• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

Choose.

  • Far Left

    Votes: 35 46.7%
  • Far Right

    Votes: 40 53.3%

  • Total voters
    75
I believe the far right is more dangerous to America because they don't see democracy as something worth defending.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin "There Never Was a Good War or a Bad Peace."

Hello?

It was the Right the fended off Al Gore's efforts to steal the election in Floriduh! that would have put Al Gore in the White House.

It was the Right the tried to defend against Al Franken's theft of a US Senate seat.

It was the Democrats pushing these acts of ant-democracy fraud.
 
Historically? They took their que from the Soviet Union, for example when the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was signed the far left in the U.S. was anti-war but when Hitler invaded poof they were magically pro-war. Funny how that works huh?

-
You didn't answer my question:
When was the last time that the United States needed defending and the
'far left' did not defend the U.S.A.?
-
So, you didn't like it when the far left was pro war against Hitler?
 
That is why so many of us left wing types are service veterans...

I think anything taken too far is dangerous for America.

Yes like myself, my husband, my two son's and my grandsons. All served in the military and all let wing types.
 
I believe the far left is more dangerous to America because they don't see democracy as something worth defending.
I fixed it for you. No need to thank me.

Ronald Reagan said:
Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.
Hmm...Reagan was pretty far right...and I don't know about you but that quote seems to show that the right thinks democracy is something worth defending.
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant.

He is not a libertarian. Libertarians don't promote the causes he does, not a chance.

Oh the blatant eye scarring irony of a phony independant who is really a severe right-winger calling someone else out on their affliation.
 
Hmm...Reagan was pretty far right...and I don't know about you but that quote seems to show that the right thinks democracy is something worth defending.

Your definition of "right" is disturbing then.

Insane deficits and debts (at the time), massive government, policies that kept stagflation going, unsustainable military buildup way in excess of what was necessary to stop a conventional Soviet attack, foreign interventions all over the planet, terrorist funding and overthrowing legitimate democratic regimes in South America...

"Far Right"

huh.
 
obvious child said:
Your definition of "right" is disturbing then.

Insane deficits and debts (at the time), massive government, policies that kept stagflation going, unsustainable military buildup way in excess of what was necessary to stop a conventional Soviet attack, foreign interventions all over the planet, terrorist funding and overthrowing legitimate democratic regimes in South America...

"Far Right"
Who do you see as "far right"?The deficits and debts were caused by increased military spending, which were justified considering that the United States was in the midst of the Cold War. Stagflation ended under Reagan, it did not continue. Inflation was dramatically reduced from 13.58 under Carter's last year to 4.08 at the end of Reagan's last year. In 1986 the inflation rate was only 1.91.*
*source
From the period of 1983-1990 the real GDP grew 35%. 20 million jobs were created. Between 1980-1990 Federal revenues increased by 28%. However, as a percentage of the GDP revenues decreased 0.9%**
There is much more about Reagan's success **here.
If you are referring to the Iran Contra Affair, the general consensus has been that Reagan didn't know about it, but he should have. Look up the Tower Commission for information on that.
 
Last edited:
The word "Conservative" quite obviously means to Conserve. For the most part the Right is trying to conserve the policies that have kept us safe for over 200 years.
The Left (generalizing) believes the world is a place that can be peaceful with no war and a place where all can be friends, as many of us know, that is simply not true.
 
Extremism is bad. Period.

I could not vote for one, so I didn't.
 
Who do you see as "far right"?The deficits and debts were caused by increased military spending, which were justified considering that the United States was in the midst of the Cold War.

Except during Reagan's time the only thing the US lagged behind was in biological and chemical weapons. We had vastly superior nuclear weapons, technology and the means to win a conventional war. The only reason to spend that kind of money was to make the Soviets go broke. In terms of actual defense, it was overkill.

Stagflation ended under Reagan, it did not continue.

Except that Reagan's fiscal policy kept it going far longer then necessary. If he had simply let Volcker do his thing, stagflation would ended far sooner. Tossing billions of dollars into the money supply without any corresponding increases in assets and asset values leads to inflation. Volcker had to create an artificial recession to reduce inflation. Had Reagan cut back on the increases to the money supply, Volcker would have either been able to not raise interest rates so high or have stopped the artificial recession much sooner.

Fiscal conservative, Reagan was not.


If you are referring to the Iran Contra Affair, the general consensus has been that Reagan didn't know about it, but he should have. Look up the Tower Commission for information on that.

The notion that Reagan was a blind idiot is something I'll never buy.

Considering Reagan to be on the right is highly disturbing. Big spending, big deficits, big government and anti-democratic actions across the planet. Huh. Really.
 
Except during Reagan's time the only thing the US lagged behind was in biological and chemical weapons. We had vastly superior nuclear weapons, technology and the means to win a conventional war. The only reason to spend that kind of money was to make the Soviets go broke. In terms of actual defense, it was overkill.



