Ways I'm a bad "Liberal" (Political, obviously)

[JamesSD]

I'm a Liberal; I believe in a progressive tax code, I believe Global Warming is largely caused by man and there is a scientific consensus. I believe in separation of Church and State. I'm supportive of Civil right causes including but not limited to women, minorities and homosexuals.

That said, there are certainly times I differ from the "Liberal" Platform, although many times my attitudes are "Moderate" rather than "Conservative". I imagine there are Conservatives on the other side of the aisle who feel the same way about planks of their party.

(Note that many of these are ways my opinions differ only from the most extreme of Leftists)

-I'm generally supportive of the use of Nuclear Energy as a power source, especially weighing its risks and rewards against Coal or Oil (Although I do believe in regulation)

-I favor the use of Genetically Modified crops, especially in impoverished and barren areas of the world.

-I think there are cases the Death Penalty is justified, and while it should be used with extreme caution, it shouldn't be banned outright.

-I really only favor moderate gun control. While I don't personally care for guns, I respect the right of gun ownership for hunting or personal protection reasons. This does, however, mean that I don't support private ownership of AK-47s or Light Anti-Tank Weapons.

-I'm open minded about, (but largely distrustful of), vouchers for school choice. Still, I'm very concerned about the end result being using public funds to subsidize private religious education.

-When management and labor clash, I often feel that both are at least partially in the wrong.

I'm sure there's more, but that's enough for now. Thoughts? Are there times the more extreme end of your political affiliation make you cringe?

 

[rgraham666]

Oh yeah. There are nuts everywhere.

I don't take anything on faith. I study it.

I disagree with you about genetically engineered foods though. Humans are no where near wise enough to play God.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Whad'dya mean no LAWs or AKs? Bloody gun grabbers . . .

On the labor thing, when unions and management clash, what I usually see are particular unions that are living in the past, under a confrontational industrial era model that sees the interests of workers and owners as being opposed, and the process as a zero-sum game. In the modern workplace workers identify their interests with those of the firm - "when it does good, we do good, and we can't good unless it does." It's a much more cooperative "team" model, imported from Japan. Workers in a non-union Toyota plant in Tennessee made more than those in Detroit UAW plants last year because of bonuses. The Big Three with their Neanderthal UAW and its unions work rules, entitlement mentality and confrontational attitude, are going broke. The Japanese "transplants" in the South are going gangbusters, and creating wealth for investors and workers, hand-over-fist.

"Believe" is the correct word to use with global warming - it's a faith-based position. The word "consensus" describes a political process, not a scientific one. Both something to think about related to that issue.

 

[elsol]

You're not weird... I'm an extremist moderate.

Absolutely no gun controls for citizens unless the government is disarmed.
Absolutely no limits on free speech.

Xenophobic isolationist on foreign policy... in truth, I make Amicus look scary.

My opinion is we should have kicked down saddam and walked out... if the Iraqis didn't put up something we liked, we kick it down again... rinse and repeat. (Eventually, they would get the message or there would be no more people to kick down.)

Britain & Iran... 24 hours and I destroyed everything in Iran that could support nuclear refinement and given up the 15 soldiers as collateral loss.

So not only am I bad liberal but I'm a bad conservative too... I even go so far as to be a bad moderate.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I'm a slightly right of center moderate that doesn't claim a political affiliation. So I don't stand in contrast to my "party" on issues.

I have certain things that I have firm beliefs about. Some are open to negotiation when it comes to my vote, and some aren't. In the end, I vote for the person that most closely mirrors my beliefs regardless of their party.

 

[elsol]

Oh yeah... and I firmly believe that no party should stay in power for more than 8 years ever.

 

[FatDino]

-I'm generally supportive of the use of Nuclear Energy as a power source, especially weighing its risks and rewards against Coal or Oil (Although I do believe in regulation)

-I favor the use of Genetically Modified crops, especially in impoverished and barren areas of the world.

