What is so radical about the Left right now?

[knapplc]

I keep hearing this "Both sides have extremists" mantra from people ostensibly defending the Right/Republicans. It is demonstrable that the Republican Party and their Tea Party brethren are far enough to the Right to be called extremists.

 

But what evidence do we have that the Left is, at this time, engaged in "extremist" politics?

[carlfense]

I keep hearing this "Both sides have extremists" mantra from people ostensibly defending the Right/Republicans. It is demonstrable that the Republican Party and their Tea Party brethren are far enough to the Right to be called extremists.

 

But what evidence do we have that the Left is, at this time, engaged in "extremist" politics?

I suppose "Occupy Wall Street" would be one example . . . but they've basically disappeared and I'm not really sure what they wanted anyways.

 

 

 

Also, I don't remember them actually having any influence on policy.

[TGHusker]

Just a few quick thoughts:

Would you consider out of control social spending to be a 'left' thing? It isn't conservative.

Social/Cultural: Pushing abortion, contraceptives in the ACA is leftist; Same sex marriage

The living document interpretation of the constitution is leftist - bend the constitution anyway you want it to justify action contrary to original intent.

Big centralized govt - with over regulation- EPA to healthcare

I'd say the left is having their way in DC now.

 

Knapp, I disagree with your original statement about repubs and tea party types being 'extremists'. Right of center yes (yes there will always be some extreme fringes in any movement - right or left)

Unless we take the Barry Goldwater view point:

 

 

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

 

I'll add - not only defense of liberty but also in defense of constitution based governing.

[knapplc]

I disagree with your original statement about repubs and tea party types being 'extremists'.

 

And that's the problem in a nutshell.

[sd'sker]

Just a few quick thoughts:

Would you consider out of control social spending to be a 'left' thing? It isn't conservative.

is it out of control? is it ok if the out-of-control spending is limited to tax cuts and military?

Social/Cultural: Pushing abortion, contraceptives in the ACA is leftist; Same sex marriage

who is pushing abortion? let me make this clear; nobody likes abortions. but i guess you would not consider a trans-vaginal ultrasound to be 'extreme'. also, a majority of americans use contraceptives, so not sure how that is extreme.

 

so you think it is extreme to prohibit the gov't from preventing two consenting adults from marrying?

The living document interpretation of the constitution is leftist - bend the constitution anyway you want it to justify action contrary to original intent.

why should we have to live under the tyranny of white, landowners who got to decide these issues for themselves 200 years ago? that is just crazy and it is becoming as bad as a monarchy. we should be able to decide these issues, just as they were able to debate and decide them for themselves. do you really believe the founders did not expect their document to be altered throughout the course of history? they understood how history works and that societies change. but conservatives want to live in that era (hence the common wardrobe at any tea party rally), so they fabricated this myth that the constitution is nearly a religious work bestowed upon us from heaven, never to be altered.

 

but how has the left 'bent' the constitution? it is only activist if you do not like what they are doing.

Big centralized govt - with over regulation- EPA to healthcare

is there over-regulation? or is that just a favored talking point?

[TGHusker]

Just a few quick thoughts:

Would you consider out of control social spending to be a 'left' thing? It isn't conservative.

is it out of control? is it ok if the out-of-control spending is limited to tax cuts and military?

17 trillion in debt and trillion $ deficits should be seen as overspending in everyone's books. Both parties and all depts need

to be held to account. Tax cuts while raging 2 wars was irresponsible. The military should be sufficient to protect and defend. I'm opposed to us being the world's policemant and enforcer. However, tax cuts do make sense (proven to raise revenue by spurring economic growth) when we aren't fighting 2 wars.

Social/Cultural: Pushing abortion, contraceptives in the ACA is leftist; Same sex marriage

who is pushing abortion? let me make this clear; nobody likes abortions. but i guess you would not consider a trans-vaginal ultrasound to be 'extreme'. also, a majority of americans use contraceptives, so not sure how that is extreme. so you think it is extreme to prohibit the gov't from preventing two consenting adults from marrying?

