. Stacking the courts. Dismantling the United States military. Taxing the hell out of cigarettes.

Uh, I don't think that stacking the courts is a liberal position.

Because abolishing all regulations regarding marriage, drugs, prostitution, and porn are sooo right-wing.  Right.

Right-wing?  I just said you weren't moderate.

Anarcho-capitalism is not moderate by the conventional definition of the wold, whatever you'd like to argue.

but anarcho-capitalism isn't exactly a right ideology either.

He said he was a moderate.  I said he was not.

I haven't said anything about which quadrant of the political compass he's on.

[A18]

Stacking the courts is a very liberal position. The communists can't be troubled with little things like the Constitution, so they appoint judges to come up with a "broad interpretation" so contrary to what the framers intended that even they can live with it.

[Gabu]

Stacking the courts is a very liberal position. The communists can't be troubled with little things like the Constitution, so they appoint judges to come up with a "broad interpretation" so contrary to what the framers intended that even they can live with it.

I'm sure that there isn't a conservative in existence who would ever want to stack the courts.

[J-Mann]

Stacking the courts is a very liberal position. The communists can't be troubled with little things like the Constitution, so they appoint judges to come up with a "broad interpretation" so contrary to what the framers intended that even they can live with it.

If Bush were to propose it, it would not be liberal.  It was only liberal with FDR because he likely would have appointed liberal judges.  Overall, it's a manuever designed (at the time) to afford the executive more control over the judiciary and thus the laws of the state, which would be seen as quite conservative, as in the same vein of a monarchy.

[A18]

We don't need to stack the courts. We have Congress, and Congress can completely dismantle their jurisdiction.

Thing is, no one seems to want to use the power.

[J. J.]

Stacking the courts is a very liberal position. The communists can't be troubled with little things like the Constitution, so they appoint judges to come up with a "broad interpretation" so contrary to what the framers intended that even they can live with it.

If Bush were to propose it, it would not be liberal.  It was only liberal with FDR because he likely would have appointed liberal judges.  Overall, it's a manuever designed (at the time) to afford the executive more control over the judiciary and thus the laws of the state, which would be seen as quite conservative, as in the same vein of a monarchy.

What president, over the last century, made a serious effort to force his ideology on the court, exclusive of appointment?  FDR.

[J-Mann]

What president, over the last century, made a serious effort to force his ideology on the court, exclusive of appointment?  FDR.

Only an example, JJ - stacking the court is not a "liberal" thing to do just because FDR happens to be a Democrat, and I have a feeling that's where Philip is getting his logic.  Anything that is designed to put more power in the hands of the state is inherently a conservative and atavistic manuever.  You have to remove Republican, Democrat, and our politicized ideals of liberal and conservative from any such discussion.

[Gabu]

Stacking the courts is a very liberal position. The communists can't be troubled with little things like the Constitution, so they appoint judges to come up with a "broad interpretation" so contrary to what the framers intended that even they can live with it.

If Bush were to propose it, it would not be liberal.  It was only liberal with FDR because he likely would have appointed liberal judges.  Overall, it's a manuever designed (at the time) to afford the executive more control over the judiciary and thus the laws of the state, which would be seen as quite conservative, as in the same vein of a monarchy.

What president, over the last century, made a serious effort to force his ideology on the court, exclusive of appointment?  FDR.

A liberal doing an action does not make that action liberal.

[A18]

What president, over the last century, made a serious effort to force his ideology on the court, exclusive of appointment?  FDR.

Only an example, JJ - stacking the court is not a "liberal" thing to do just because FDR happens to be a Democrat, and I have a feeling that's where Philip is getting his logic.  Anything that is designed to put more power in the hands of the state is inherently a conservative and atavistic manuever.  You have to remove Republican, Democrat, and our politicized ideals of liberal and conservative from any such discussion.

Give me an example of conservative activism somewhere in the federal courts.

[J-Mann]

Give me an example of conservative activism somewhere in the federal courts.

The very recent case of the judge ordering a woman to have no more children. (Not federal, but very arguably activist.)

