As of late, I've been analyzing politics, and I hereby declare that I am no longer a REPUBLICAN. While still slightly right on the spectrum, I've found too many things are wrong with the REPUBLICAN party, and that I am incredibly liberal on many, many things. Here are those things now, conveniently listed:
Abortion: OVERWHELMINGLY CONSERVATIVE
Immigration: CONSERVATIVE
Gay marriage: SLIGHTLY LIBERAL
Death Penalty: SLIGHTLY LIBERAL
Religion: OVERWHELMINGLY LIBERAL
Aff. Action: OVERWHELMINGLY CONSERVATIV
How is is that I start this by saying that I'm a moderate, and as always, ASM runs off an an America-bashing political rant? *Ignores it*
Darunia, the one thing you have to consider is that in general New England Republicans are more moderate than the national party... look at three of the five New England Republicans in the Senate -- Snowe, Collins, Chafee... and one of the two NH Republicans is also somewhat moderate... the New England Republican party just isn't as radical overall as the national party.
I'm a member of the New Democratic Party of Canada
third parties are the best
When they have actual power, maybe.
Darunia Wrote:As of late, I've been analyzing politics, and I hereby declare that I am no longer a REPUBLICAN. While still slightly right on the spectrum, I've found too many things are wrong with the REPUBLICAN party, and that I am incredibly liberal on many, many things. Here are those things now, conveniently listed:
Abortion: OVERWHELMINGLY CONSERVATIVE
Immigration: CONSERVATIVE
Gay marriage: SLIGHTLY LIBERAL
Death Penalty: SLIGHTLY LIBERAL
Religion: OVERWHELMINGLY LIBERAL
Aff. Action: OVERWHELMINGLY CONSERVATIV
Wierd. It looks as though you're moderate. That totally contrasts with your personality in every concievable way. :| Besides, you labeled yourself as 'overwhelmingly liberal' on just one topic, religion. And that, I think, is the most difficult to stigmatize into a political ideology. Besides, you just hate Christianity.
Anyway, if we have to statisitfy ourselves:
Abortion: Moderate
Immigration: Conservative
Gay Marriage: Conservative
Death Penalty: Conservative
Religion: Choosing Liberal or Conservative makes no sense, really, for this. I'm a Christian. There are many Democrats who are Christians and many Republicans who are not. There definitely is a liberal mass out there that wants nothing short of the total elimination of God from this country, but they are a small and laughable minority even among liberals, just as the firebrand damners of the far-far right Christians are. However, since I believe in Christ and God, I would therefore have to consider myself on the conservative side of the fence (though I'd like to see the Athiest Army disappear from the face of the earth, and I'd like the super-radical Christian Crusaders to calm the fuck down and grow up.)
Affirmative Action: Conservative
Welfare: Conservative
Education: Conservative
Foreign Policy: Conservative
Stem Cell Research: Liberal (There HAD to be something!)
Okay, this is getting redundant. I simply do not agree on any major issues with the liberal bloc, because most of what the liberal bloc stands for seems to ignore reality for the sake of unfettered idealism, and the rest seems to be deliberate backwards steps.
But this should be no surprise to anyone who knows me. W in 04!
A Black Falcon Wrote:When they have actual power, maybe.
Well federally they're a third party, and in this province they are. But in some provinces the NDP, wich was started as part of the labour movement they have formed governments.
They have power in the federal government now because we have a minority government and the liberals need the NDP vote to get a majority
Here are my opinions on things
Abortion: Liberal, it's a woman's right to make her own decisions
Immigration: liberal
Gay Marriage: liberal
Death Penalty: the state has no right to take someone's life
Religion: Seperation of Church and State
Affirmative Action: in favour
Welfare: liberal
Education: liberal
Foreign Policy: liberal
Stem Cell Research: Liberal
Here are my stances:
Abortion: Conservative
Immigration: Conservative
Gay Marriage: Conservative
Death Penalty: Conservative
Religion: On the Conservative side of the fence, I guess.
Affirmative Action: Conservative
Welfare: Conservative
Education: Conservative
Foreign Policy: Conservative
Stem Cell Research: Conservative
I'm noticing a pattern here...
About Darunia becoming a Democrat? Yeah, it is, but there's really nothing we can do about it.