I'm not against contraceptives. I'm against abortions. When the ACA tells religious organizations (and a large # of citizens as a result) to provide services (via their insurance plan) that is contrary to conscience and faith, then that is extreme. Regarding gay marriage - call me an old foggy or traditionalist here - marriage is traditionally between a man and woman - which is my faith view. I'd prefer civil union.

The living document interpretation of the constitution is leftist - bend the constitution anyway you want it to justify action contrary to original intent.

why should we have to live under the tyranny of white, landowners who got to decide these issues for themselves 200 years ago? that is just crazy and it becoming as bad as a monarchy. we should be able to decide these issues, just as they were able to debate and decide them for themselves. do you really believe the founders did not expect their document to be altered throughout the course of history? they understood how history works and that societies change. but conservatives want to live in that era (hence the common wardrobe at any tea party rally), so they fabricated this myth that the constitution is nearly a religious work bestowed upon us from heaven, never to be altered.

 

but how has the left 'bent' the constitution? it is only activist if you do not like what they are doing.

I don't know anyone who believes in your stated myth. I believe in original intent and a constitutionally mandated change process. It is called 'amending' the constitution. The founders were very wise in what they set up - not without it problems (don't get into the slave issue - too big of a rabbit trail here ) The founders knew times would change, that is why they gave the constitution the ability of changing with the times by the amendment provision and also the state convention process (see Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments regarding the convention process) The left and the right both can be guilty of altering the constitution via activist judges and administrative rules and regulations supported by those activist judges. The complain among conservatives has been that activist judges have read so many things into the document that are far from the original intent of the constitution. If the libs can't be patient enough or not garnder enought votes doing it via amendment, then legislate it from the bench. The true can be true on the conservative side.

Big centralized govt - with over regulation- EPA to healthcare

is there over-regulation? or is that just a favored talking point?

Ask some business men, medical professionals, etc - here are some info to dwell on

http://www.sensibleregulations.org/resources/facts-and-figures/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/under-obama-11327-pages-federal-regulations-added

[carlfense]

. . . trillion $ deficits should be seen as overspending in everyone's books.

We don't have trillion dollar deficits anymore and in fact, the deficit has fallen almost every year since 2009 (which just happened to be W.'s last budget).

 

I haven't seen many Obama opponents acknowledging this.

 

However, tax cuts do make sense (proven to raise revenue by spurring economic growth) . . .

When was this proven?

[sd'sker]

17 trillion in debt and trillion $ deficits should be seen as overspending in everyone's books. Both parties and all depts need

to be held to account. Tax cuts while raging 2 wars was irresponsible. The military should be sufficient to protect and defend. I'm opposed to us being the world's policemant and enforcer. However, tax cuts do make sense (proven to raise revenue by spurring economic growth) when we aren't fighting 2 wars.

so then it is not a 'leftist' issue? and how close of a nexus can you provide that tax cuts raise revenue? that logically sounds nice, but is it true?

I'm not against contraceptives. I'm against abortions. When the ACA tells religious organizations (and a large # of citizens as a result) to provide services (via their insurance plan) that is contrary to conscience and faith, then that is extreme. Regarding gay marriage - call me an old foggy or traditionalist here - marriage is traditionally between a man and woman - which is my faith view. I'd prefer civil union.

obama accommodated the contraception issue: "Under the new policy, “all women will still have access to free preventive care, including contraception,” no matter where they work. However, if a nonprofit religiously affiliated organization like a Catholic college or hospital objects to offering birth control, the insurance company will be required to provide the coverage free of charge and the employer will not pay for it. Sister Carol Keehan, President of the US Catholic Health Association and Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards support the compromise, the administration officials said." but i am still not sure why religious institutions deserve the waiver. it is the choice of the employee and the insurance company is providing it.

