What does being a "Liberal" mean? (US)

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Griff

fixed

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. = PNAC so we may want to center the discussion on somebody credible...

That said, I'm not too big on misogynistic insular communities whether they vote Republican or not.

I get what you're saying, but the Republican party and by extension, conservatives in the US (as opposed to libertarians) is defined to a large extent by the religious social conservatives who IMO, include a vocal anti-Muslim voice, along with intolerance of gay rights, women's reproductive rights, etc.

[classicman]

Dana? really? You are gonna drag her into this? She's further left than you.

Didn't ask for you to apologize - just to admit the truth. Why is that so hard.

[lookout123]

The ideas/ideals are hard to argue. The conflict comes when you try to figure out how to achieve that particular goal, especially when you consider the unintended consequences.

[Griff]

If someone really is a "consensus" liberal or conservative they are ending up in the same place out of necessity. To claim that one's own position is more centrist is natural and wrong-headed. It means we're pretending the other side is all extremists therefor we don't have to reach consensus with them. It also means we probably don't spend much time listening to the other parties moderates about what their values are.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Griff

If someone really is a "consensus" liberal or conservative they are ending up in the same place out of necessity. To claim that one's own position is more centrist is natural and wrong-headed. It means we're pretending the other side is all extremists therefor we don't have to reach consensus with them. It also means we probably don't spend much time listening to the other parties moderates about what their values are.

I disagree

Consensus means commonly held. I base it on public opinion, widely accepted policies and practices, etc.

There is a commonly held position, i.e. consensus, that a woman should have the right to chose, with limited exceptions. An extreme position is to deny those rights under any circumstances. Or, the current Republican candidates' focus on Sharia law as a threat to the US is not based on any evidence that such a threat exists.

A system of progressive taxation is the consensus system because it has been widely accepted as the "fairest" system since the income tax was first introduced 75+ years ago and is widely accepted in every industrial nation in the world. A flat tax system is extreme.

But, I dont characterize the two extremes in the same manner. The first is extremely intolerant of the rights of others. The second is just an extreme departure from current policies and practices.

[lookout123]

Well, I'm a conservative so my values are hate and intolerance. or so I've been told.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Well, I'm a conservative so my values are hate and intolerance. or so I've been told.

If you dont want your church to conduct gay marriages, that is between you and your church and not intolerant. If you want the government to prohibit the right of a gay couple to marry or have the same rights as married couples, that is imposing your religious values on the broader society; values that dont have consensus support, and IMO, intolerant.

The same does not apply to supporting a flat tax. Different issues and different meaning of extreme.

added:

I think the intolerance shows up in the social issues where, more often than not, they are defined by religious doctrine. But then again, I think most organized religions are intolerant to some degree.

Fiscal issues (tax policy, regulatory policy, etc) are defined more by political ideology rather than religious doctrine.

[Griff]

We happen to agree on these issues as framed, but a generation of voters has to die off before complete gay rights are the consensus. You appear to be basing your belief of what constitutes consensus on agreement with yourself and like-minded people. I forget whose sock puppet I'm addressing, (if you are a one label poster I apologize) but I'm going to guess that you are middle-aged urbanite, since your "consensus" ideas reflect that background. Where I live, the consensus positions are gun rights, low tax rates, and individual responsibility. If I only talked to locals I'd never suspect that 1/2 the country doesn't buy it.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Griff

We happen to agree on these issues as framed, but a generation of voters has to die off before complete gay rights are the consensus. You appear to be basing your belief of what constitutes consensus on agreement with yourself and like-minded people. I forget whose sock puppet I'm addressing, (if you are a one label poster I apologize) but I'm going to guess that you are middle-aged urbanite, since your "consensus" ideas reflect that background. Where I live, the consensus positions are gun rights, low tax rates, and individual responsibility. If I only talked to locals I'd never suspect that 1/2 the country doesn't buy it.

No, I am not basing consensus on myself and like-minded people. I thought I was clear that I am basing it on broad national public opinion (not any one selected community) and/or widely held and long-term policies and practices.

I dont see a need to address the sock pocket comment.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I dont see a need to address the sock pocket comment.

I must be crankier today than I thought.

What percentage would you put on consensus? I'd say it has to be broad enough to encompass about 68% of the population so you can drop the nutters off each end of the bell curve.

[Fair&Balanced]

I think tax simplification is a longer term issue than the immediate need to address the debt.

In terms of temporary higher rates, keep in mind that the 01 and 03 tax cuts were intended to be temporary and to have expired last year. They did little to stimulate the economy and in fact, the cuts to the top bracket were probably the single most significant factor, in terms of lost revenue, in contributing to the debt over the last 5-8 years. A return to the Clinton marginal rate of 39% (as opposed to the current 36%) still keeps the effective rate below your 33% ceiling and the wealthiest taxpayers would still be paying at or near their lowest taxes in 50 years.

In terms of "paying a fair share," that depends on how we define fair. IMO, tax rate equalization is not fair and places a far greater tax burden on those with far less disposal income.

I find the term "zero liability voter" thats been tossed around here (not by you) to be offensive. Anyone who works hard, pays other taxes (payroll, sales, etc) is contributing to the best of their financial ability.

[Griff]

I got thinking about this thread when I found out the only serious opposition to the Patriot Act continuance was Rand Paul. Right or wrong there should have been some serious public discourse on this one. Did Obama put out a justification statement? I'm assuming the GOP candidate will support this, but for now it looks like a strike against the "liberal".

[Fair&Balanced]

Rand Paul wasnt the only one to vote against this Patriot Act extension.

The vote was 72-23 in the Senate, with Rand being the only Republican to vote NO. The others were all liberal democrats.

And, IMO, having voted for it in the Senate and now signing the latest extension. this is another reason that I would suggest the Obama is not as liberal as some suggest. There was no justification statement, just a one sentence press statement.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Obama is not as liberal as some suggest.

Very much yes. He has let down the liberal wing of the party over and over. He has made definitely positive liberal/progressive strides, but he has also taken downright conservative stances on many issues, especially on national security and civil liberties.

[Undertoad]

IOW he has represented the majority of the people of the nation, and well done he will be reëlected.