I mean you being even more conservative than Weltall. You must have some hardcore Republican parents.
I can almost copy DLN's. :)
Abortion: fully liberal
Immigration: liberal, I guess -- legal immigration should be encouraged and allowed fully, but illegal immigration shouldn't be condoned or encouraged.
Gay Marriage: fully liberal
Death Penalty: fully liberal
Religion: Seperation of Church and State. And moreso than it is now in this country.
Affirmative Action: in favor
Welfare: fully liberal. We should be doing more for the poor and elderly. In particular...
Health Care: Major topic right now, you know... I definitely am in favor of a more nationalized system. We need to cover the 40 million uninsured. And we have to work, and fast, to lower the skyrocketing costs of insurance. This should also include more perscription drug coverage... allowing buying them from Canada should be a start, but we shouldn't have to go THERE to get decent prices on prescription drugs!
Taxes: If they are needed to pay for important things, then they are needed... we need to be able to afford a decent level of state and national services and taxes are the only way to do it. But if you must cut taxes something like Kerry's plan, where the top 1 or 2 % get higher taxes and the rest a tax cut, is the way to go. It goes without saying that those laws that restrict property taxes to 1% are a phenominally bad idea.
Education: hmm, what is liberal or conservative here... right now the two parties seem to have exactly the same agenda on this, at least in Washington... I'm cautious about more state or national control. If done well it could work, but that kind of thing seems so likely to go badly in this country...
Foreign Policy: liberal. But not a pacifist, really... we shouldn't be fighting unless we REALLY have to, but we should be doing more police actions and UN work. That is good works and something I fully support. So we definitely need a military... it should just be much better trained for peacekeeping.
Stem Cell Research: fully Liberal.
Quote:I mean you being even more conservative than Weltall. You must have some hardcore Republican parents.
It does look like from that list that I'm extremely conservative, but you've got to keep in mind that I'm NOT AS conservative on those issues as Weltall is. But, yeah, my mom is a hardcore Republican, no question about that.
Unfortunatly even if the US makes it legal for the elderly to buy Canadian drugs it will still become more difficult because the Canadian government is cracking down on it. Under Canadian law a perscription can only be requested by a doctor who is liscenced to practive in Canada, so the pharmasists that sell it to US seniors are either breaking the law or a Canadian doctor has signed the perscription and they are breaking the law because they have to have personally examined the patient in order to perscirbe a medication.
Drug companies have also said they'd stop selling drugs to Canadian pharmacies that sell drugs to americans.
A better solution would be for the US to adopt Canadian perscription drug policies. These policies make it harder for a company to hold a copyright on medication, so there are more generic brands avalible, and it sets price controls on drugs.
Abortion: Fully liberal
Immigration: Moderate
Gay Marriage: Fully liberal
Death Penalty: Moderate
Religion: Seperation of Church and State -- but I'm not stringent about this.
Affirmative Action: Moderate
Welfare: Moderate
Health Care: Eh... Liberal, I suppose.
Stem Cell Research: Completely, 100% Liberal.
Drugs: Moderately liberal. As a point of reference, I'd consider a conservative stance being that all drugs, excluding alcohol and tobacco for some reason, should be criminalized to the fullest extent, including cases of simple, non-violent possession.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle! :far-out:
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:Drugs: Moderately liberal. As a point of reference, I'd consider a conservative stance being that all drugs, excluding alcohol and tobacco for some reason, should be criminalized to the fullest extent, including cases of simple, non-violent possession.
I found out the other day that a conviction for simple drug possesion can disqualify you from getting federal finacial aid for going to college in the US. But other crimes like murder and rape don't :screwy:
Abortion: Woman's right to choose sure, but that stops at killing your kids. Put them up for adoption, or wait until technology catches up and you can stick them in a tube to let them grow up, but no killing. One last thing, terminology. Honestly, many MANY decades ago, and even to this day, when you see a pregnant woman, WHEN have you EVER heard her say "Oh, the fetus is kicking!". Thought so, it's always "the baby's kicking!". Since the word has always been used for the fetal stage of human growth, widespread, for such a long time, and since that is what determines the definition of a word, I would CERTAINLY say that fetuses can ACCURATLY be called babies. I say this also because really old dictionaries predating this whole word battle also list it as a valid definition, and also because baby was never meant to be a scientifically specific term. Animal's young are also called babies, and the youngest of a group of siblings, even if they are 10 years old, is often called the baby of the bunch, and that isn't slang either. At the same time, it's totally irrelevent to the argument. The only reason either side fights over such a frivilous thing is as a mind game of sorts. The fact that they can, and are, called babies is in no way some sort of support for pro-lifer's stance. I just wanted to make that clear.