I don't know anyone who believes in your stated myth. I believe in original intent and a constitutionally mandated change process. It is called 'amending' the constitution. The founders were very wise in what they set up - not without it problems (don't get into the slave issue - too big of a rabbit trail here ) The founders knew times would change, that is why they gave the constitution the ability of changing with the times by the amendment provision and also the state convention process (see Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments regarding the convention process) The left and the right both can be guilty of altering the constitution via activist judges and administrative rules and regulations supported by those activist judges. The complain among conservatives has been that activist judges have read so many things into the document that are far from the original intent of the constitution. If the libs can't be patient enough or not garnder enought votes doing it via amendment, then legislate it from the bench. The true can be true on the conservative side.

not sure what the myth is that i stated? and again, pointing to the underline, this does not seem to be a 'leftist' problem. however, what examples can you provide of a leftist-liberal agenda getting pushed through the rather conservative supreme court? seems like the constitution carries some vagaries, given the fact it was written 200 years ago and could not foresee many of the issues we face today.

some business men, medical professionals, etc - here are some info to dwell on

http://www.sensibler...ts-and-figures/

http://cnsnews.com/n...gulations-added

those are a lot of regulations, no doubt. but is it over-regulation? is this more than we could expect from a conservative president? what is the difference in ratio? and what defines over-regulation? what if those are all necessary regulations? are they necessarily excessive?

[TGHusker]

. . . trillion $ deficits should be seen as overspending in everyone's books.

We don't have trillion dollar deficits anymore and in fact, the deficit has fallen almost every year since 2009 (which just happened to be W.'s last budget).

 

I haven't seen many Obama opponents acknowledging this.

Let me be the 1st. I agree Regardless, the deficits are still too high - regardless of party in the WH

 

However, tax cuts do make sense (proven to raise revenue by spurring economic growth) . . .

When was this proven?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm

Revenues increase under the Reagan tax plan and when JFK cut taxes. Also the 1920s (heard of the roaring 20s) Unfortunately we are only talking about the revenue side, spending wasn't cut but increased as well. So look just at the revenue side. I understand that revenues increased under GWB as well but you can't do that and fund 2 wars, a new entitlement program (drugs), etc. and expect the deficits to go down - the opposite occurs.

[TGHusker]

17 trillion in debt and trillion $ deficits should be seen as overspending in everyone's books. Both parties and all depts need

to be held to account. Tax cuts while raging 2 wars was irresponsible. The military should be sufficient to protect and defend. I'm opposed to us being the world's policemant and enforcer. However, tax cuts do make sense (proven to raise revenue by spurring economic growth) when we aren't fighting 2 wars.

so then it is not a 'leftist' issue? and how close of a nexus can you provide that tax cuts raise revenue? that logically sounds nice, but is it true?

I'm not against contraceptives. I'm against abortions. When the ACA tells religious organizations (and a large # of citizens as a result) to provide services (via their insurance plan) that is contrary to conscience and faith, then that is extreme. Regarding gay marriage - call me an old foggy or traditionalist here - marriage is traditionally between a man and woman - which is my faith view. I'd prefer civil union.

obama accommodated the contraception issue: "Under the new policy, “all women will still have access to free preventive care, including contraception,” no matter where they work. However, if a nonprofit religiously affiliated organization like a Catholic college or hospital objects to offering birth control, the insurance company will be required to provide the coverage free of charge and the employer will not pay for it. Sister Carol Keehan, President of the US Catholic Health Association and Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards support the compromise, the administration officials said." but i am still not sure why religious institutions deserve the waiver. it is the choice of the employee and the insurance company is providing it.

I don't know anyone who believes in your stated myth. I believe in original intent and a constitutionally mandated change process. It is called 'amending' the constitution. The founders were very wise in what they set up - not without it problems (don't get into the slave issue - too big of a rabbit trail here ) The founders knew times would change, that is why they gave the constitution the ability of changing with the times by the amendment provision and also the state convention process (see Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments regarding the convention process) The left and the right both can be guilty of altering the constitution via activist judges and administrative rules and regulations supported by those activist judges. The complain among conservatives has been that activist judges have read so many things into the document that are far from the original intent of the constitution. If the libs can't be patient enough or not garnder enought votes doing it via amendment, then legislate it from the bench. The true can be true on the conservative side.

