Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What else would they call it? No one would consider getting their way to be the opposite of progress. If the right banned abortions, they'd call it progress or a synonym of it.
And your bias makes the question impossibly to address. I mean, c'mon, you're first one is 'raise taxes.' That's not a liberal goal; it's the measure necessary to achieve the goal. One of those goals is balancing a budget. They think they solution is to raise taxes to afford all the things they want to spend on; and they means the government. The rights spends to, and for an example of that, look at the Bush administration. Until Obama came along, his presidency was defined by his irresponsible spending.
You might have an argument if the left didn't accompany every proposed tax increase with spending increases and vice versa.
Sure, both sides spend too much but the Left never met a spending increase it didn't like unless it's defense spending.
Throw in taxes that get passed by calling them a ""fee" or a "penalty" and the Left are the kings of raising taxes, hands down.
Sure, both sides spend too much but the Left never met a spending increase it didn't like unless it's defense spending.
The left likes that too:
"June 27/14: Politics. The Washington Free Beacon reports that JLENS will be one of the items under discussion during House / Senate conferencing. The House’s 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) slashed JLENS funding from $54 million to $29 million, while the Senate bill kept funding intact. If the Senators can’t bargain JLENS funding back, the House amount would stand."
But why does the right believe the following are good things:
- not allowing people to marry who they want?
- using the tax code to reward their favorites?
- filling up our prisons with people convicted of marijuana possession?
- supporting crony capitalism just as much as liberals do?
Because both sides are great at letting their opinions guide their principles, instead of the other way around.
Oh and BTW not all conservatives agree with the examples you mention.
You might have an argument if the left didn't accompany every proposed tax increase with spending increases and vice versa.
Sure, both sides spend too much but the Left never met a spending increase it didn't like unless it's defense spending.
Throw in taxes that get passed by calling them a ""fee" or a "penalty" and the Left are the kings of raising taxes, hands down.
No argument there. Democrats spend like crazy, they just think taxing should be used to pay for it. Washington is full of lawyers, so basically people who are under qualified for the job they actually have. Both sides spend irresponsibly then blame the other side, though objectively, the Democrats are the worst offender. I just object to the idea that they're the only problem. If Democrats weren't doing it, the Republicans still would.
So, by implication, I guess you believe conservatives always see the implementation of their views as regress, eh?
If "regress" was defined as returning to the original spirit and interpretation of the Constitution before it was twisted, convoluted and contrived into a "living document" by such horrible legislation as the commerce clause......
Then I for one would wear the term "Regressive" like a badge of honor.
If "regress" was defined as returning to the original spirit and interpretation of the Constitution before it was twisted, convoluted and contrived into a "living document" by such horrible legislation as the commerce clause......
Then I for one would wear the term "Regressive" like a badge of honor.
I've never understood why someone wouldn't want a living a document in terms of government and nation building.
You always hear that buzzword being thrown around by Dems and liberals: progress. I think it's presumptuous to assume everything they do is progress, considering the failure rate of their policies.
Increased taxes: Progress
Abortion: Progress
Unbalanced budgets: Progress
Destroying the coal industry and its jobs: Progress
Wasting money on "green energy" investments with negative returns: Progress.
Yes, always a success even if it falls flat on it's face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 If "regress" was defined as returning to the original spirit and interpretation of the Constitution before it was twisted, convoluted and contrived into a "living document" by such horrible legislation as the commerce clause......
Then I for one would wear the term "Regressive" like a badge of honor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
I've never understood why someone wouldn't want a living a document in terms of government and nation building.
If you want to change it press for an Amendment.
Meanings don't change as in how Dems like to frame "living document".
DOn't be blown about as if by the wind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 If "regress" was defined as returning to the original spirit and interpretation of the Constitution before it was twisted, convoluted and contrived into a "living document" by such horrible legislation as the commerce clause......
Then I for one would wear the term "Regressive" like a badge of honor.
If you want to change it press for an Amendment.
Meanings don't change as in how Dems like to frame "living document".
DOn't be blown about as if by the wind.
Except, change has been enacted many times simply by the Supreme Courts ruling. The commerce clause was brought up earlier and it's interpretation has changed with supreme courts in different eras.
What else would they call it? No one would consider getting their way to be the opposite of progress.
That's a false dichotomy. Unlike the left, the right does not assume that they are good and the left is evil, so the opposite of right wing ideas does not have to be the opposite of progress. It's just a disagreement over how to reach the common good. Assuming your political opponents are heinous evil racist warmongers is the liberal schtick, not conservative.
Quote:
If the right banned abortions, they'd call it progress or a synonym of it.
We'd call it fighting crime. Again, you're using a leftist worldview that not everyone shares. We don't view terminating human lives as a social issue, we view it as a criminal one. Turning abortion into an issue of civil liberties is again a liberal schtick, used to avoid the unpleasant reality of killing unborn children. It's the same way they talk about "reproductive rights" and "women's issues" and such, using euphemisms to hide the ugly reality.
Quote:
And your bias makes the question impossibly to address. I mean, c'mon, you're first one is 'raise taxes.'
That doesn't indicate a bias. It indicates a priority. He sees high taxes as an important issue. People are allowed to prioritize issues without it being a case of being biased.
Quote:
That's not a liberal goal; it's the measure necessary to achieve the goal.
Claiming that raising taxes is not a liberal goal is just flat out dumb. When Obama was asked about the laffner curve he stated that generating revenue was not the goal of raising tax rates, fairness was the goal. This directly denies your assertion.
Quote:
One of those goals is balancing a budget.
It is absolutely laughable to claim that balancing the budget is a liberal goal considering the Democrats have opposed each and every effort to balance the budget. The Democrats have never used additional revenue to pay down the deficit, they have used it to fund more spending. Even Clinton's famous surpluses were found to be achieved by raiding the social security fund and when he left office his "surplus" left the national debt almost 2 trillion higher than when he entered.
Quote:
They think they solution is to raise taxes to afford all the things they want to spend on; and they means the government. The rights spends to, and for an example of that, look at the Bush administration. Until Obama came along, his presidency was defined by his irresponsible spending.
Yes, Bush spent a lot of money. The thing is, that money was spent in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bush had 2 years prior to the 9/11 attacks and ran surpluses for both of those years. By contrast, the left's spending is in response to nothing - Obama has been winding down the wars and yet spending triple the money at the same time. So do you see the difference there? That means if you say Bush's spending was "irresponsible" in your own words, then given the Democrats' spending now, shouldn't you be attacking the left here rather than defending them? After all, if running a 500 billion dollar deficit in time of war is irresponsible, how can you justify running a 1,500 billion dollar deficit when the war is winding down?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