Immigration: Eh, I'm fine with people coming here if they want to. Honestly, I don't have much of an opinion because I don't exactly see the big deal. Illegal immigrants are the only sticking point, simply for the sake of the law, but hey, allowing a lot more in so there are no illegals is a solution that's fine by me. I just haven't put much thought into this.
Gay Marriage: All I can say is let the states decide for themselves, other than that, I honestly don't care in any legal way about this.
Death Penalty: It all depends on the odds here. I suppose I would be for it for murderers, and them alone, so long as the chances of an innocent person being put to death are slim to none. If the odds are too high, then I am against it. Better to let 1000 guilty go free than... chase after them... wait how does that go?
Religion: Not exactly sure if there's a divide on religion here outside of the seperation issue. Government should never force religion on people, and as institutions they shouldn't really seem to support it (let the little pointless stuff like the pledge and money slide, honestly I don't care if those get removed or not because they are non-issues that don't affect my faith), but I do believe that the individual people working IN the government should be allowed to express their religious thoughts. The President can't say "as President, I believe Christianity is the good and right thing for all Amercans", but I think the President SHOULD be allowed to say "Personally, I think Christianity is the good and right thing for all Americans". The key difference is what role the President was in in those statements. Also, and this is just in the sense of sheer manners, even if they are just personal statements, an individual shouldn't flood the media with their religious views.
Welfare: I don't think handouts are the way to go really, but rather teaching the people to fish by giving those who aren't able to afford it a lot more educational oppertunities so they can work and make their own way in the world.
Education: Giving them money? Well some places certainly could use it, but that's not the solution. I suspect a lot of changes wouldn't need a lot of money to fix the problems, just a totally different educational approach
Affirmitive Action: Well this is a sticky subject. Honestly, while I really don't think there's "reverse racism" going on, I also have a hard time supporting hiring people who may not be qualified just because of some sort of minority quota. That might actually encourage a little racism on the part of the people doing the hiring (I can imagine the poor guy, even if he was qualified, being treated like some sort of lamprey just because of color thanks to this, in fact I do believe that's already happening). Affirmitive Action is something I believe serves a purpose, or more accuratly, DID serve a purpose. Racism among higher ups in companies can be traced to SOMEWHAT recent times. At those times, something like this really WAS needed. However, honestly aside from situations involving affirmitive action, I don't think there's that much racism any more. There's the south, I mean the REAL south, but they never even caught up with indoor plumbing, so they might just be a lost cause. Let them devolve into monkeys as nature seems to be intending and the problem will take care of itself I say :D. There is the occasional person, and even the group of 5 or so skin heads hanging around the mall creeping people out here and there (that deserve, and get, their arses kicked), but honestly I'd say racism is on it's last legs as some widespread epidemic like it used to be. As such, I'd say affirmitive action is pretty much a dead concept. If there really is still a corporate racism problem to be dealt with (oh yes, this is for colleges too of course), then I really think something else should be done rather than AA. AA just doesn't seem valid as a solution to whatever remains of the problem...
Foreign Policy: America is PART of the world, so I think it should actively participate in things. The rest? Hey, I'm no taxi driver, I don't have all the answers!
Stem Cell Research: Almost COMPLETELY for it! Honestly, this is ONLY a charged issue because people, on BOTH sides, have no idea what stem cells really are. No, you can't directly transplant stem cells from ANOTHER PERSON into your body any more than you could transplant their kidney into your body. Either way, there will be rejection, because the stem cells don't actually "copy" their surroundings, they detect nearby cells and turn to the DNA inside them to determine what they should turn into. Put human stem cells in a pig and, aside from the stem cells likely not even being able to know what they are next to or what section of the human DNA to access to become something, they are likely to just get killed off by the pig's immune system. Stem cells are most plentiful in fetuses, and other baby stages, this is true because they are undeveloped. However, stem cells are also present, in MUCH smaller numbers (too small to be useful if you just directly harvest them all), in adults. Most are found inside bones, waiting to become blood (bones are where new blood cells are made, in the marrow)). Harvest ALL of those, you could actually help them, but you would destroy the body's ability to make new blood cells. Not good. Baby cells are harvested for learning experience mainly. Also, there is another possible use. The DNA from the stem cells could be replaced with DNA of the future host, so then the stem cells WOULD have the right DNA.
Anyway, my end opinion is stem cell research should DEFINATLY be continued, and honestly, if the bodies of babies have been donated to science, it's no worse to experiment with them than with the bodies of dead adults. HOWEVER, it stops with trying to convince mothers to sacrifice their unborn for the stem cells. I don't think that will happen though. Also, scientists would be foolish to think that there is some endless supply of stem cells waiting to be found in dead fetuses. There aren't THAT many! The waiting lists would still be around just like waiting for some poor organ donar to die so they could get a new kidney. In general, both sides have some big misconceptions about this. Stem cells are certainly promising, but counting on the dead as an endless source is foolish. The better way is finding a way to culture a person's own natural stem cells, that would allow many more, and also asking people to donate some stem cells for cultures just like with blood drives. That would provide MANY more stem cells both for an immediate transplant need (near immediate, no matter what, they still need to get that person's DNA in there which means they will have to start that organ's growing process from the very beginning even if they had a full culture). Anyway, I'm all for it.
We're searching for the best way for people to govern themselves, yet not all people want the same things, thus not everyone's vision of the best government is similar. Ultimately, because of the fact that not everyone wants the same thing, all kinds of morality are false (in the context of government at least), as they can't apply to everyone. Notice that "kinds of morality" in that sentence is a synonym for ideology, ie. liberal or conservative or whatever.
As all ideologies represent ideal ways of life, and that not everyone's vision of an ideal way of life is the same, there is no "ultimate government" which will satisfy everyone. Yes? No?
Indeed, since governments are created by humans, none can ever be perfect. That doesn't mean we can't try though :D.
Drugs... good category. In that one I'm more conservative. I don't think much should be legal.
Quote:Abortion: Woman's right to choose sure, but that stops at killing your kids. Put them up for adoption, or wait until technology catches up and you can stick them in a tube to let them grow up, but no killing. One last thing, terminology. Honestly, many MANY decades ago, and even to this day, when you see a pregnant woman, WHEN have you EVER heard her say "Oh, the fetus is kicking!". Thought so, it's always "the baby's kicking!". Since the word has always been used for the fetal stage of human growth, widespread, for such a long time, and since that is what determines the definition of a word, I would CERTAINLY say that fetuses can ACCURATLY be called babies. I say this also because really old dictionaries predating this whole word battle also list it as a valid definition, and also because baby was never meant to be a scientifically specific term. Animal's young are also called babies, and the youngest of a group of siblings, even if they are 10 years old, is often called the baby of the bunch, and that isn't slang either. At the same time, it's totally irrelevent to the argument. The only reason either side fights over such a frivilous thing is as a mind game of sorts. The fact that they can, and are, called babies is in no way some sort of support for pro-lifer's stance. I just wanted to make that clear.
I can't figure out if this is a yes or a no...
That is kind of an odd paragraph, the end of it seems to contradict the beginning. I think it's a vote against though.
Quote:Drugs... good category. In that one I'm more conservative. I don't think much should be legal.
Absolutely, I'd almost go as far as to say alcohol should be illegal but since we've learned from history that it'd never work I wouldn't vote for legislature that banned it. It'd just be a waste of taxpayer money to enforce something like that.
As for abortion I'm absolutely against it. As far as I'm concernced an unborn child is just as much alive as you or me and killing it under almost any circumstance is wrong.
Alchohol... it was tried and failed miserably. All you can do is try to keep people who have drank any from driving or doing other bad things, really... but we'll never have total success at that. What I think should be illegal, though, is cigarettes. Though there is no chance that it'd work, it'd be really great if they were illegal...
Quote:That is kind of an odd paragraph, the end of it seems to contradict the beginning. I think it's a vote against though.
