Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Purely subjective.. but I say extreme Left is worse..
Both may be perceived as obnoxious, but at least far Right seems motivated by healthy self-interest/hyper self defense.. American Left seems un-naturally self-hating and deracinated (little to no interest in defending borders, actively erasing traditional cultural values/heroes that have upheld Western civilization, etc) . Just my take tho'..
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini. It was not so much whether they were right or left, but rather how extreme they were.
All socialist, where the state controls your every action.
Progressive socialism, is far left and a full attack on the constitution of these here United States.
I'd go with extreme right being worse. They tend to be better organized and it is much tougher to create a Fifth Column in their ranks, find defectors and informers.
With extreme left, while not necessarily good, there is a better chance of using the above means to fight them. But what's a major problem with combating extreme left? There is a higher risk of splinter groups forming.
Not when the Left uses the power of Gov. on its citizens. IRS rings any bells??
The important issue here is most people on this forum ,no matter what your political view is, agrees that supermajority is counter productive and balance of power is beneficial to America. The Founders basis ideas that work to this day is "Checks and Balances".
Our political system is far from perfect, but the imperfections in a way what breaks a bad cyle of bad leadership.
People don't absolutely own themselves, their labor of property.
Do you believe this or are you simply stating what the constitution says? I do think that people absolutely own themselves no matter what another person or group says. Ownership means exclusive right to something, and I don't think anyone has the right to own me, to any degree. I'm not anyone else's property.
Both are detrimental to this country. They both think they are right and won't budge on any compromise. This hurts all of us. I'm sick of both extremes. They are voting all the moderates out, who are the ones who can actually get things done by compromise. This is why we have gridlock in government.
I think it's good to work together and compromise on certain things, but not on all things. Maybe as a democrat you want separation of church and state. That's not something you'll compromise on and say "ok...I suppose we can enforce some religious laws on people. Let's meet in the middle on this." Maybe as a republican you want abortion to be illegal because you think it's 100% wrong. You won't compromise and say "alright, let's have some abortion but not TOO much."
If you are principled, there are going to be certain things you simply will never compromise on. If you have a principle that rape is always wrong, you will never support any kind of rape ever. A person who is unprincipled never takes a stand on anything, which results in law being arbitrary and having no foundation to base anything off of.
Most constitutionalists have the principle that we need to follow the constitution as it is written. When others try to get them to compromise and give up certain rights guaranteed in the constitution, they simply aren't willing to do it. I think that's where a lot of frustration comes from people pushing more government. What both sides want are directly opposed to each other in many cases, so there is no way to have a middle ground.
(This is coming from a somewhat outsider perspective as I don't support any party...just pointing out my observations)
Not only this. For some reason Americans believe that a Republic indicate some higher stage of democracy while in fact Republic which comes from latin Res Publica simply indicates that the state belongs to its citizens as opposed to a king or prince. Republic is not a political system. Democracy is and all democracies are in fact republics, and all have constitutions. We are not unique in this aspect. Now, the conservative belief in a mythical republic where, as opposed to democracy or the mob rule, laws are sacred, is simply infantile as the constitution itself contains provisions for a democratic process to change the letter of the constitution and any law. Anyway you look at it, both democracy and mythical republic are examples of mob rule where any law, including the constitution could be changed by decisive majority.
Who ever taught you this was sadly mistaken, and you should never accept ideas without verifying the legitamacy personally.
The first piece of evidence is Article IV of the Constitution which guarantees a Republican form of government. Somehow, I seriously doubt that the founders would guarantee a mythical form of government.
Next, we have quotes from some of them, such as Benjamin Franklin who said "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner", among many other statements made that clearly show that the founders were strictly opposed to democracy.
Of course, liberal progressive ideology takes a real beating in that brief little pledge of alliegence we used to recite at the start of the school day ... "I pledge alliegence to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
I know that word "God" really does give liberals hives, and they continue to insist, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary that America is a democracy, with no place for God.
Every society has a right to defend itself from internal and external threats. Participating in a society is not obligatory but obeying its laws while on territory occupied by said society is.
Society is a group of people that agrees to follow certain set of principles that this group agreed are beneficial to all. The best analogy is a highway. We all get on the highway to get from point A to point B. We all want to get there as fast as possible but because safety is as important as travel and time we agreed to obey speed limits and drive on the same side.
Does this impacts our freedom? Yes, we could all just drive as fast as we can and on the side that is actually open but we all realize that this would put all of the motorists in danger so we agreed to obey the laws, for the benefit of all of us.
And here is just another example of how easily liberal collectivists buy into this paternal relationship, where the people are children, and government knows best.
The truth is .... when you get a speeding ticket for driving 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, is it really about protecting everyone's safety, or is it about the state grabbing $100 out of your pocket?
How about fishing licenses? Are we to believe this is for the collective good? Or is this about an out of control, authoritarian state forcing you to ask (and pay) for permission to do what people have been freely doing for thousands of years?
The facts are, society is not in agreement on these usurpations being imposed on the people by force, except for those who buy into these con job excuses and lame ideas about the greater good, and safety. The hard cold fact is, no one is safe, when government gains too much power.
Another famous statement ... "those that would sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither liberty or safety".
Again, we have a responsibility to adhere to moral laws which protect the rights of each individual. Our exercise of liberty can only be curtailed when such actions negatively impact the liberty of another. All of the rest of the 200,000+ laws on the books have one inescapable consequence ... they negatively impact the liberty of everyone, including those brainwashed into believing that such loss of liberty is for a good cause.
Another famous statement ... "those that would sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither liberty or safety"
What about this one...
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
You may think whatever you want, yet the reality is that no rights are absolute. The government could draft you into the army, it happened before, despite your protest or lack of agreement.
No laws or rights are absolute. That's the reality rather than my ideological standpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Do you believe this or are you simply stating what the constitution says? I do think that people absolutely own themselves no matter what another person or group says. Ownership means exclusive right to something, and I don't think anyone has the right to own me, to any degree. I'm not anyone else's property.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Imortant Realization