Except that Reagan's fiscal policy kept it going far longer then necessary. If he had simply let Volcker do his thing, stagflation would ended far sooner. Tossing billions of dollars into the money supply without any corresponding increases in assets and asset values leads to inflation. Volcker had to create an artificial recession to reduce inflation. Had Reagan cut back on the increases to the money supply, Volcker would have either been able to not raise interest rates so high or have stopped the artificial recession much sooner.

Fiscal conservative, Reagan was not.




The notion that Reagan was a blind idiot is something I'll never buy.

Considering Reagan to be on the right is highly disturbing. Big spending, big deficits, big government and anti-democratic actions across the planet. Huh. Really.
Reagan's military spending was coupled with Congresses increased welfare spending and spending on other social programs like medicare, medicaid, etc. Many of these spending increases were initiated during Reagans second term when democrats had control. Spending on social programs was enormous. Congress, not the President, really has the control over what is spent or not. Even if Reagan had balanced the budget, I would not give him as much credit as the Congress. I give the Congress under Clinton more credit than Clinton himself.

Read these pages of the book I am about to link you to. Last paragraph of pg. 176 through page 178. It details Reagan spending with specifics, and explains not only Reagan's numbers but the increases in spending from previous presidents.
Book link online
Reagan spent over 1.5 trillion on national defense, but he could pay for it. The spending on social programs is what caused the problem with the budget. Reagan didn't veto the social program spending increases because they included military spending that he wanted as well. He could either veto everything or take everything. Congress often uses this tactic to get what it wants. Considering the circumstances, Reagan couldn't veto what Congress wanted.

Reagan spent:
-282 Billion on national defense in 1987
-31 Billion on agriculture in 1987
-319 Billion on social programs in 1987

If you actual look into the reports I gave you, you will realize why it is very possible Reagan knew little or nothing about the Iran Contra Affair.

You still haven't answered my question. Who do you see as "far right"?

I recognize you from another site, obvious_child, 4forumsandpolls is the name or something like that.
 
Last edited:
Well I have not into politics for long but from what I can see the far left have been more for spreading the wealth, for example at one time you could be a alcoholic and be considered disabled. The democrats have always been for helping the little man what about the little man helping himself.
 
Given the far left is in power or at least more power than the far right so that would make them more dangerous.
 
Both would presumably be more dangerous, but I would suggest that the extreme elements of one ideology would be more dangerous when an identified ideology is under power. So basically, when the right is in power, the extreme right is most dangerous, and when the left is in power, the extreme left is in power. However, I am seldom worried unlike some
 
Both would presumably be more dangerous, but I would suggest that the extreme elements of one ideology would be more dangerous when an identified ideology is under power. So basically, when the right is in power, the extreme right is most dangerous, and when the left is in power, the extreme left is in power. However, I am seldom worried unlike some

Yea I was just talking this the other to some people.
 
Both would presumably be more dangerous, but I would suggest that the extreme elements of one ideology would be more dangerous when an identified ideology is under power. So basically, when the right is in power, the extreme right is most dangerous, and when the left is in power, the extreme left is in power. However, I am seldom worried unlike some

Interesting theory.

Perhaps we should require that there be an exactly equal number of right and left leaning politicians in office at any given time? :mrgreen:
 
What would you consider Far Right to be? Anarchism came to mind at first, but it can't be that, can it? I'd prefer if a Republican/Conservative would define it please.
 
What would you consider Far Right to be? Anarchism came to mind at first, but it can't be that, can it? I'd prefer if a Republican/Conservative would define it please.

In my mind, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism"]fascism[/ame] is an example of far right.

Anarchism is actually the far left, in my mind.
 
Far left is much worse. Facism works, the Nazis and Italy during WWII are proof of that, they just can't be led by some meth-addict/incompetent. Should have waited to vote :(
 
Anarchism and fascism aren't really on the left-right scale....

Who said anything about a left-right scale?
 
Of course I am going to say the far right. Extreme religious right wingers represent all the things that bother me about the USA, at least so far as social issues. I'm going to bet right wingers see it the exact opposite! :)
 
Of course I am going to say the far right. Extreme religious right wingers represent all the things that bother me about the USA, at least so far as social issues. I'm going to bet right wingers see it the exact opposite! :)

Actually, it is quite hard to say which is worse, without using your personal bias.

Since both are quite horrific and bad for the country, you have to say "well, that one is further from my personal view, and thus is considered by me to be worse." Which in no way says that you think the other is good.

I personally consider the far left to be more harmfull. But then, I personally lean right a bit, on most of the issues that far right and far left nuts argue (sometimes violently?) about. Thus, I must choose the far left as most harmfull.

--------------------------------------------

However, I do not consider a 1-D "left-riight" scale to be an accurate depiction of the political spectrum.

A 2-D scale is more accurate.

I was perhaps incorrect to discribe anarchism as an example of far right earlier.

It, IMO, is more correctly neither and both, as anarchism inplies lack of any government, and thus cannot have a left or right for people to ascribe to...meh

I was also perhaps incorrect in discribing fascism as far right, as it is also can be neither or both.
 
Back
Top Bottom