-I really only favor moderate gun control. While I don't personally care for guns, I respect the right of gun ownership for hunting or personal protection reasons. This does, however, mean that I don't support private ownership of AK-47s or Light Anti-Tank Weapons.

Are there times the more extreme end of your political affiliation make you cringe?

First, yes, there are times when my political view makes me cringe, as it does to many others. But I have to ask. Is this new? I mean, it happens everyday, every minute. In the AH, people "discuss" about politics a lot. And some threads *almost* have me believe there would be some fights if we were talking face-to-face. But thank God, we're not.

I agree with you on the use of nuclear power and genetically modifed crops. Actually, the latter still doesn't have my full support. The former, however, is too useful to be left out. Clean, powerful, and efficent. And whether or not you and I agree on using it, nuclear power has been used fairly commonly over the last five years. Yes, the government acts fast, huh?

I support genetic tech on crops because that's what we've been using for ages. Since the very first day humans learned to plant and harvest vegies, grains and fruits, we have been sorting out what we want and don't want on the plants. The mixing of species to make bigger, sweeter, juicier, or seedless fruits is actually an example of genetic engineering. People just weren't aware of DNA's back then. But then this, haven't we changed nature enough? If we keep disturbing the natural reproductive selections, then soon, we would end up having just one kind of tomatoes, one kind of chicken, one kind of horses... How boring would the world be?

Yes, helping third world countries fight off poverty and starvation is important and needed. But do you really think those high quality crops developed in Western countries can reach those places? They won't even have the money to import the seeds. I was in Vietnam until I turned fourteen. No, the country isn't nearly as poor as Somalia or Bangladesh, but there are a lot of places where you can't even get clean water, left alone "Genetically Motified" products. If the Western governments agree to give them away for free or even at an affordable price (to the poor countries), then great, maybe that'd work. But I doubt they will ever be that nice. They have enough issues in their own nations to even do that kind of charity.

And about gun control. Yes, moderate control is great. But who will decide what is "moderate"? This is about either you allow people to own guns or you don't. But I do agree with you that average citizens cannot buy machine guns, or automatic firearms of any kind. Maybe we should ban all the firearm companies, except for Colt. Those guys make expensive guns. Not many people would buy one. Sounds like a good plan, doesn't it?

 

[R. Richard]

Absolutely no limits on free speech.

Elsol:
You hit one of my hot buttons. No one has the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater. No one has the right to slander [or libel] someone. No one has the right to deliberately promulgate false information.

Laurel and Manu won't let us write stories about 14-year-olds having sex and it is a damn good thing or Literotica writers might get to argue with the FBI, not Laurel or Manu. Similarly, Ffif's adventure with a great dane aint gonna' make it through Literotica review.

I believe in free speech. But I also believe in the responsible use of speech. If I overuse free speech and it results in the muzzling of others, I have sinned.

JMNTHO.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't let any party line or label decide my position on any issue. I decide each one by what I think is true and right. If I'm liberal on one thing and conservative on another and libertarian on a third or Zoroastrian on a fourth or whatever, that's my prerogative. It doesn't bother me at all.

It seems absurd to me that I should adapt my beliefs to fit someone else's expectations of what I should or shouldn't believe.

 

[R. Richard]

I support genetic tech on crops because that's what we've been using for ages. Since the very first day humans learned to plant and harvest vegies, grains and fruits, we have been sorting out what we want and don't want on the plants. The mixing of species to make bigger, sweeter, juicier, or seedless fruits is actually an example of genetic engineering. People just weren't aware of DNA's back then. But then this, haven't we changed nature enough? If we keep disturbing the natural reproductive selections, then soon, we would end up having just one kind of tomatoes, one kind of chicken, one kind of horses... How boring would the world be?