not sure what the myth is that i stated? and again, pointing to the underline, this does not seem to be a 'leftist' problem. however, what examples can you provide of a leftist-liberal agenda getting pushed through the rather conservative supreme court? seems like the constitution carries some vagaries, given the fact it was written 200 years ago and could not foresee many of the issues we face today.

some business men, medical professionals, etc - here are some info to dwell on

http://www.sensibler...ts-and-figures/

http://cnsnews.com/n...gulations-added

those are a lot of regulations, no doubt. but is it over-regulation? is this more than we could expect from a conservative president? what is the difference in ratio? and what defines over-regulation? what if those are all necessary regulations? are they necessarily excessive?

That is hard to define - kind of subjective. Have to define what min regs are needed to promote safety, justice, fairness, community welfare (environment) and find the tipping point of where the regs are hurting creativity, liberty, economic development. Anything beyond that is excessive. I think only those who are being regulated can answer that question adequately. Or it could be that like a frog in a tub of water that slowing gets hotter, we've gotten use to all of the regs and haven't missed the 'lost opportunity' that fewer regs would give us. I do know that there is great duplication from agency to another and I think the agencies have been given or taken legislative power (instead of executive enforcement power) not intended by the constitution.

[sd'sker]

That is hard to define - kind of subjective. Have to define what min regs are needed to promote safety, justice, fairness, community welfare (environment) and find the tipping point of where the regs are hurting creativity, liberty, economic development. Anything beyond that is excessive.

i totally agree. i am for an efficient, effective gov't and economy. i just think some regulations are very necessary. and, although they may be annoying today, they might be necessary to avoid a catastrophe tomorrow.

[krill]

Social/Cultural: Pushing abortion, contraceptives in the ACA is leftist; Same sex marriage

 

It's proven that easier access to contraceptives = much fewer abortions and unplanned pregnancies. If you find abortion more appalling than recreational sex, and most people do, then this should be a no brainer from an ethical point of view. Because the conflict on this issue seems to be centered around whether religious groups should be able to opt out of contraceptive coverage for their employees, I again have to wonder why employers should have any say at all in the matter. It's crazy, and it's not their business.

[TGHusker]

Social/Cultural: Pushing abortion, contraceptives in the ACA is leftist; Same sex marriage

 

It's proven that easier access to contraceptives = much fewer abortions and unplanned pregnancies. If you find abortion more appalling than recreational sex, and most people do, then this should be a no brainer from an ethical point of view. Because the conflict on this issue seems to be centered around whether religious groups should be able to opt out of contraceptive coverage for their employees, I again have to wonder why employers should have any say at all in the matter. It's crazy, and it's not their business.

Bold and underlined - Can't argue wt that. The bigger ? for religious groups is this - abortion producing contraceptive. If a religious group believes life starts at conception, then this type of contraception is a violation of their religious faith. If we are talking about per-conception contraceptives - totally different story. In my opinion, this is the big wedge.

[TGHusker]

That is hard to define - kind of subjective. Have to define what min regs are needed to promote safety, justice, fairness, community welfare (environment) and find the tipping point of where the regs are hurting creativity, liberty, economic development. Anything beyond that is excessive.

i totally agree. i am for an efficient, effective gov't and economy. i just think some regulations are very necessary. and, although they may be annoying today, they might be necessary to avoid a catastrophe tomorrow.

agreed

[carlfense]

http://www.heritage....lower-tax-rates

http://www.mtgriffit...taxcutmyths.htm

Revenues increase under the Reagan tax plan and when JFK cut taxes. Also the 1920s (heard of the roaring 20s) Unfortunately we are only talking about the revenue side, spending wasn't cut but increased as well. So look just at the revenue side. I understand that revenues increased under GWB as well but you can't do that and fund 2 wars, a new entitlement program (drugs), etc. and expect the deficits to go down - the opposite occurs.

Your first source is the Heritage Foundation. Your second is a religious scholar.