It should be obvious what the oversight is meant to achieve: no breadlines and no large revolutionary movements hellbent on destroying the established order.
This would be the rationalist responce, but Paft is not a rationalist. I want to know what she thinks the goal is or if she even has one beyond more and/or democrat-sponsored regulation = good, less and/or republican-sponsored = bad.
BTW, modern genocides have invariably been the products of Right/conservative regimes.
Invariably? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I'll grant you Imperial Japan, and the US/Indian wars but if you're qualifying Communism and its derivatives or the assorted Post-Imperialist Populism movements in Central Africa as being "right wing" you're clearly using a different definition from the rest of us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics).
Likewise one can debate just how "Left" or "Right" National Socialism is seeing as the only difference between Ultra-Reactionaries and Ultra-Revolutionaries are the labels they apply to eachother.
no subject
This would be the rationalist responce, but Paft is not a rationalist. I want to know what she thinks the goal is or if she even has one beyond more and/or democrat-sponsored regulation = good, less and/or republican-sponsored = bad.
BTW, modern genocides have invariably been the products of Right/conservative regimes.
Invariably? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I'll grant you Imperial Japan, and the US/Indian wars but if you're qualifying Communism and its derivatives or the assorted Post-Imperialist Populism movements in Central Africa as being "right wing" you're clearly using a different definition from the rest of us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics).
Likewise one can debate just how "Left" or "Right" National Socialism is seeing as the only difference between Ultra-Reactionaries and Ultra-Revolutionaries are the labels they apply to eachother.