View Poll Results: Choose.

Voters
112. You may not vote on this poll
  • Far Left

    53 47.32%
  • Far Right

    59 52.68%
Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 211

Thread: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

  1. #191
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Far right hands down, since they use religion as tool to further their political aspirations. The "far left" died out during the cold war and has not recovered in anyway in the US... everyone is pretty much conservative in their views.
    PeteEU

  2. #192
    Banned G.I. Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-09-09 @ 04:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    247

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Far right hands down, since they use religion as tool to further their political aspirations. The "far left" died out during the cold war and has not recovered in anyway in the US... everyone is pretty much conservative in their views.
    Were you around for the last election? Are you taking LSD?

  3. #193
    Banned G.I. Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-09-09 @ 04:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    247

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Why are we arguing about what extreme is the worst? We can all agree on one thing, and that is how good it feels to take a dookie. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, we're all the same. We all like it when dookie comes out of our butthole. And plus we all look at our dookie after it comes out.

  4. #194
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by G.I. Joe View Post
    Why are we arguing about what extreme is the worst? We can all agree on one thing, and that is how good it feels to take a dookie. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, we're all the same. We all like it when dookie comes out of our butthole. And plus we all look at our dookie after it comes out.
    Not if you can't get near it without passing out.

    Just say'in
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  5. #195
    Frankernaut peepnklown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-16-15 @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    607

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    The ‘far left’ will say the ‘far right’ and the ‘far right’ will say the ‘far left.’
    BLAH! I say, all types of fundamentalisms are dangerous.
    'The whole universe is going to die!'

  6. #196
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    From this, I would be led to believe that the USSR was Fascist, at least in some respects. Am I incorrect in this conclusion, in your opinion?
    Yes. The USSR was likely closer to fascism than legitimate socialism (on account of its authoritarian statism), but the ideological principles professed by its ruling class as well as the lack of significant private property in the standard sense separated it from fascism.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I have heard this definition of Anarchism from you in another thread. It may be correct. I have not checked into it.

    However, would you not agree that a currently popular view of the meaning of the word "Anarchism" is "the complete lack of any government structure whatsoever"?
    Yes, though it would be preferable if you replaced "government structure" with "social structure." The popular meaning of the term cannot corrupt 160 years of the development of that political philosophy, though, just as misidentification of the term "socialism" cannot corrupt the legitimate meaning of that term as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Not that such a state could exist for any length of time, as most people (I like to think) automatically start banding together for mutual protection.
    Undoubtedly. But I don't know of anyone (though I'm sure they exist) who actually advocates pure chaotic disorder or how they could expect to maintain such lack of structure without some form of enforcement, which would itself constitute structure.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I understand that, in your opinion, the methods of fascism are contrary to the ideology of a leftist, but could the above not occur? This, of course, might not mean that the fascism itself was left, but that the system it was a part of was.
    No, both the methods and actual principles of fascism were anti-left. The collusion between state and corporate power that was an actually existing element of fascist power should illustrate that.

  7. #197
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Yes. The USSR was likely closer to fascism than legitimate socialism (on account of its authoritarian statism), but the ideological principles professed by its ruling class as well as the lack of significant private property in the standard sense separated it from fascism.
    I can agree with that. Although I think the ideological principles it's ruling class claimed to embrace were not the principles that they truly embraced...or at least not all of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Yes, though it would be preferable if you replaced "government structure" with "social structure." The popular meaning of the term cannot corrupt 160 years of the development of that political philosophy, though, just as misidentification of the term "socialism" cannot corrupt the legitimate meaning of that term as a whole.
    I would have to disagree, at least in part. While I agree that, if one uses your definition, the current popular definition is incorrect...

    The very fact that the current popular definition is "popular", causes it, in my mind to corrupt the viewpoint of people who do not go to the trouble of digging deeper. This may, over time (as such people are in the majority), corrupt the usage of those terms in some areas of the world, thus corrupting the meanings of those terms. While admittedly, this would only be a popular corruption, most persons will not try to dredge up the older, less popular, "proper" meaning of terms. I suppose what I am trying to say is that, over time, the popular definition of a word may become the de facto proper definition of a word. After all, that would seem to be the way languages evolve.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Undoubtedly. But I don't know of anyone (though I'm sure they exist) who actually advocates pure chaotic disorder or how they could expect to maintain such lack of structure without some form of enforcement, which would itself constitute structure.
    Well, no, which is why for anyone (I would hope) who actually considers "anarchism" to mean "total lack of any structure whatsoever", the word has negative connotations, and is a state of being to be avoided. Another "popular" corruption, if we use the definition you espouse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    No, both the methods and actual principles of fascism were anti-left. The collusion between state and corporate power that was an actually existing element of fascist power should illustrate that.
    I suppose that makes sense. I think many people these days (at least in the area I live), tie the term "left" with large state controlled systems providing services to the masses. In many cases, these systems are closely tied to private entities.

    This, obviously, contradicts your preferred (and perhaps correct) meaning for the terms "left" and "right". For that matter, I tend towards agreement with you. But, for some reason, and perhaps it is only in my mind, I tie the terms "libertarian", and "Conservative" to the ideas of small, efficient, governing bodies which interfere with their citizens as little as possible, and attempt to apply their citizen’s wishes in the best possible way (I’m not sure there is such a thing, as perspectives vary so widely). Now, this may be an unattainable ideal, but...