It is not just a matter of boring. When I lived in San Diego, I met a guy who made a living raising plants [mainly food plants] where no one wanted the fiood and, in any case, the yields were so low that the harvest would not have been economic. What he would do was raise a crap and then retain the 'average seeds.' He would then swap seeds with other guys, in other locations, and they continued to raise the same useless crops. Why? Well, there was a kind of squash that they found some years back in a mountain valley in Mexico. It aint very big and it aint very tasty, but it is tough as hell and will survive when the 'squash rot' hits. By breeding back the tough little guy, squash plants will survive world wide.

Similarly, some ranchers in Texas kept small herds of longhorns. They were too thin and too tough to be of any use. However, the longhorn is resistant to almost every bovine diease and they can live in the heat and humidity of a South Texas summer. Their genes are still valuable.

 

[FatDino]

It is not just a matter of boring. When I lived in San Diego, I met a guy who made a living raising plants [mainly food plants] where no one wanted the fiood and, in any case, the yields were so low that the harvest would not have been economic. What he would do was raise a crap and then retain the 'average seeds.' He would then swap seeds with other guys, in other locations, and they continued to raise the same useless crops. Why? Well, there was a kind of squash that they found some years back in a mountain valley in Mexico. It aint very big and it aint very tasty, but it is tough as hell and will survive when the 'squash rot' hits. By breeding back the tough little guy, squash plants will survive world wide.

Similarly, some ranchers in Texas kept small herds of longhorns. They were too thin and too tough to be of any use. However, the longhorn is resistant to almost every bovine diease and they can live in the heat and humidity of a South Texas summer. Their genes are still valuable.

That's why genetic modification must be done with caution. If we only think about the immediate profit, then soon every cow will be of the same species which produces large quantity of meat and milk.

Sorry to be a little off topic at this, but your mention of longhorns just reminded me of Longhorn Steakhouse Ooh...and Long John Silvers, too.

I'm so hungry.

 

[S-Des]

So not only am I bad liberal but I'm a bad conservative too... I even go so far as to be a bad moderate.

You truly are my hero. I would put myself in this same boat. I lean from center to right (occasionally far right) on some issues, center to left (sometimes very far left) on others. It doesn't seem to have rhyme or reason, just things I've seen in my life that caused me to feel one way or another about an issue. It's so unfair, being a moderate means I never get to be embarrassed by the extreme wing of my party. We're just in the middle (does that make us boring?).

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=JamesSD]I'm a Liberal; I believe in a progressive tax code, I believe Global Warming is largely caused by man and there is a scientific consensus. I believe in separation of Church and State. I'm supportive of Civil right causes including but not limited to women, minorities and homosexuals.

That said, there are certainly times I differ from the "Liberal" Platform, although many times my attitudes are "Moderate" rather than "Conservative". I imagine there are Conservatives on the other side of the aisle who feel the same way about planks of their party.

(Note that many of these are ways my opinions differ only from the most extreme of Leftists)

-I'm generally supportive of the use of Nuclear Energy as a power source, especially weighing its risks and rewards against Coal or Oil (Although I do believe in regulation)

-I favor the use of Genetically Modified crops, especially in impoverished and barren areas of the world.

-I think there are cases the Death Penalty is justified, and while it should be used with extreme caution, it shouldn't be banned outright.

-I really only favor moderate gun control. While I don't personally care for guns, I respect the right of gun ownership for hunting or personal protection reasons. This does, however, mean that I don't support private ownership of AK-47s or Light Anti-Tank Weapons.

-I'm open minded about, (but largely distrustful of), vouchers for school choice. Still, I'm very concerned about the end result being using public funds to subsidize private religious education.

-When management and labor clash, I often feel that both are at least partially in the wrong.