It sure seems so, but the first sentence contradicts that...
I personally would not mind if cigarettes disappeared off the face of the earth myself. I don't smoke, and I never intend to. I think it's a filthy habit.
I also think alcohol, as a drug, is exponentially more destructive than tobacco in many ways, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why smokes get so much worse a rap. I don't know why liquor is legal and pot isn't. I enjoy a beer myself from time to time, but I control myself. Unfortunately, many people cannot. This is probably the most confusing issue for me, and I can't figure it out. All I do know is that, even though I drink a little, I'd still rather it not be there, but that's not an option.
On abortion: There are many things about it that disgust me. I do think it's murder in many cases, murder of the most callous sort. People who use abortion for simple birth control purposes are murders, and worse, in my opinion. Of course, such cases have exceptions. It comes down to again, people need to be much more responsible. However, in cases of rape, or other unwanted sexual activity, I do not have issue with a woman wanting an abortion, for in those cases, she did not consent to sex. But I also do not think a woman has total and unfettered right to choose just because she's the vessel. There's a baby inside there that has a future life, and the militant abortionists do their best to make everyone think otherwise, that it's just a lump of messy goo. These people cheapen human life, and I hate them. I believe the same of people who bomb abortion clinics. Murder is murder.
Anyway, I hope that explains my moderate stance on the subject.
Ｔｈｅ ｆｉｒｓｔ ｓｅｎｔｅｎｃｅ ａｌｍｏｓｔ ｓａｙｓ ｔｈａｔ ｓｈｅ’ｓ ａｌｌｏｗｅｄ ｔｏ ｃｈｏｓｅ ｗｈｅｔｈｅｒ ｓｈｅ ｋｉｌｌｓ ｔｈｅ ｂａｂｙ ｏｒ ｎｏｔ， ａｓ ｌｏｎｇ ａｓ ｓｈｅ ｃｈｏｓｅｓ ｎｏｔ ｔｏ．．
Ａｎｙｗａｙｓ，ｌｉｖｉｎｇ ｉｎ ａ ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｔ ｃｏｕｎｔｒｙ ｍｙ ｏｐｉｎｉｏｎ ｍａｙ ｄｉｆｆｅｒ ｔｏ ｓｏｍｅ ｏｆ ｙｏｕ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ． Ｈｅｌｌ， Ｉ ｄｉｄｎ’ｔ ｅｖｅｎ ｋｎｏｗ ｔｈｅ ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｃｅ ｂｅｔｗｅｅｎ Ｌｉｂｅｒａｌ ａｎｄ Ｃｏｎｓｅｒｖａｔｉｖｅ ｕｎｔｉｌ ｒｅｃｅｎｔｌｙ． Ｉ’ｍ ｓｔｉｌｌ ｕｎｓｕｒｅ ａｓ ｔｏ ｗｈｉｃｈ ｉｓ Ｌｅｆｔ ａｎｄ ｗｈｉｃｈ ｉｓ Ｒｉｇｈｔ．．
