2nd Amendment views
Term limits advocacy
Abortion policy
GOP's present position re: National debt
Perceptions of tax burdens (some of your posts on this are straight out of the GOP talking points guide)
"Should have let the banks collapse" (a tea party argument)
"Tort Reform"
Conservative position on government action in the health care market
You even bought the Obama to Nero comparison.
Love of cheese
I am not good at multiquoting so I can just hit it here:
2nd Amendment - I believe that guns are the right of the individual, within reason. I think we have enough regulation of guns, and I think there needs to be solid punishment connected to laws governing gun ownership, and criminal use of guns. I would approve of measures that would exact a greater punishment if a gun is used in a crime, regardless of the crime. But I also would not support legislation that restricts or invalidates the 2nd amendment. Doing some research, this is actually very close to the Democratic stance on the 2nd amendment. See
https://www.blueoregon.com/2005/07/the_right_to_ke/ for an example. This is pretty close to how I feel on the subject, in broad terms.
Abortion policy - I am not pro-life, I am not pro-choice. I believe there is middle ground to be had. In this case I guess I do lean more to the right since I am against what I would term "recreational" abortions, but I recognize there are times when it would be not only appropriate but potentially necessary. Are you of the Kang camp (simpsons) "abortions for all"? Is it ok to limit, restrict, or ban something like this? Those are the big points of debate. Democrats say no, no matter what, republicans say yes, no matter what.
Term limits - I think career politicians grow out of touch with their consituency. I would like to see some kind of limits imposed at the top levels. The presidency is limited, would you like to repeal that? Would you have liked another 8 years of Reagan? This belief is not unheard of in Democratic circles either. There are of course risks associated with term limits, such as the potential that lobbyists will gain a stronger hand with inexperienced politicians. Also there is the argument that we should be able to vote in our leaders without restrictions, as that is the democratic way. I think both of these are valid concerns, among others, which makes it a hotly debated topic. But my personal opinion is that the potential benefits outwiegh the potential risks.
Financial crises (national debt, bail-outs, etc.) - so you think the bailouts of the banks, et al, was a fantastic idea and has reaped nothing but reward? If not maybe you *gasp* agree with the "tea party" as well. I think the bailouts were a gargantuan mistake. It did nothing but reinforce the fact that those institutions will never be held accountable and corruption and destruction at their hand will continue. I think it would have been better for us long-term to let those institutions fail. Short-term would have been hellish, but it is debatable if it would be worse than we are right now. If you are going to bail them out, then go all the way and institute a state-bank that supplants the others entirely. But to simply hand them the money, with no real regulation with any teeth beyond what was already in place (other than new rules such as making it harder to get a mortgage, which was needed a long time ago) was foolish in the extreme.
Taxes on the rich - Fact: the top 5% of wage-earners pay most of the income taxes collected in the country. This can not be disputed. From a raw numbers stand-point, the rich pay the most. Period. Many many low-income households pay, effectively, no income tax at all. But the group that carries the brunt of the tax burden, in terms of percentages, is the middle to upper middle class (which I have stated in the past, is the group I fit in). I have stated that I am for a fair flat tax plan, or something that spreads the burden out more equitably, but I get tired of the constant rhetoric that the only issue is that the rich don't pay enough. Please, to boil it down that simply and deny all the other problems inherent in our tax code is ludicrous. It is not, and will never be, as simple as "ok, you make lots of money, you pay half of it....you don't, so here we will give you money instead". I think Obama's most recent deficit plan is the closest approximation to veiwing the situation realistically we have seen in a long time from either side.
Health care – I haven’t liked any of the healthcare plans presented yet. So sure I (largely) agreed with the republican view that Obamacare was not what we needed. Nothing any better has been presented yet, imo, but it doesn’t mean we should simply take what is there because there is nothing else. If you loved it, good for you, we can disagree, and I applaud you for sticking to the party-line instead of thinking about the impact it could have on regular ordinary people. As someone who has relied a LOT on healthcare in the course of my life, I do not take it lightly. As an aside, notice how this fell off the radar as the political needle swings to economy and re-election. The economy is a much stronger election point than healthcare so none of them will touch it until it is brought up during debates.
Obama = Nero – I fully admit to moderately trolling on the bus thread. I truly thought it absurd to spend a million on a bus in essence just to campaign in. I would have thought it just as absurd if Bush had done it or anyone else. I used the Nero thing since it was relatively close to the other Nero thread (as in timing), so it was a form of alliteration, and I knew it would spur some kind of discussion better than simply “Obama buys a bus”. Care to point out the evidence that I “bought into” it, other than a single obviously sarcastic thread? By the way, if you read the Nero thread I (marginally) defend Obama more than I do jump on the Nero bandwagon. In fact I spend much more time in that thread discussing Nero and Caligula than Obama.
So there you have it, in broad terms and nutshells. What you get on internet forums are mostly rebuttals and defenses, and occasionally the fun of arguing things you may not fully believe, or of taking a stronger stance than you really feel, but that is a good way to look at your own beliefs anyway, arguing the other side.
Care to reveal your beliefs regarding these issues and why you dodge the “liberal” label while continually talking like one?
Oh and your attempt to insult cheese will not go unnoticed. This cheese aggression will not stand, man.