I'm sure there's more, but that's enough for now. Thoughts? Are there times the more extreme end of your political affiliation make you cringe?[/QUOTE]

~~~

"Taxes, Global Warming, Church and State, Minorities, women, homosexuals, nuclear energy, coal, oil/gas, genetically modified plants, death penalty, gun ownership, public education, unions...."

JamesSD sounds like the typical 60's liberal who was and is, influenced by the media, or his parents, or his church, or by high school and college and never for a scant moment, ever exercised his brain.

Just for one fucking instant, JamesSD, et al, before your brainwashed mind kicks in, tell me by what right, you forbid me to own an AK47, or have the right to tax my property for public education, or on a wider scale, that you have a right to regulate, control, manage or manipulate my life in any way?

I am Amicus, I am who I am, you are who you are, by what right, or justification, do you impose your will upon me?

While I am sure it will not amuse you or few others, let me suggest that by using your mind you could clarify all your questions about how the world and society should progress and function if you just accepted on fundamental axiom:

I have a right to live my own life as I choose, not as you choose.

Individual human rights, liberties and the pursuit of 'my' happiness. The blueprint is there. You need to learn how to read it.


amicus...

 

[elsol]

I am Amicus, I am who I am, you are who you are, by what right, or justification, do you impose your will upon me?
amicus...

By the same law, that they've always imposed their will... the law of numbers, more of them than there are of you.

The mob doesn't need justification.

 

[Frank Noir]

I disagree with you about genetically engineered foods though. Humans are no where near wise enough to play God.

I once read an interview with a botanist who argued that genetic engineering was not remotely as unsafe as the current way we mutate plants - which is randomly messing up their genes through chemicals or radiation.

Made me stop and think.

 

[JamesSD]

JamesSD sounds like the typical 60's liberal who was and is, influenced by the media, or his parents, or his church, or by high school and college and never for a scant moment, ever exercised his brain.

Ignoring your completely uncalled for and uncivil tone, I'll say that my parents were between moderate conservative (father) and true independant (mother). My church was moderately conservative as far as churches go (ELCA Lutheran, which is only a little more permissive than modern Catholocism). As a Biochemist, I excercise my brain an awful lot on every given day. You completely failed read and to understand my point that my views on issues are not simply parroting those of my political affiliation.

My political beliefs have been shaped by years of thought and soul searching, and real life experience. Before meeting and becoming friends with homosexuals, I was actually a little homophobic (more in a libertarian bent of "I don't care what they do in their bedroom, but I don't want to see it). My views are contstantly changing and evolving. My disdain for George W. Bush and the NeoCons is what moved me from being a moderate liberal to a straight ticket Democrat.

We are all part of society, and as such, agree in contract to live by the rules society establishes. Some do attempt to live outside the rules, the "Off the Grid" or "Crazy Mountain Man" types. I am moderately amused by those.

Your statement:

"I have a right to live my own life as I choose, not as you choose."

Is true, but only with limitations. An exaggeration: A person does not have the right to live their life running around slicing people's throats and stealing their belongings. I, and many, many others "choose" not to allow such behavior. In societies, one man's liberty often infringes on another's. This is why we have laws prohibiting behaviors. There will always be differences of opinion what should, and should not, be allowed. This is why we have a political process.

As a society, we've also found it can be awfully convienient and mutually beneficial to pool resources for shared benefit. National Defense is an example that even you would grant. Humans, by their nature, are inclined to be happy to enjoy benefits without paying for them. This is why we have mandatory taxes. Again, we may disagree on what should and should not be paid for collectively, but it's clear that Governments have a right and duty to provide services, and levy taxes to fund said services.

Your own political views don't support your ideal anyways. For example, you really ought to support Gay Marriage if you feel that "He has a right to live his life and he chooses, not as you choose." Yet, I'm pretty sure you are against Gays marrying. I'd love to hear your explaination for the disconnect, but I doubt it would make sense.

