I've Been Accused of being Liberal. Okay I'm laying my cards on the table (1 Viewer)

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I like long walks on moonlit beaches.... how 'bout you?

 

[ra]

UTM, you approve of gay marriage, me too.

What you doing later tonight?



I think I just threw up in my mouth.

_________________________________

 

[Mr. Paul Caruso]

I like long walks on moonlit beaches.... how 'bout you?

I'm more of a bath house man myself.



:-\

 

[gumbeau]

I think you are a liberal and your own post proves it.

You dont state your position on gun control. Both sides cite the second amendment.

Same for the marriage stuff.

If the constitution was not open for different interpretations there wouldn't be much need for lawyers.

Your position on church and state is liberal. The founding fathers never intended the silly state of affairs we have now.

Anyone who can mention corporate welfare without giggling at the absurdity of such a concept is a liberal. A basic grasp of what a corporation is shoots that whole thing down in flames. Is your tax refund welfare?

Most of the rest you admit you are liberal.

The only remotely conservative stance you take is free trade but you contradict yourself on that one 5 times.

 

[RebSaint]

I think you are a liberal and your own post proves it.

You dont state your position on gun control. Both sides cite the second amendment.

Same for the marriage stuff.

If the constitution was not open for different interpretations there wouldn't be much need for lawyers.

Your position on church and state is liberal. The founding fathers never intended the silly state of affairs we have now.

Anyone who can mention corporate welfare without giggling at the absurdity of such a concept is a liberal. A basic grasp of what a corporation is shoots that whole thing down in flames. Is your tax refund welfare?

Most of the rest you admit you are liberal.

The only remotely conservative stance you take is free trade but you contradict yourself on that one 5 times.

Let's just say that we disagree what the terms "conservative" and "liberal" mean.

And your claim, re: founding fathers has no basis in historical reality. This country was not founded on the religious values alone. Religious people established the government, but they were suspicious of any concentrated power, especially religious. This country's founding documents were steeped heavily in Enlightenment rationalism of John Locke, Monteque, and Rosseau especially. Your claim that the founding fathers wanted to give the church a signficant influence in the government is just simply specious. They were intelligent enough to see that Europe had killed each other wholesale because of the intermixing of religious issues and secular government. In sum, I think you're woefully misinformed here.

And your comment about "corporate welfare," is specious, too. Corporations are given huge tax incentives and subsidies--while not "welfare" per se, corporations are milking the government just as any poor person would on welfare who is taking advantage of the system.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, appearently you misunderstood my position. Others didn't--I'm for zero laws abridging gun owners' rights.

Gay marriage--Since marriage is a civil contract, constitutionally, it falls under the perview of "Reserved Powers" not delegated specifically given the federal gov't in the Constitution. And since marriage licenses are issued by states, it's a state issue. This stance is per the Constitution, per "true" conservative, states' rights values.

It's clear that you are a big-government conservative who believes in giving religion and big corporations uncecessary power.

 

[Random Fan]

Been a long time lurker, but now that I'm posting I figure this is a good intro thread:

Gun Control: The problem lies not with guns but with the people who use them for ill purposes. An irresponsible person with a knife is more dangerous than a responsible person with an assault rifle. That said, I think we can draw the lines on practical limits like rocket launchers, tanks, or anything people could muster to raise a private army.

Gay marriage/abortion: Indeed, 10th Amendment and I'm sorry to see most Republicans don't embrace the full dictates of Federalism that. If a state like Massachusetts wants to have more liberal standards and a more robust equal protection clause in their state constitution such that it allows for gay marriage, more power to them. The states are the laboratories of democracy. If you don't like the fact that your state is more liberal than what the current federal constitution affords, you move to another state bringing your tax base and individual skills with you.

Church and State: I am not a very religious person but I appreciate the fact that religion has a lot to teach people and is a valuable part of our society. It should be one of many factors/considerations that influence our morals/laws but certainly not the prevailing factor.

Taxes: I've always supported a flat tax although I can't pretend I could effectively argue the benefits or detriments of it as opposed to the current progressive system. In terms of corporate taxation I am in favor of breaks and incentives to smaller businesses.

Foreign Policy: Limited Cultural Imperialism. If other countries want to have a Starbucks on every corner then by all means we should export that lifestyle. However, we can't pretend that every region on this planet shares western sensibilities particularly the Muslim world. It's just a different culture altogether. Terrorism should be fought through the CIA, FBI, and NSA through increased funding and a larger informant network. There are currently no crisis in the world that require the intervention of our standing army.

Education: The Department of Education should mostly be gutted. It's fine to have some basic standards and monitor them and run the federal loan programs but that's about the scope of it. The onus needs to be on state and local governments, charter schools, and perhaps private industry funding schools with a trade-off of them being able to plaster advertisement all over.

Trade: I think some protectionism is in order so as not to drive small business owners to bankruptcy. I think there should be penalties on U.S. corporations that make use of what is essentially slave labor. In the absence of that I would use federal money to advertise what companies do in fact use American labor and materials so that the public can be informed and can make a conscious choice to opt to pay a little more money for a product that helped employ fellow Americans in it's creation.

Welfare: I would prefer if more welfare/charity be local, private, and faith-based.

Campaign Finance: At the end of the day it's people who go to the polls and select their representatives. If the think the people who represent them are too beholden to special interests they need to vote them out of office.

Death Penalty: I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or the other although I know there is a big problem in this country with public defenders, especially in capital cases.

Social Security: There needs to be more privatization. People should have a choice in how their money is invested. Equality of results is not important, just make sure people have the same base to invest from and the results are up to them.

Energy: Way more funding should be put into making hydrogen a more practical fuel source. From everything I have read it is cleaner and cheaper.

Environment: The cumulative effects of modern society are eventually going to take their toll on the planet. Much like hydrogen fuel, to the extent things can be replaced with cleaner and viable alternatives, they should be.

Immigration: Enforcement is the key. Jail time for people who hire illegal aliens. It's commendable that people want to come to this country, but they should do so legally.

Civil Liberties: Although I am very libertarian in my social leanings, it isn't lost on me that sometimes 'bending' the rules may lead to the safeguarding of America lives. Unfortunately we live in the real world and not a con law seminar classroom.

 

[Mr. Paul Caruso]

And the president/Republican Party comes off as probably 50-60% liberal.

The defense rests.

Rebuttal from the prosecution.

This debate was started about me. Now, it has morphed to the president and\or the republicans.

I request a sidebar with Judge Ito.

Nevermind, he is playing golf with OJ looking for the real killer. For the families of the victims, I hope OJ finds the real killer. I have to say a golf course is not the correct spot.

Anyway, good luck OJ.

 

[THAJCODE]

You fooled everybody

 

[Mr. Paul Caruso]

Me, no way?

I am but a simple serf workin my lords land.

 

[Dave]

I have posted my views on issues 2 seperate times. It doesn't help. Some people will still accuse you of being a blind partisan, using talking points, or being brainwashed by propoganda. If eveyone one would stop resorting to those type or responses, acting like they are smarter than others, or calling people stupid, ignorant, blind, etc we would have much more civil discussions.

 

[DadsDream]

Issues:

Gun Control: See 2nd Amendment.
Gay marriage: Against. It's a man/woman thing with financial incentives and tax breaks for the breeders to take care of the kids.
Abortion: For. Because my mom favored it...told me horror stories about all her friends who died in the 1930s.
Church and State: Separated, but not to the point of chiseling off quotes or motifs etched into federal buildings back in the 1800s. Good grief.
Taxes: Flat. Percentage based. Everybody pays. No exemptions.
Foreign Policy: Give Iraq to the Iraqis, but never, never let it fall to the Iranians.
Education: Revamp the federal student loan program.
Free Trade: Yes, if you can get the UN to properly slam the door on protectionist tariffs.
Welfare: Enforce the laws on the books.
Campaign Finance: Cap it. Just like an NFL salary cap.
Death Penalty: Hand me the needle, I'll do it.
Social Security: Privitization works fine until the economy tanks. No. Joe Average gets the short end of the stick because Joe don't know how to manipulate investment funds. It's a Federal program; keep it that way.
Energy: Market forces are already pushing research. Within a century, oil will be a moot issue.
Environment: The longer I live the more environmentally aware I become. Take paradise, put up a parking lot. Joni Mitchell was it right.
Immigration: Enforce the laws on the books. Hire whoever has to be hired, pay whatever has to be paid. Enforce the law.
Civil Liberties: We've reached the point where anybody can find out anything about anybody anyway. That being said, I'd chop my arm off if they put an I.D. chip in it.

Predictions:
We pull in our horns overseas and turn our attention inward. All's well for a while.
Just as we begin to feel good about ourselves, we will get hit again. Hard.
The reaction will be swift and brutal - it'll make George Bush look like a pacifist.

 

[JimEverett]

We have had this discussion on the board before, but when you say "I am for free trade" it isn't really clear what your position is on the subject.

When I hear people say they are for free trade I automatically assume they are adopting the position that our government has taken for basically the last 35 years or so which is a unilateral lowering of our trade barriers and government subsidies while not demanding our trade partners do the same (although we do try and negotiate a more reciprocal arrangement). And you get arguments like: other countries can create goods for cheaper thus it is still a good thing for the American consumer. This ignores the fact that most American consumers are also AMerican workers and also the fact that most of those overseas concerns are getting huge government subsidies because those governments recognize the importance of a manufacturing base.
I also assume it means that you support pursuing a trade policy through multinational organizations - like the WTO and NAFTA - rather than through bilateral negotiations.
Of course being for free trade doesn;t have to mean the above - its just that the term seems to have been hijacked for use by people supporting the above.

 

[Taurus]

Interesting to see how well the political machinery of both parties has managed to take people who agree on 90% of the issues facing the country and make them think they're somehow diametrically opposed to each other.

 

[Richard]

Welfare: Some amount of social net is required. The current system is bloated. Far too much money is spent on bureaucracy. That bureaucracy allows for fraud, which I think happens far less than many think it does. The "welfare mother" is largely a myth and no one really wants to spend their life living on welfare. However, not everyone is motivated and they sometimes need a push to get off their butts. The key is that people need to be properly educated so that they feel some hope of bettering their lives through work. In order for that to work people also need to feel safe in their homes. We need to keep people educated and safe so that they see an opportunity better than collecting welfare or dealing drugs.

Widge, you make so many good points, I hate to highlight this one, but I think I need to clarify something. The "welfare mother" is far from being a myth and fraud happens much more than anyone would imagine.

My last two jobs with the Mississippi DHS were as a Fraud Investigator and as an Employment Coordinator/Job Readiness Instructor. In the former, I saw that fraud not only regularly exists, but is somewhat expected, especially from food stamp recipients. The benefits are too great and the penalties too light to effectively deter people from committing fraud. Additionally, there is almost no one looking for fraud so it largely goes undetected (or at least did go undetected until DHS and Social Security computers starting talking to one another). Now I'm not talking about the kind of fraud where people are driving new cars and getting assistance. I'm mostly talking about not reporting all income or family members (who usually have income).

I don't know where you got the impression that the "welfare mother" is largely a myth, but a lifestyle of dependency is alive and well. These mothers are truly masters of networking, because they know where every opportunity exists for continuing to live without actually having to lead productive lives, other than raising their children. Before anyone thinks that statement is too harsh, consider this. When I would teach job preparedness classes to welfare mothers, I would often ask the 25-30 women in attendance "Why do you think it is that illegal aliens have come into our community and taken many of the jobs you could do." Invariable, honest individuals in my classes would respond, "Because they will work and we won't."

It's not that none of them ever worked or even that some don't see the intrinsic value in working. It is that they have little incentive to change their circumstances. That's why I believe that the TANF Work Program (which I led here) is the only "welfare" program that I have seen that has any acceptable rate of success. Women had a month to take a job readiness class, conduct a job search and become employed. If they stayed employed, they would get assistance with chald care and transportation costs. If they quit my class or did not stay employed, they lost their TANF check (what most people think of when they say "welfare check").

So what is the answer? How do we interrupt the cycle of poverty and dependence on the government for basic needs? I agree that education is important, but that can't help everyone. The bottom line is that I believe that all benefits for food stamps or TANF should be time limited and tied to a work program, unless there is an exemption. If people participate and are moving toward self-sufficiency, then they receive benefits. If they do not cooperate, commit fraud or make no effort to become self-sufficient, they lose their benefits.

IMO, there must be a safety net to prevent the truly needy, disabled, unemployable or elderly from going hungry. But there is something inherently wrong with a healthy 25-year-old mother getting $500 in food stamps and a $194 check for herself and three children while a 70-year-old widow on Social Security may be lucky to qualify for $20 worth of food stamps.

I truly want to help those in need. But I don't think it helps them to perpetuate a system that creates generations of people dependent on the government for almost every need.

 

[Richard]

Interesting to see how well the political machinery of both parties has managed to take people who agree on 90% of the issues facing the country and make them think they're somehow diametrically opposed to each other.

LOL Taurus -- I was thinking the same thing!