What are you doing, trying to get me in trouble by getting me to espouse my liberalism here in plain view? Okay, fine, I'll do this once, and I'll just have to hope that people see that I was asked directly this question and would never push these opinions on this site.
Several times people have questioned my belief that I am, in fact, a liberal at all. I am a liberal, but I don't necessarily hold with everything the Democratic Party says. I believe in gun rights, yes. But I also believe that government should not involve itself (for the most part) in social issues (this includes definition of marriage, for example). I believe the government should be involved in regulating certain industries. I believe in progressive taxes. I believe in social security. I believe in some degree of welfare. Abortion is a hairier issue, because I think it has to do with when you believe life begins, and there isn't a broad consensus on that question (that I can see, at least). My point is, though, that given these beliefs, I think I AM a liberal.
I don't want to argue about these beliefs here, because I don't think this is the place. For one thing, I'd be ridiculously outnumbered. But more importantly, freerepublic is a conservative forum, so it should be used to discuss conservative ideas. I post here when I believe my posts are factual or ideologically neutral. Or if a thread is just a jokey thread sometimes. Otherwise, I mostly just read.
Okey doke. Thanks for sharing and Happy FReeping.
You are certainly polite and reasonable.
How can the government grant marriage licenses without defining what marriage is?
"What are you doing, trying to get me in trouble.."
LOL!
Don't worry about it.
There are a few Democrats here on FR.
They're rational, well thought out, and enjoy the ambience and atmosphere here.
I think that you are trying to get across that you are a "anti-spitball" liberal.
We don't run into very many polite liberals around here, we're glad you join our forum.
"... I'll just have to hope that people see that I was asked directly this question and would never push these opinions on this site."
***Good preface. If things ever get impolite, you can just steer folks back to the original post.
"....I am a liberal, but I don't necessarily hold with everything the Democratic Party says."
***And I'm a conservative, but I don't necessarily hold with everything the Republican party says. But aRINOld would call me a "right wing crazy" and Cliff Bostock says I'm "too extreme, even for the far right wing-nut muckrakers". I've found that the labels come out fast & furious when people run out of solid points & facts.
I believe in gun rights, yes.
***Wow, that really puts you into the middle of the spectrum.
But I also believe that government should not involve itself (for the most part) in social issues (this includes definition of marriage, for example).
***What I have noticed and come to accept is that both liberals and conservatives seem to want the govmint involved in forwarding their own passionate agendas. This is the direction politics is headed. When Reagan became president, we were supposed to have smaller government, but it continued to grow, just not the liberal side of it. It's almost like people don't want govmint intrusion but they want govmint help. You won't get one without the other.
I believe the government should be involved in regulating certain industries.
***In some respects, so do I, for the common good. It was good that the government started implementing standards for air pollution, for instance. I'm glad the government regulates air travel safety, so the planes aren't falling on our heads (most of the time), but the govmint has no business running the airlines.
I believe in progressive taxes. I believe in social security. I believe in some degree of welfare.
***Many of these positions are ones that the average social conservative won't have problems with, perhaps just to what degree they're implemented and how much they cost.
Abortion is a hairier issue, because I think it has to do with when you believe life begins, and there isn't a broad consensus on that question (that I can see, at least).
***This is where I often find disingenuousness on the part of liberals, who want to define the beginning of life for their own political benefit. This is a biological question, we should simply ask biologists. Their unwavering response is that life begins at the moment of conception, whether it's for a Condor, a mouse, or a human.
My point is, though, that given these beliefs, I think I AM a liberal.
***You're probably just middle-of-the-road, that's all. The liberal wing of the democratic party has left you behind, much as the conservative wing of the republican party left Goldwater behind. You have more in common with social conservatives than you think. You just don't agree with them on some factual issues.
I don't want to argue about these beliefs here, because I don't think this is the place.
***I sometimes wonder where there would be a safe place. This might prove a useful exercise. Allow me to suggest for starters,
http://web.rollins.edu/~jmorrison/docs/speak/Reasoning.html
For one thing, I'd be ridiculously outnumbered. But more importantly, freerepublic is a conservative forum, so it should be used to discuss conservative ideas.
***It's okay to discuss liberal ideas on this forum, but there might be more noise than signal in the debate.
I post here when I believe my posts are factual or ideologically neutral.
***As a social conservative, I would like to lay down a factual challenge to you. Please read the book, "Jesus, God Ghost or Guru?" by Quentin Hyde, or if you can't find it, a lesser read would be "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. Only deal with the facts you find, ignore any and all religious mumbo jumbo, there won't be much of that.
What is your attitude about Social Security reform?
It would seem that some Social Security has become "welfare" in that benefits flow to people with no regard to whether they had earnings' deductions.
The consensus is that there will be a shortfall in the future. Should we hold benefits "constant" and raise the rate at which earnings are taxed? Should we leave the tax rate alone and reduce future benefits? Or some middle road?
When it comes to minding other people' business, there never seems to be a logical stopping point. Perhaps because it was never logical to start.
My own opinion is that Social Security has always been unjustified as a means of forcing people to have savings that they otherwise would have to create for themselves. If it was ever truly a savings program, there could never have been a time when there were insufficient funds.