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

[Dave]

Alright Dave. Let's see how you weigh in on the issues.

Let's cut through the rhetoric.

FYI: I think both Reagan and Clinton are great Presidents:

Come on dude, let's see how you fall on each of the issues.

Granted that would be contingent on conservatism being for smaller government, lower taxes, states rights, and civil rights.

I'd like to see where Bush is for smaller government, more civil rights, fiscal responsibility, and states rights?

I guess I'm here, once again proving to all the so-called conservatives that I'm not a liberal. Far from it.

I might of considered it, but you just had to ask me for the 100th time how Bush is a conservative when you know I never said he was.:jauhnny:
I've done this multiple times and people like yourself will still accuse of being blind partisan whenever you disagree with something. Go back and look at the old SR archive if you want to know where I stand on the issues.

 

[Mr. Paul Caruso]

Yes, purjury arguably is an impeachable felony, but he was aquited in the court of law which was the Senate.

How did Clinton undermine Reagan? And I never said that Clinton resembled Goldwater. I claimed that GWB makes Clinton look like Goldwater.

Name for me besides the tax increase (1993 budget deal) how Clinton is was so different than Reagan? Reagan actually raised taxes a few times. Reagan raised taxes in 1983.

Clinton proclaiming that the "Era of Big Government is Over" was a pretty big statement and he backed it up.

I can give you many ways in which GWB increased the size of government beyond Clinton's imagination.

Clinton also managed to pass NAFTA with the Republican congress, much to the chagrin of committed left wingers and some right wingers. Free trade in North America. Yep, real leftist..

Saying that Reagan and Clinton are the same is the strawman of all strawmen. I won't respond to it, because you know it's ridiculous.

He wasn't acquited in the Senate. He wasn't kicked out of office, he was and still remains an impeached and disbarred president. Those FBI files had something to do with the
Senate giving him a pass.

 

[RebSaint]

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.

LMAO.

You never did participate in this thread Dave. Here's the only other post from this thread.

I made this thread back when we had this discussion before. We actually don't know where you stand on the issues.

 

[DadsDream]

BTTT.

Anybody care to change or update their stance? :hookline:

 

[DadsDream]

Re: Mr. Paul Caruso.

There's no need to respond to anything this poster said, because he's no longer a member.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Re: Mr. Paul Caruso.

There's no need to respond to anything this poster said, because he's no longer a member.

- Hmmm; Was it something he said??

 

[TPS]

I didn't do a recap to this thread to see if I even ever participated. But I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Saint Rebel for his acedemic contribution to brainwashing college students as part of acedemia's long range plans to indoctrinate all youth into a leftist, socialist mindset.



TPS

 

[Squeezebox]

Gimme some Marx.

 

[SaintsFanJeff]

What's wrong with being Liberal?

Where do I even begin

 

[Sloppy Dice]

Watching lefty's and righty's verbally spar is like watching a legless battle royal. Someone is going to tip over, but they'll get back up and still will have no legs.

 

[RebSaint]

So, so, so, weird, strange and kooky. And all three. I seriously considered bumping this thread today. It was on my mind.

Oho, and one other thing.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Where do I even begin

- From answers.com (may have been posted already on this thread.) Do me a favor and take a few seconds to read through the three definitions below:



lib·er·al (lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl)
adj.

a) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c) Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

.... Now someone please give me an explanation as to why ou have a problem with any of those. I'm not talking about your personal definition of it, I want to discuss true Liberalism because, IMO, it doesn't deserve to be used like a dirty word....

 

[HouDat]

I think I missed this thread first go 'round. Time to chime in with my "right-wing" views.

Issues:

Gun Control: See 2nd Amendment. (It's right there, immediately following the 1st Amendment, FYI.) Obviously our founding fathers thought it was pretty damn important.) Not in favor of allowing AUTOMATIC (not to be confused with SEMI-automatic) assault rifles in the hands of citizens. Weapons of warfare belong in the hands of the military; hunting/protection weapons are fine in the hands of the citizenry.

Gay marriage/abortion: States rights issues. The fed has no constitutional jurisdiction here. ("...reserved by the states.") I should note that states tell women what they cannot do with their bodies on a daily basis. All states, save for Nevada, tell a woman she cannot sell her body for sex. So the "my body, my choice" argument falls flat with me. That said, I reiterate: it's a states' rights issue, not a federal issue. Want an abortion? Go to a state which allows it. But don't tell me, feds, how to run my state. Gay marriage? Doesn't bother me. Again, though, states' rights. Feds cannot mandate how states govern these types of issues.

Church and State: Separate. Hands off. Period.

Taxes: Flat tax proponent. Everyone who earns a dollar should pay the same personal income tax on that dollar. Those who earn below poverty level pay nothing; those who earn above poverty level are taxed for dollars earned over and above poverty level. There is no cap on taxes, meaning the rich continue to pay taxes on each dollar earned, no matter if they earn a million a year or half a billion a year. Exemptions, if any, would be minimal.