    I’m an idealist.

    I KNOW that such is extremely unlikely…but I still think it should be that way.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  8. #198
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I can agree with that. Although I think the ideological principles it's ruling class claimed to embrace were not the principles that they truly embraced...or at least not all of them.
    They weren't. The smooth transition of many ruling officials from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation should illustrate that.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I would have to disagree, at least in part. While I agree that, if one uses your definition, the current popular definition is incorrect...

    The very fact that the current popular definition is "popular", causes it, in my mind to corrupt the viewpoint of people who do not go to the trouble of digging deeper. This may, over time (as such people are in the majority), corrupt the usage of those terms in some areas of the world, thus corrupting the meanings of those terms. While admittedly, this would only be a popular corruption, most persons will not try to dredge up the older, less popular, "proper" meaning of terms. I suppose what I am trying to say is that, over time, the popular definition of a word may become the de facto proper definition of a word. After all, that would seem to be the way languages evolve.
    That's a thought that's occurred to me many times, and ultimately reveals an extremely problematic element. Many gain from the popular perception of anarchism as chaotic disorder and socialism as "leftist" repressive authoritarianism because those terms are then able to be used for the purpose of ideological warfare. Kropotkin wrote to Lenin in 1920 that "if the present situation continues, the very word 'socialism' will turn into a curse," a prediction that's effectively been nothing more than prophetic, as with Mikhail Bakunin's earlier observation that "if you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the czar himself." While it would of course be ridiculous to expect everyone to agree with me or even sympathize with me, it would be a welcome change for those who wish to comment on political philosophies to at least have an accurate understanding of them, something that's unfortunately uncommon. Scarecrow Akhbar, for example, bases his entire approach on the repetition of platitudinous misconceptions about the aforementioned ideologies and thus avoids actual insight or rationality. In short, I don't want to hear about Somalia when I mention anarchism and I don't want to hear about the Soviet Union and the National Health Service when I mention socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Well, no, which is why for anyone (I would hope) who actually considers "anarchism" to mean "total lack of any structure whatsoever", the word has negative connotations, and is a state of being to be avoided. Another "popular" corruption, if we use the definition you espouse.
    I suppose. But there is perhaps a ray of sunshine in that shallow misconceptions, however widespread, can't truly stand up against 160 years of anarchist political philosophy that stated its ideological basis as centering around voluntary association and participatory direct democracy without a state. The mistaken impression of some everyday brainwashed bot isn't going to stand up against Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in any legitimate sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I suppose that makes sense. I think many people these days (at least in the area I live), tie the term "left" with large state controlled systems providing services to the masses. In many cases, these systems are closely tied to private entities.
    The definition of the "left" is really too vague to quibble much about that. The best that advocates of more libertarian form of leftism can do is mention the fact that there are certainly forms of leftism that involve the minimization or elimination of state power, while there are obviously forms of rightism that involve the precise opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    This, obviously, contradicts your preferred (and perhaps correct) meaning for the terms "left" and "right". For that matter, I tend towards agreement with you. But, for some reason, and perhaps it is only in my mind, I tie the terms "libertarian", and "Conservative" to the ideas of small, efficient, governing bodies which interfere with their citizens as little as possible, and attempt to apply their citizen’s wishes in the best possible way (I’m not sure there is such a thing, as perspectives vary so widely). Now, this may be an unattainable ideal, but...

    I’m an idealist.

    I KNOW that such is extremely unlikely…but I still think it should be that way.
    I'd do the same...to some extent. Libertarianism is undoubtedly based on the minimization of state power, and whether that minimization merely involves a minimal state or whether it involves the complete elimination of the state will depend on whether it is minarchist or anarchist in nature. Modern conservatism has little resemblance to classical liberalism, however. While many elements of classical liberalism were broadly libertarian in nature, the advocacy of relatively unrestricted market exchange that many classical liberal philosophers offered are inapplicable to an economy that involves extreme inequalities, since they expected that agrarian conditions and relatively equitable land distribution would preserve egalitarianism. Strange as it sounds, I think the best modern adaptation of classical liberalism would probably be a libertarian form of republican market socialism.

  9. #199
    Banned G.I. Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-09-09 @ 04:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    247

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    I'm bumping this thread because it is an engine for divisive conversation. This is exactly what we need in this country. Its time to stop being nice to liberals. They don't give a **** about the country, all they care about is achieving their own warped, unrealistic view of what it should be. Look at Obama. We need a real culture war in this country to rid her of this disease known as liberalism.

  10. #200
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by G.I. Joe View Post
    I'm bumping this thread because it is an engine for divisive conversation. This is exactly what we need in this country. Its time to stop being nice to liberals. They don't give a **** about the country, all they care about is achieving their own warped, unrealistic view of what it should be. Look at Obama. We need a real culture war in this country to rid her of this disease known as liberalism.
    Well, wow. That in and of itself is....definitely not helping your arguement that the Far Right is less dangerous then the Far Left.....
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •