The most critical difference between the political right and the political left is...

[Crepitus]

The Left is driven by hate.
The Right is driven by freedom.

Is that why the FBI is focusing on right wing extremists as their worst terror threat?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

Republicans claim to favour small government, but yet it was Clinton and Obama was actually reduced the number of federal employees. Reagan massively increased the size of the civil service when the unemployment rate hit 6%, saying that it was necessary because government workers buy food, clothing and stimulate the economy too.

Republicans also over-burden government programs with excessive administration to reduce "fraud and abuse", but the increased costs of their fraud prevention efforts cost far more than the fraud they are purporting to prevent. I'm firmly of the opinion that Republicans overburden these programs administratively in the hopes of convincing voters that they're excessively expensive and inefficient. For example: drug testing of welfare recipients cost over $1 million dollars in one state, and they found a small handful of drug users and saved the state $100,000 per year.

Food stamps is another program that is expensive to administer. Why not just increase welfare payments by the amount of food stamps and end the wages and costs of processing and wage testing additional applications, send out monthly amounts to the states and adding them to the electronic cards?

Republicans & Democrats support big government & Liberty at similar rates.

ONLY MORONS don't know it.

The USA South are the biggest beneficaries of Big Government.

The South talks out of it's @$$.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

That depends on how one defines big government. I for one don't think big government is the amount of people working in it as it is how intrusive they are in your life. When government tells me what I must purchase, causes me to lose benefits at work, costs me money I really didn't want to spend, that's big government to me.

Big government is telling me what size drinks I'm permitted to buy. What kind of bags I'm allowed to use to bring my groceries home. What kind of firearms I'm allowed to use, or how many rounds I'm allowed to have in that firearm. Big government is when they say boys in dresses must be permitted in the locker room or showers with my daughter in school. Big government is restricting their choices when it comes to what they eat for lunch. Big government is forcing my restaurant to post calorie count on every item they sell. Big government is taking over school loans, or telling insurance companies what business model they are allowed to have.

To me, that's big government.

Who you're allowed to marry?

Government should never be in the marriage business in the first place. Do you think it's okay for brother and sister to marry? How about man and dog? If not, then you too have restrictions you approve when it comes to marriage.

Don't try to shift the subject.

You approve of government where you like it. What others would consider "big government".

You wanted an example, there it is.

What you are saying is it's big government to have standards. That's not what I see big government as. And as I pointed out, everybody has standards when it comes to marriage, and yes, supported by government.

 

[Crepitus]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

That depends on how one defines big government. I for one don't think big government is the amount of people working in it as it is how intrusive they are in your life. When government tells me what I must purchase, causes me to lose benefits at work, costs me money I really didn't want to spend, that's big government to me.

Big government is telling me what size drinks I'm permitted to buy. What kind of bags I'm allowed to use to bring my groceries home. What kind of firearms I'm allowed to use, or how many rounds I'm allowed to have in that firearm. Big government is when they say boys in dresses must be permitted in the locker room or showers with my daughter in school. Big government is restricting their choices when it comes to what they eat for lunch. Big government is forcing my restaurant to post calorie count on every item they sell. Big government is taking over school loans, or telling insurance companies what business model they are allowed to have.

To me, that's big government.

Who you're allowed to marry?

Government should never be in the marriage business in the first place. Do you think it's okay for brother and sister to marry? How about man and dog? If not, then you too have restrictions you approve when it comes to marriage.

Don't try to shift the subject.

You approve of government where you like it. What others would consider "big government".

You wanted an example, there it is.

What you are saying is it's big government to have standards. That's not what I see big government as. And as I pointed out, everybody has standards when it comes to marriage, and yes, supported by government.

You can marry any damn thing that can legally give consent, I don't care. You however want the government's help in restricting who can. That's big government no matter how you slice it.

 

[Meister]

The Right protects the wealthy from the masses
The Left protects the masses from the wealthy

The left makes sure that the masses never become wealthy. Be honest, choirboy.

 

[Coyote]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

The differences between left and right are multiple.

Inclusive vs. Exclusive - the left is always pushing the envelope on who we define as "us", the right is always seeking to protect the status quo. For example - pushing to include - ethnic and religious minorities, LGBTQ etc in what is "us". Once they become "us" - the right seeks to protect them.

The role of government - not size, but role: the left believes in a strong social safety net provided by the government and supported by taxpayers who also benefit. The right believes in a more limited social safety net provided through voluntary private charities.

Addendum: the right seems to think that a government safety net is evil. The left doesn't and it is fine with a having both private and public safety nets.

Equality: the right believes in an equal playing field, the left believes in an equal outcome.

Addendum - neither is bad or evil.

 

[Meister]

You got issues with our big protective military for 400,000,000 people?

Tough bananas.

They don’t protect us.......they extend military muscle around the globe

Continental US has not been invaded in 200 years
Nobody on earth has the capability

All I can say is, WOW!!!! What a short memory, or might be a selective memory.

Prove me wrong.....

I will wait

I guess we need to find out what your definition of 'invaded' is.

You know....landing troops with the intention of taking over the territory
What is your definition?

My definition is any foreigner that comes to the US undetected as the enemy and kills 2,977 of our people.
Not sure why you have to think it has to be 'troops'.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That depends on how one defines big government. I for one don't think big government is the amount of people working in it as it is how intrusive they are in your life. When government tells me what I must purchase, causes me to lose benefits at work, costs me money I really didn't want to spend, that's big government to me.

Big government is telling me what size drinks I'm permitted to buy. What kind of bags I'm allowed to use to bring my groceries home. What kind of firearms I'm allowed to use, or how many rounds I'm allowed to have in that firearm. Big government is when they say boys in dresses must be permitted in the locker room or showers with my daughter in school. Big government is restricting their choices when it comes to what they eat for lunch. Big government is forcing my restaurant to post calorie count on every item they sell. Big government is taking over school loans, or telling insurance companies what business model they are allowed to have.

To me, that's big government.

Who you're allowed to marry?

Government should never be in the marriage business in the first place. Do you think it's okay for brother and sister to marry? How about man and dog? If not, then you too have restrictions you approve when it comes to marriage.

Don't try to shift the subject.

You approve of government where you like it. What others would consider "big government".

You wanted an example, there it is.

What you are saying is it's big government to have standards. That's not what I see big government as. And as I pointed out, everybody has standards when it comes to marriage, and yes, supported by government.

You can marry any damn thing that can legally give consent, I don't care. You however want the government's help in restricting who can. That's big government no matter how you slice it.

So you think it's okay for father to marry daughter? You would have no problem with that? How about man marrying his dog?

I don't consider respecting long time traditions as being big government. I don't consider government carrying out the will of the people as big government. Forcing people to accept your idea of progressive is big government, such as was done with SSM. We didn't want it here in my state, and it was forced upon us like other states. That's big government.

 

[Meister]

The left supports government providing free college educations to everyone and supports the government managing the nation's healthcare system.

My OP is correct. The left supports larger government and larger government control.

Meanwhile back in reality the government under your blob is further in debt than ever. And we’re now starting a comical “space force”.

And more educated Americans is a good thing.

So protecting our satellites from an enemy is comical. I see.
It's the new millennium, Candi, technology is advancing.

Wow, they were not protected before your blob got there?

BTW...where is our manned space program?

Uh....no they weren't protected before Trump, and they aren't protected now, Candi.
What does a manned space program have to do with this topic, darling?

founding a space force when we can’t put a human out there without Russian help

I think that's just why we need a space force, darling.
I certainly would like to stay ahead of the curve than try to catch up in the age of technology.
I know you and the choirboy Rightwinger mock that kind of thought.

 

[Coyote]

Who you're allowed to marry?

Government should never be in the marriage business in the first place. Do you think it's okay for brother and sister to marry? How about man and dog? If not, then you too have restrictions you approve when it comes to marriage.

Don't try to shift the subject.

You approve of government where you like it. What others would consider "big government".

You wanted an example, there it is.

What you are saying is it's big government to have standards. That's not what I see big government as. And as I pointed out, everybody has standards when it comes to marriage, and yes, supported by government.

You can marry any damn thing that can legally give consent, I don't care. You however want the government's help in restricting who can. That's big government no matter how you slice it.

So you think it's okay for father to marry daughter? You would have no problem with that? How about man marrying his dog?

I don't consider respecting long time traditions as being big government. I don't consider government carrying out the will of the people as big government. Forcing people to accept your idea of progressive is big government, such as was done with SSM. We didn't want it here in my state, and it was forced upon us like other states. That's big government.

Dogs and children can't give consent.

Do you have a problem with a black man marrying a white woman? Cause that was once "progressive".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

The differences between left and right are multiple.

Inclusive vs. Exclusive - the left is always pushing the envelope on who we define as "us", the right is always seeking to protect the status quo. For example - pushing to include - ethnic and religious minorities, LGBTQ etc in what is "us". Once they become "us" - the right seeks to protect them.

The role of government - not size, but role: the left believes in a strong social safety net provided by the government and supported by taxpayers who also benefit. The right believes in a more limited social safety net provided through voluntary private charities.

Addendum: the right seems to think that a government safety net is evil. The left doesn't and it is fine with a having both private and public safety nets.

Equality: the right believes in an equal playing field, the left believes in an equal outcome.

Addendum - neither is bad or evil.

It's less having safety nets than it is the abuse of them. The right is against the abuse of safety nets, the left supports abuse.

For instance I have HUD people living next door to me. They've been a problem ever since they moved in. Cops have been here at least a half-dozen times in the past two years. There is garbage strewn all over their backyard. They leave their garbage cans out nearly a week after the garbage cans have been emptied.

When government uses these "safety nets' as experimental social engineering devices, that's an abuse of our social programs. If I have to support the housing of people, fine. But I shouldn't' have to support their housing in the suburbs and watch it be destroyed.

When I go to the grocery store and see some 300 lbs lady with four kids, buying food with food stamps, and then whip out the wad of cash for her huge bags of dog food, carton of cigarettes, several bottles of wine, and various non-necessities, that's an abuse of our social programs, and yes, we Republicans are against that.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[Meister]

The left supports government providing free college educations to everyone and supports the government managing the nation's healthcare system.

My OP is correct. The left supports larger government and larger government control.

Meanwhile back in reality the government under your blob is further in debt than ever. And we’re now starting a comical “space force”.

And more educated Americans is a good thing.

So protecting our satellites from an enemy is comical. I see.
It's the new millennium, Candi, technology is advancing.

Wow, they were not protected before your blob got there?

BTW...where is our manned space program?

Uh....no they weren't protected before Trump, and they aren't protected now, Candi.
What does a manned space program have to do with this topic, darling?

your blob isn’t protecting our satellites?

My blob and your messiah hasn't had the technology to protect the satellites, darling.
Hence......space force. If you don't think some countries aren't trying to gain the technology
to destroy orbiting equipment of other countries, you are either stupid, ignorant, or naive.
I'll let you choose.
We have a person in the WH that has the vision to protect us from the future weapons, and you
are too much a political minion to even understand. sad

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Government should never be in the marriage business in the first place. Do you think it's okay for brother and sister to marry? How about man and dog? If not, then you too have restrictions you approve when it comes to marriage.

Don't try to shift the subject.

You approve of government where you like it. What others would consider "big government".

You wanted an example, there it is.

What you are saying is it's big government to have standards. That's not what I see big government as. And as I pointed out, everybody has standards when it comes to marriage, and yes, supported by government.

You can marry any damn thing that can legally give consent, I don't care. You however want the government's help in restricting who can. That's big government no matter how you slice it.

So you think it's okay for father to marry daughter? You would have no problem with that? How about man marrying his dog?

I don't consider respecting long time traditions as being big government. I don't consider government carrying out the will of the people as big government. Forcing people to accept your idea of progressive is big government, such as was done with SSM. We didn't want it here in my state, and it was forced upon us like other states. That's big government.

Dogs and children can't give consent.

Do you have a problem with a black man marrying a white woman? Cause that was once "progressive".

So giving consent is the problem? Think a dog knows if it's getting married or not? Does a dog give consent to being kept in a fenced in yard? Does a dog give consent to being put on a leash when outside that fence?

 

[beautress]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

Republicans claim to favour small government, but yet it was Clinton and Obama was actually reduced the number of federal employees. Reagan massively increased the size of the civil service when the unemployment rate hit 6%, saying that it was necessary because government workers buy food, clothing and stimulate the economy too.

Republicans also over-burden government programs with excessive administration to reduce "fraud and abuse", but the increased costs of their fraud prevention efforts cost far more than the fraud they are purporting to prevent. I'm firmly of the opinion that Republicans overburden these programs administratively in the hopes of convincing voters that they're excessively expensive and inefficient. For example: drug testing of welfare recipients cost over $1 million dollars in one state, and they found a small handful of drug users and saved the state $100,000 per year.

Food stamps is another program that is expensive to administer. Why not just increase welfare payments by the amount of food stamps and end the wages and costs of processing and wage testing additional applications, send out monthly amounts to the states and adding them to the electronic cards?

Why not give people the pride of working for a living because they can. There's nothing like being like everybody else, and a little work never killed anyone. There are people too sick to work, no doubt about it, and single moms may need to be full-time housekeepers if they have more than 2 children, or just one special needs kid. Seems the current raise will be well received by those who really need help, but it's also beneficial that 700,000 people were glad to get better paying jobs and were given the incentives to get off welfare and work toward self-sufficiency. If something goes wrong, and they need a cushion, they have one. But some of those who are off welfare actually like to work if the pay raise is good enough.

There's a flip side to finding drug users and letting them know they need to clean up their lives and work toward living life without the crutch that drugs can be, incarcerating the user in a world where overdoses are killers, and dependents lose their childhood after that all too many times. If someone knows about their addiction, they can be encouraged to try life without addiction issues cluttering their lives and destroying their children's childhood.

 

[Crepitus]

Who you're allowed to marry?

Government should never be in the marriage business in the first place. Do you think it's okay for brother and sister to marry? How about man and dog? If not, then you too have restrictions you approve when it comes to marriage.

Don't try to shift the subject.

You approve of government where you like it. What others would consider "big government".

You wanted an example, there it is.

What you are saying is it's big government to have standards. That's not what I see big government as. And as I pointed out, everybody has standards when it comes to marriage, and yes, supported by government.

You can marry any damn thing that can legally give consent, I don't care. You however want the government's help in restricting who can. That's big government no matter how you slice it.

So you think it's okay for father to marry daughter? You would have no problem with that? How about man marrying his dog?

I don't consider respecting long time traditions as being big government. I don't consider government carrying out the will of the people as big government. Forcing people to accept your idea of progressive is big government, such as was done with SSM. We didn't want it here in my state, and it was forced upon us like other states. That's big government.

You're still trying, unsuccessfully I might add, to twist this.

 

[beautress]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

Republicans claim to favour small government, but yet it was Clinton and Obama was actually reduced the number of federal employees. Reagan massively increased the size of the civil service when the unemployment rate hit 6%, saying that it was necessary because government workers buy food, clothing and stimulate the economy too.

Republicans also over-burden government programs with excessive administration to reduce "fraud and abuse", but the increased costs of their fraud prevention efforts cost far more than the fraud they are purporting to prevent. I'm firmly of the opinion that Republicans overburden these programs administratively in the hopes of convincing voters that they're excessively expensive and inefficient. For example: drug testing of welfare recipients cost over $1 million dollars in one state, and they found a small handful of drug users and saved the state $100,000 per year.

Food stamps is another program that is expensive to administer. Why not just increase welfare payments by the amount of food stamps and end the wages and costs of processing and wage testing additional applications, send out monthly amounts to the states and adding them to the electronic cards?

Food stamps is for the children. The parent might forget to buy them the necessities of life without food stamps.

 

[Coyote]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

The differences between left and right are multiple.

Inclusive vs. Exclusive - the left is always pushing the envelope on who we define as "us", the right is always seeking to protect the status quo. For example - pushing to include - ethnic and religious minorities, LGBTQ etc in what is "us". Once they become "us" - the right seeks to protect them.

The role of government - not size, but role: the left believes in a strong social safety net provided by the government and supported by taxpayers who also benefit. The right believes in a more limited social safety net provided through voluntary private charities.

Addendum: the right seems to think that a government safety net is evil. The left doesn't and it is fine with a having both private and public safety nets.

Equality: the right believes in an equal playing field, the left believes in an equal outcome.

Addendum - neither is bad or evil.

It's less having safety nets than it is the abuse of them. The right is against the abuse of safety nets, the left supports abuse.

I totally disagree with you on that - that is just another example of assumptions. The left supports abuse? Nothing below indicates a support of abuse. No one I know supports abuse. So where do you come up with this?

Let me put it this way. It's like me saying the right doesn't support safety nets. Is that true?

For instance I have HUD people living next door to me. They've been a problem ever since they moved in. Cops have been here at least a half-dozen times in the past two years. There is garbage strewn all over their backyard. They leave their garbage cans out nearly a week after the garbage cans have been emptied.

That isn't an issue of "the left supporting abuse" - largely it is an issue of lack of local enforcement of basic codes and - maybe more to the point - it ignores the many occasions of people NOT HUD who also strew garbage (I know, I've seen it). It's nothing to do with supporting abuse and it's not just HUD.

When government uses these "safety nets' as experimental social engineering devices, that's an abuse of our social programs. If I have to support the housing of people, fine. But I shouldn't' have to support their housing in the suburbs and watch it be destroyed.

DO they? I don't think so. I think the biggest complaint with these programs is bureaucracy.

When I go to the grocery store and see some 300 lbs lady with four kids, buying food with food stamps, and then whip out the wad of cash for her huge bags of dog food, carton of cigarettes, several bottles of wine, and various non-necessities, that's an abuse of our social programs, and yes, we Republicans are against that.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1704

And I would you say when you see that...what ASSUMPTIONS are you making?

For one - the cheapest food, and the most accessible food I food deserts is FATTENING. Do you have any idea how many grocery stores have closed in small towns that have lost population or cities that no longer support urban grocery stores.? So..you have to throw in she is 300 lbs. Why? So she has 4 kids - so WHAT? What do you know about her? She buys dog food - good for her. Dog's offer a lot of positive health benefits to people. You against that? Welfare doesn't pay for cigarettes and wine. But again - who are you to mandate that a person can't have something good like wine occasionally? You describe a textbook description - how often do you really see that?

I don't think anyone is for actual abuse. But I seriously question how much is stereotyping.[/quote]

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Continental US has not been invaded in 200 years

·
·
·​

Prove me wrong.....

I will wait

I already did. The foreign invasion that is happening even now, across our southern border, which has been going on for decades, with the treasonous complicity of corrupt Democrat-party public servants.

 

[Coyote]

Don't try to shift the subject.

You approve of government where you like it. What others would consider "big government".

You wanted an example, there it is.

What you are saying is it's big government to have standards. That's not what I see big government as. And as I pointed out, everybody has standards when it comes to marriage, and yes, supported by government.

You can marry any damn thing that can legally give consent, I don't care. You however want the government's help in restricting who can. That's big government no matter how you slice it.

So you think it's okay for father to marry daughter? You would have no problem with that? How about man marrying his dog?

I don't consider respecting long time traditions as being big government. I don't consider government carrying out the will of the people as big government. Forcing people to accept your idea of progressive is big government, such as was done with SSM. We didn't want it here in my state, and it was forced upon us like other states. That's big government.

Dogs and children can't give consent.

Do you have a problem with a black man marrying a white woman? Cause that was once "progressive".

So giving consent is the problem? Think a dog knows if it's getting married or not? Does a dog give consent to being kept in a fenced in yard? Does a dog give consent to being put on a leash when outside that fence?

Marriage in this nation involves consent. Period. Consent implies the ability to understand what is happening. Children and animals can't.

 

[bluzman61]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

THE most critical difference to me is the Right is pro-American and patriotic, the Left is anti-American and unpatriotic.