Foreign Policy: Iraq needed change, and we changed it from the top. Unfortunately there was no "ok, now what?" contingency plan in place, and the entire episode has turned to crap. Accelerate the turn-over process and get our soldiers out. Continue to provide support in the form of intelligence, strategy, training of Iraqis, etc., but end the needless loss of American life and the wanton wasteful spending.

Education: This is a states' rights issue. Cut out the confiscatory taxation of states, return their money to them, and let them manage their own educational systems. Form national committees (comprised of people nominated by the states themselves) which are not subject to any federal government intervention, for the purpose of ensuring that a minimum standard of education exists across the nation. But eradicate government tinkering, including the use of states' monies to <s>blackmail</s> force states to comply with federal mandates; also eliminate the federal implementations of social engineering within the school system.

Trade: I'm for free trade, as long as it does not favor foreign countries over our own domestic producers of goods and services. Prevent foreign countries from flooding our markets with goods and services produced by the use of cheap labor, as it unfairly advantages foreign competitors.

Welfare: I think some social welfare is good and necessary; we need a social safety net, but not a hammock. (couldn't state it any better than this) Provide incentives for able-bodied recipients to make the transition from the welfare rolls to the workforce (or, as a last resort, institute disincentives for not doing so).

Campaign Finance--Too many special interest groups, too much corporate money. McCain/Feingold is a good step.

Death Penalty--I, too, think death is far too merciful a fate for most. I think prison needs to be made almost inhumane. (I said almost, you ACLU types.) Get rid of the comforts of life and make it a truly undesirable place to be. Re-institute hard labor standards. (IOW, let Joe Arpaio run the federal prison system) That said, I am in favor of the death penalty in certain instances, including: a) if more than one credible witness actually sees the convict commit the crime; b) if the convict chooses death over life in prison; c) in the cases of unusually horrific crimes.

Social Security--I am against trusting the federal government with any more of my tax money than absolutely necessary. They're piss-poor money managers, as it is. Privatization of SS is a good first step.

Energy--I am in favor of the passage of a bill which a) opens the ANWR to exploration; b) provides for the construction of a handful of new domestic refineries; and c) mandates that energy companies seek out alternative energy sources. (All or nothing, with this bill) Included in the mandate would be specific measurables which hold said companies accountable for progressing towards this end within a given time frame. I'm also in favor of nuclear power. It's much cleaner than the burning of fossil fuels for the generation of power. And it's much cheaper.

Environment--I believe in common sense government protection of this nation's natural resources. I believe lobbyists should have no influence on this issue whatsoever. I also believe in a reasonable approach to the global temperature change discussion. Last, I believe corporations should be good citizens in this regard.

Immigration--No more laws limiting immigration. Enforce the ones on the books. Building a fence won't help and would be a big waste of money. (again, well-stated) The caveat here would be that anyone currently in this country illegally would be given two choices: a) sign up as a citizen and/or taxpayer, if you're working; if not working, find a job; or b) adios.

Civil Liberties--US Citizens should continue to enjoy the protections provided by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Non-citizens who are here, however, should be entitled to enjoy no such liberties. By and large, the federal government should be limited. States should take back the power which is rightfully theirs, and should enforce their own civil laws. There are 50 states in the union. Don't like one state's laws? Load up the U-Haul and find another one. Government should stay out of people's bedrooms, out of churches, out of private communications, etc.

As far as many categories not covered in Reb's template? I believe in the simple beauty of the reserved powers clause. (See below) Not mentioned in the Constitution? States' call. End of story.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.

In other words, the states run this country, the states run the federal government, and not the other way around. This entire issue has become bastageized over time. But it hasn't changed one bit in the way it reads to this day.

 

[HouDat]

So, so, so, weird, strange and kooky. And all three. I seriously considered bumping this thread today. It was on my mind.

Oho, and one other thing.

They forgot one:

 

[JimEverett]

I do not think that the Bill of Rights - or any Amendments - have one, or even a few, meanings/purposes, etc. That is what I gather an "originalist" believes. But that makes no sense - as people can agree on the wording of a phrase but not agree as to its purpose or its intent. The "founding fathers" certainly disagreed over meanings and intents - but why limit yourself to them if you are an "originalist" since it is "we the people" who established the Constitution.

Anyways - if you believe the wording of the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the people/states from a tyrannical government then doesn;t it stand to reason that the people/states should have access to the weapons the central government has? I mean while having some amount (if history is any indicator it will be very very far from most) of resistance with handguns, rifles, and shotguns will cause problems for any government trying to exert its will - it certainly wouldn;t be a match for anything like what the U.S. military has become today.