Anyways, the point of this thread was supposed to be about independant thought, and ways people DON'T toe the party line, but it sounds like you just echo whatever babble comes out of Faux News.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, let me see....

....I'm moderate on abortion, favoring neither the abortion-on-demand crowd nor the militant anti-abortionists, though I personally have strong qualms about abortion, as you no doubt know by now. I'm still reserving judgment on the 2nd trimester issue, btw.

I'm hostile to gun control, because I view the right to revolution as a fundamental and intrinsic one of mankind, one not to be tampered with, lest arrogant, power-hungry leaders (like this President and his immediate predecessor) get any crazy ideas.

I'm no friend of the IRS, and definitely want to curtail their excessive powers. Uh, oh, I hope that they don't know my real name.

I favor legalization of most drugs and ending the second Prohibition that the War on Drugs has become.

I want to privatize Amtrak, Conrail, FDIC, and TVA, but I also favor limited health-care at the state and/or local levels.

I'm generally in favor of free trade, but don't favor it blindly. The WTO is anti-American and to pretend that there is no bias is to bury one's head in the sand. Japan is still waging a one-sided trade war with us, so they are still winning it, as far as I am concerned.

I support capital punishment, but also naturally want to prioritize death-row cases in terms of appeals courts.

I understand the desire for immigration reform, but I don't want to close the borders. Tighter enforcement is best.

I agree with Morry Taylor's plan to cut the tax code down to two levels: one of two percent for the middle class and one of 17% for the upper class. That's about as far as I'm willing to accept the notion of a progressive income tax. The present form is too Marxian for my taste.

I think that massive discretionary cuts are needed, however, before we can consider such a plan, since I believe in fiscal restraint and oppose supply-side economics. I'm no Keynesian.

I'm a bit more liberal on most civil liberties, church-state separation, and environmental issues. I support same-sex marriage and the right to privacy for all consenting adults. I am leery of excuses for abridging free speech, habeas corpus, etc.

I wonder at how any Administration or Congress can worry more about preserving the traditional form of the nuclear family more than preserving our natural environment, rebuilding our overextended armed forces, and balancing the federal budget.

I think that the present bankruptcy laws are a bit draconian and unnecessarily punitive toward the poor.

I strongly oppose corporate welfare, but I also worry about the dangers to the First Amendment in most campaign reform laws.

I'm not ready to give up on the Cuban embargo anytime soon. Castro needs to go first. ASAP. Besides, they're still holding US assets.

I support the war in Afghanistan, but oppose the war in Iraq. The former is directly tied to al Quaeda, the latter is not.

I consider vouchers just an excuse to back private and parochial schools at the expense of already struggling public schools.

The military is still not recovered from the Clinton cutbacks and needs repair before even considering another war anytime soon or a surge. Sorry, Senator McCain, but we differ on that one.

I have no problem with NAFTA per se, but don't want to expand it.

I support Indian Gaming and Puerto Rican statehood. I oppose DC statehood.

I guess that I'm more of a paleo-conservative than anything else. And there is no room for paleo-conservatives in the predominantly neo-con GOP these days.

Oh, and the Federal Reserve System needs to be replaced with something more Constitutional.

I oppose ethanol subsidies. They're completely wasteful.

I have reservations about the UN, very much still. Time will tell.

I want to reform Social Security and Medicare, but realistically I know that they are here to stay. If they are truly necessary, as perhaps they are, then the Constitution should be amended to give them full legality. They can still be handled much better, in any case.

Anything else that people need to add to the Federal powers needs to be done by Amendment. It's the only legal way to do it.

Term-limits sound good on paper, but I doubt that they would work in practice. The same with doing away with the Electoral College, which would just make the cities stronger at the expense of rural states.

I don't trust the Bush choices for the judiciary. Not in the least. They are too keen on the power of government, especially the Feds these days.

 

[rgraham666]

Uh, Sev? As I understand it, military budgets rose under Clinton.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Uh, Sev? As I understand it, military budgets rose under Clinton.

The regular Army went down from 13 divisions to 10 under Clinton, and he never replenished all of the cruise missiles that he nearly exhausted in Yugoslavia.