BUT, you're missing the point.  Court stacking and giving more power to the state is not liberal just because FDR did it.  Don't confuse modern ideology with the greater meanings of liberal and conservative.

[Rob]

AuH2O is pretty much as conservative as you can get.

[Richard]

Anarcho-capitalism is not moderate by the conventional definition of the wold, whatever you'd like to argue.

I'm not an anarcho capitalist.

[J. J.]

What president, over the last century, made a serious effort to force his ideology on the court, exclusive of appointment?  FDR.

Only an example, JJ - stacking the court is not a "liberal" thing to do just because FDR happens to be a Democrat, and I have a feeling that's where Philip is getting his logic.  Anything that is designed to put more power in the hands of the state is inherently a conservative and atavistic manuever.  You have to remove Republican, Democrat, and our politicized ideals of liberal and conservative from any such discussion.

No, I am suggesting that the greatest effort to politicize the Court and to alter its composition in the last 105 years was done to advance an exceptionally liberal agenda.  The tactic is not, in itself liberal but it has been more greatly used by the liberals during this period.

[Gabu]

Anarcho-capitalism is not moderate by the conventional definition of the wold, whatever you'd like to argue.

I'm not an anarcho capitalist.

I could have sworn you said you were.

Never mind, then.

[Richard]

Because abolishing all regulations regarding marriage, drugs, prostitution, and porn are sooo right-wing.  Right.

Being extreme right on one issue and extreme left on another issue doesn't make you a moderate.

Extreme right?  Huh?  And I'm preaching the abolishment of all corporations...  Where do you get the idea that I'm a right-wing extremist?

Anarcho-capitalism is not moderate by the conventional definition of the wold, whatever you'd like to argue.

I'm not an anarcho capitalist.

I could have sworn you said you were.

Never mind, then.

So I'm moderate, yes?

[Gabu]

What president, over the last century, made a serious effort to force his ideology on the court, exclusive of appointment?  FDR.

Only an example, JJ - stacking the court is not a "liberal" thing to do just because FDR happens to be a Democrat, and I have a feeling that's where Philip is getting his logic.  Anything that is designed to put more power in the hands of the state is inherently a conservative and atavistic manuever.  You have to remove Republican, Democrat, and our politicized ideals of liberal and conservative from any such discussion.

No, I am suggesting that the greatest effort to politicize the Court and to alter its composition in the last 105 years was done to advance an exceptionally liberal agenda.  The tactic is not, in itself liberal but it has been more greatly used by the liberals during this period.

That still does not make it a liberal thing to do.

[J-Mann]

No, I am suggesting that the greatest effort to politicize the Court and to alter its composition in the last 105 years was done to advance an exceptionally liberal agenda.  The tactic is not, in itself liberal but it has been more greatly used by the liberals during this period.

Agreed - FDR (and thus, as you say, a liberal agenda) was behind the court stacking case.  I was trying to explain to Philip that while liberals may have used such a tactic, it is an inherently conservative idea.

[J. J.]

No, I am suggesting that the greatest effort to politicize the Court and to alter its composition in the last 105 years was done to advance an exceptionally liberal agenda.  The tactic is not, in itself liberal but it has been more greatly used by the liberals during this period.

Agreed - FDR (and thus, as you say, a liberal agenda) was behind the court stacking case.  I was trying to explain to Philip that while liberals may have used such a tactic, it is an inherently conservative idea.

I would argue that creating more government is not a conservative idea.  Using Congress to remove the authority of the Court would be.

[J-Mann]

I would argue that creating more government is not a conservative idea.  Using Congress to remove the authority of the Court would be.

I suppose it could depend on what you wanted to do with that government.  Putting more power in the hands of the state as FDR sought to do is conservative, just as oligarchies and monarchies are conservative.

[Richard]

I would argue that creating more government is not a conservative idea.  Using Congress to remove the authority of the Court would be.

I suppose it could depend on what you wanted to do with that government.  Putting more power in the hands of the state as FDR sought to do is conservative, just as oligarchies and monarchies are conservative.

HUH?  More power to the states?  By FDR?  What?  The creator of social security?  The guy who had half his laws declared Constitutional because he was nationalizing all control?