• 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

G.I. Joe

Banned
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
247
Reaction score
43
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I personally believe that the far left is much more dangerous to America, simply because it seems that they don't see America as something worth defending.

In the words of Bill Clinton "I would rather be strong and wrong than weak and right".
 
Easy.

The Left is destroying America.

The Left is calling left-of-center Republicans "right wing extremists".

No contest.
 
hmmm, 'America is not worth defending'...must remember this, must remember this...I will chant it tonight in my nightly round of liberal self-hypnosis of the things that I never actually thought but are yet, apparently, attributable to me. By morning I will be right as rain!
 
I personally believe that the far left is much more dangerous to America, simply because it seems that they don't see America as something worth defending.

In the words of Bill Clinton "I would rather be strong and wrong than weak and right".

That is why so many of us left wing types are service veterans...

I think anything taken too far is dangerous for America.
 
I personally believe that the far left is much more dangerous to America, simply because it seems that they don't see America as something worth defending.

Hard to answer. The policies of the far right are much, much worse... but the rejection of nationalism on the far left is disturbing. It doesn't seem to matter much in the end, because both political parties pander to their most extreme elements while all the time selling us out to international corporate interests. Do their sales pitches matter that much when they're all still selling us the same shoddy bill of goods?

We seem to get the same government either way.
 
No major political party actually associates with the "far right" or the "far left" within the U.S., though political affairs in this country do have a distinctly rightist bent compared to other liberal democratic nations.
 
Neo-cons are the most dangerous.:2razz:
 
It all depends on your perspective.

How do you balance safety and security against freedom and liberty? Depending on where you fall on that scale, determines which one you feel is inherently more dangerous.
I would say most of America is moderate or centrist. They are screwed by either extreme.
 
It all depends on your perspective.

How do you balance safety and security against freedom and liberty? Depending on where you fall on that scale, determines which one you feel is inherently more dangerous.
I would say most of America is moderate or centrist. They are screwed by either extreme.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin
 
I thought it was "essential liberty." It seemed pertinent because some would claim that certain "liberties" sacrificed for the purpose of greater safety are not "essential" and possibly also that "essential" security rather than "a little" security is gained as a result, thus justifying the sacrifice in cost/benefit terms.
 
hmmm, 'America is not worth defending'...must remember this, must remember this...I will chant it tonight in my nightly round of liberal self-hypnosis of the things that I never actually thought but are yet, apparently, attributable to me. By morning I will be right as rain!
So you are a left-wing extremist? Unless you are, I obviously wasn't referring to you.
 
Last edited:
So you are a left-wing extremist? Unless you are, I obviously wasn't referring to you.

You didn't say 'left-wing extremist' you said 'far left' which is more vauge. Am I far left? Some people think so. I am farther left than our president.
 
You didn't say 'left-wing extremist' you said 'far left' which is more vauge. Am I far left? Some people think so. I am farther left than our president.
Wow........Do you even believe in capatalism?
 
Wow........Do you even believe in capatalism?

believe in it, like do I believe it exists? uh, yes.
Do I believe it has fatal flaws when it is given unfettered domain as a means of shaping and supporting a society? yes
Do I believe democracy is best served by a balance of capitalistic and socialistic interests that protect both business and people? yes

But mostly I believe in what Korimyr wrote above me (except for the nationalism, bit, because I'm not real keen on nationalism). And I don't believe that the 'far left' or the 'far right' have much real voice in American politics. It's not in America's interest to be extreme.
 
I'll put it this way. I don't know that I'd want either extreme actually running the country unrestrained.

However, from my perspective Obama, Pelosi and Reid are considerably further Left than I am at all comfortable with.


G.
 
believe in it, like do I believe it exists? uh, yes.
Do I believe it has fatal flaws when it is given unfettered domain as a means of shaping and supporting a society? yes
Do I believe democracy is best served by a balance of capitalistic and socialistic interests that protect both business and people? yes

But mostly I believe in what Korimyr wrote above me (except for the nationalism, bit, because I'm not real keen on nationalism). And I don't believe that the 'far left' or the 'far right' have much real voice in American politics. It's not in America's interest to be extreme.
From what you've just said, you seem to be more moderate than anything else. You surely don't seem further left than PrezBo. You'd have to go to Berkeley to find that.
 
That is why so many of us left wing types are service veterans...

I think anything taken too far is dangerous for America.
Yeah, like John Kerry.
 
So you are a left-wing extremist? Unless you are, I obviously wasn't referring to you.

I'm a left-wing extremist, and the phrase "America is not worth defending" seemed so vague as to be rendered meaningless. That's why the similar phrase "hating America" is prized by the jingoist; he can label any criticism of governmental policy an attack on the very morals and principles of the nation as a whole.
 
You're asking me whether I'd prefer 19th-century America or the U.S.S.R.? The former, hands down.
 
You're asking me whether I'd prefer 19th-century America or the U.S.S.R.? The former, hands down.

Again we see the problem with the crude linear measurement of political ideology, as if those are the only two available options. Apart from the fact that many elements of 19th century America were far more egalitarian than presently existing conditions, it simply isn't sound to pretend that the USSR is the form of government favored by most or even many people on the "far left." As noted by the Political Compass Analysis:

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period

If "state-imposed arbitrary collectivism" was the only or dominant ideology of the far left, you can sure as hell bet that I wouldn't be associated with that monstrosity. :)
 
If "state-imposed arbitrary collectivism" was the only or dominant ideology of the far left, you can sure as hell bet that I wouldn't be associated with that monstrosity. :)

I think you are the exception rather than the rule.
 
I think you are the exception rather than the rule.

If there were a swarm of Leninists around every "far-left" function, I'd agree. However, the anti-globalization movement, for example, is primarily anarchist and libertarian socialist in nature.
 
If there were a swarm of Leninists around every "far-left" function, I'd agree. However, the anti-globalization movement, for example, is primarily anarchist and libertarian socialist in nature.

They're not exactly Leninist, but they're not libertarian socialist either. I think Obama personifies the far left- especially considering that most of the far left support him. He wants "redistribution of wealth", to use his own words. He does not think that people will do this without government intervention (and he is very right to think that). He wants the government to collect wealth and redistribute it. This is what happened in the U.S.S.R. and this is what the far left wants.
 
They're not exactly Leninist, but they're not libertarian socialist either. I think Obama personifies the far left- especially considering that most of the far left support him. He wants "redistribution of wealth", to use his own words. He does not think that people will do this without government intervention (and he is very right to think that). He wants the government to collect wealth and redistribute it. This is what happened in the U.S.S.R. and this is what the far left wants.

The USSR was state capitalist in nature, but presumed to be socialist. Obama is not a socialist, could not presume to be one in his wildest dreams, and is not identified as one except by rightists generally ignorant of political theory and economy. You'll not find a single legitimate socialist who claims him as a fellow, for example. The reason for this is that Obama is a liberal democratic capitalist, which is a relatively "centrist" or "center-left" form compared to the more rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism and the more leftist social democratic capitalism (also inaccurately identified as "socialism"). But liberalism and socialism are opposing ideologies. Liberalism utilizes welfare state policies to maintain macroeconomic stabilization and the physical efficiency of the working class within a state of affairs wherein the private ownership of the means of production is supreme, thus ultimately sustaining capitalism more than rightist policies would.
 
Back
Top Bottom