Far left - US/UK definition

I should also add that here in the US, what distinguishes a tabloid as opposed to a "conventional newspaper" is its format. Newspapers usually come in separated sections (very handy when several people want to read the paper at the same time -- everyone just swaps sections as they finish), while a tabloid comes in a single, inseparable section.That said, some tabloids are actually of decent quality -- I'm thinking of what is called the "alternative press" in some places, like Westword in Denver and The Eugene Weekly in Eugene, Oregon. The coverage is definately biased, usually on the left, but the articles are nonetheless informative and well-written.

I'm not sure I entirely get your point, and i am reluctant to stress one issue when all taken as a whole confers one's general political leanings. I'll risk that, anyhow, with a quick look at multiculturalism...but I'll do with respect to one issue here in canada: Should Muslims have access to sharia law for domestic matters? The Muslim community itself is very divided. The proposal was made by a conservative Islamist group (I'd say an islamist sympathizing group). They say that like orthodox Jews who use religious arbitration, they'd respect the charter of freedoms and rights, as they legally must. Other Muslims groups, including one women's group, says, NO WAy. Women will feel compelled to go along with it. Another prominent Muslim writer, a political sceintist, wrote recently that it is impossible for Sharia Law not to conflict with rights as understood in teh west, adn he cited a number of passages from teh Koran as evidence (he has received death threats, naturally, frot his). And then there's that the U of Toronto just hired two profs to teach about the complexity and nuance of isalmic Law. They say it began as a form of common law, but that was wrongly overturned in teh 10th century.You can see where all this debate goes. here's my take: Forget It. You come to canda, you follow our laws. If you cannot live comfortably with them, then do not come here.I duiscussed multiculturalism in other posts. You might care to read them if you care to respond to me on this, as, otherwise, I'll be repeatign myself and you'll be assuming views I may not hold.

It is cool, and responsible.

Interesting that you say "our puritanical streak" rather than "their licentious streak."

Guess we'll just disgaree on that: i see a notable difference between the Dems and Repubicans, adn one that is enlarging.

It has been explained to you, ad nauseum, by several posters: The difference between left and right is subjective.Everybody who has posted here seems to be to the "left" of you and CanadianSteve (and, if you read his posts carefully, I think you will find that he is slightly to the left of you, too).It's relative.I know that this thread hasn't gone the way that bobbins intended (my apologies again, Mr. bobbins ), but your endless ranting about people not being "objective" doesn't help. How can we be objective when everything you disagree with is characterized as "left-wing"?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

teh economy tanked when reagan first got in as he got Carter's horrific inflation legacy under control. Then the economy began to improve markedly before he was reelected, and it boomed in his second term.The Republicans today are much like the Democrats of teh early 60's. There is little distinction between JFK and Bush, other than that JFK was more responsible about budgets. But teh Democrtas today would be unrecognizable to JFK. I am sure he'd be appalled.

--Percy

It would appear that you don't define your views as leftists. therefore, you will not see CNN as leftist. And, it lost market share first. That is what motivated CNN to try something to regain makret share. But it's too little, too late. Fox will not lose its lead to CNN. The American people would rather watch the real deal than a pretender that can't, in any event, relinquish its left bias, no matter how toned down.

Well I don't remember many Licentians sailing to England from Plymouth Rock.TTFN,WK

I am not arguing in favour of your system - although i have read that no one goes without medical care because of finances. That is, even the poor can access public services.But our system is failing, as I said, and it must be improved. If it is not improved, it will collapse under a wave of public anger.

Okay, that's fair enough. I'm not sure if we are getting a good idea of what everyone thinks characterizes the state of being leftish (leftile?).I'd better warn you that I am kicking myself that I ever entered into this debate because I'm likely to end up saying something foolish. I haven't ever taken the time to educate myself very well politically, much to my shame.I think the Guardian is lefty because... urm. Well, I guess a significant portion of their comment and analysis section, and their editorial section is written by people who espouse what I think of as "leftish" views... like... Polly Toynbee, or George Monbiot.In their attitudes towards health provision and other social issues, in their generally wary attitude towards unfettered big business, and in their attitudes towards immigration, they seem to me to be leftic.
Of course, I don't know if my reasons are valid ones. Perhaps other people would strongly disagree that these issues make someone necessarily a person of a leftarian.
But for whatever disagreement there might be, I think most would agree that to find a voice in a national newspaper, they aren't expressing (to UK ears at least) RADICAL sentiments. I guess if people like these were to speak up in the states they would get trampled all over. That's just a guess.Can I lapse into anecdote? Whoops, I am anyway. I was flabbergasted when I was in the states a couple of years ago by something called something like the O'Reilly (I think thats his name) Factor. It was a section on sex education, and he was saying how sex education and contraception are a really bad idea, because they make kids more promiscuous (or something like that). And then someone pointed out that teenage pregnancy in (possibly) Denmark was significantly lower than in the US, and that their sex eduaction system was like the sex education he was trying to demonise. He didn't have any real answer, but he blustered in what I imagine he thought was an authoratative way. It looked utterly pathetic.
Okay, maybe the guy's figures were wrong: maybe the rate of teen pregnancy in the US is tiny compared to Denmark or whatever. But thats not the point. What was really pathetic was that he didn't attempt to address the facts, he just kept plugging his own view, with total disregard to the data.Does that have any relevance? I'm not sure. But it does demonstrate how alien different news styles can seem.I'm not sure what you want exactly. Perhaps best would be for you to look at a couple of comment articles from the Guardian and say what you thought was lefty about them. You might well think they are totally potty. Personally, I think they are fairly moderate, but then I'm biased.Sorry, that isn't a very satisfactory answer, I know. But I've forgotten the question. Hang on, I've got to look busy again.

CanadianSteve writes:

quote:

---

You can see where all this debate goes. here's my take: Forget It. You come to canda, you follow our laws. If you cannot live comfortably with them, then do not come here.

---

So you new Canadians are following the traditional laws of the Native peoples there?How many generations must Muslin immigrants wait before they have a right to be politically active and seek democratic change?

By that standard I would certainly agree with you, the Guardian is unlikely to be your paper of choice if you are a lifelong, middle aged and middle-class conservative voter from the home counties.TTFN,WK

no faith. it was a joke. do you have a sense of humor?

---

אָרַח