Ａｂｏｒｔｉｏｎ： Ｕｎｄｅｃｉｄｅｄ． Ｉ’ｍ ｋｉｎｄ ｏｆ ｌｅａｎｉｎｇ ｂｏｔｈ ｗａｙｓ． Ｉｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｅｇｎａｎｃｙ ｉｓ ａ ｒｅｓｕｌｔ ｏｆ ａ ｖｉｏｌｅｎｔ ｃｒｉｍｅ， Ｉ’ｍ ｋｉｎｄ ｏｆ ｌｅａｎｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｐｒｏ－ｃｈｏｉｃｅ． Ｉｆ， ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ ｉｔ ｗａｓ ｊｕｓｔ ａｎ ａｃｃｉｄｅｎｔ ｗｉｔｈ ｓｏｍｅ ｒａｎｄｏｍ ｇｕｙ， ｙｏｕｒ ｏｗｎ ｄａｍｎ ｆａｕｌｔ， ｓｏ Ｉ’ｍ ｋｉｎｄ ｏｆ ｌｅａｎｉｎｇ ｐｒｏ－ｌｉｆｅ．
Ｉｍｍｉｇｒａｔｉｏｎ： Ｉ ｄｏｎ’ｔ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｓｅｅ ｔｈｅ ｉｓｓｕｅ ｈｅａｒ． Ｌｅｔ ｔｈｅｍ ｌｉｖｅ ａｎｄ ｂｅｃｏｍｅ ｃｉｔｉｚｅｎｓ ｉｆ ｔｈｅｙ ｗｉｓｈ， ａｓ ｌｏｎｇ ａｓ ｔｈｅｙ ｇｏ ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ ｔｈｅ ｌｅｇａｌ ｐｒｏｃｅｓｓｅｓ． Ｏｂｖｉｏｕｓｌｙ， ｓｏｍｅ ｐｒｏｃｅｓｓｅｓ ｗｉｌｌ ｈａｖｅ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｔａｋｅｎ． Ｉｆ ｙｏｕ’ｒｅ ｊｕｓｔ ｇｏｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｂｅｃｏｍｅ ａ ｂｕｒｄｅｎ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｅｃｏｎｍｙ， ｏｒ ｈａｖｅ ｐｒｅｖｉｏｕｓ ｓｅｒｉｏｕｓ ｃｒｉｍｉｎａｌ ｃｏｎｖｉｃｔｉｏｎｓ， ｐｅｒｈａｐｓ ｙｏｕ ｓｈｏｕｌｄｎ’ｔ ｂｅ ａｌｌｏｗｅｄ ｈｅｒｅ． Ｔｈｅｒｅ’ｒｅ ｅｎｏｕｇｈ ｏｆ ｔｈｅｍ ａｌｒｅａｄｙ ａｌｌｏｗｅｄ ｈｅｒｅ ｂｙ ｄｅｆａｕｌｔ ｓｉｍｐｌｙ ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ ｔｈｅｙ’ｒｅ ｂｏｒｎ ｈｅｒｅ！I suppose that's why we take the criminals out of society.. and.. just.. keep giving.. money to the burdens? Wha? Just as long as they go through the legal process!Ｂａｈ！
Ｇａｙ Ｍａｒｒｉａｇｅ： Ｆｏｒ ｉｔ．
Ｄｅａｔｈ Ｐｅｎａｌｔｙ： Ｉ ｄｏｎ’ｔ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｓｅｅ ｔｈｅ ｐｏｉｎｔ ｉｎ ｉｔ． Ｉｔ ｈａｓ ｎｅｖｅｒ ｂｅｅｎ ｐｒｏｖｅｎ ｔｏ ｄｅｔｅｒ ｐｏｔｅｎｔｉａｌ ｃｒｉｍｉｎａｌｓ． Ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ， ｐｅｒｈａｐｓ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｍｏｓｔ ｅｘｔｒｅｍｅ ｃａｓｅｓ ｉｔ ｃｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ａ ｊｕｓｔ ｐｕｎｉｓｈｍｅｎｔ．
Ｒｅｌｉｇｉｏｎ： Ｈｕｈ？ Ｂｅｌｉｅｖｅ ｗｈａｔ ｙｏｕ ｗａｎｔ？ Ｉ ｄｏｎ’ｔ ｓｅｅ ｔｈｅ ｂｉｇ ｄｅａｌ ａｂｏｕｔ ｔｒｕｓｔｉｎｇ ｉｎ Ｇｏｄ． Ｔｈｏｕｇｈ ｙｏｕ ｓｈｏｕｌｄｎ’ｔ ｂｅ ｆｏｒｃｅｄ ｔｏ ｓａｙ ｉｔ ｉｆ ｙｏｕ ｄｏｎ’ｔ ｂｅｌｉｅｖｅ ｉｎ Ｇｏｄ． Ｂｕｔ ｉｆ Ｉ ｗａｓ ａｎ ａｔｈｉｅｓｔ， Ｉ ｗｏｕｌｄｎ’ｔ ｂｅ ｓｏ ａｎａｌ ａｓ ｔｏ ｎｏｔ ｓａｙ ｗｈａｔｅｖｅｒ ｉｔ ｉｓ ｙｏｕ ｓａｙ ｔｈａｔ ｓａｙｓ ｉｔ！ Ａｆｔｅｒａｌｌ， ｉｆ ｈｅ／ｓｈｅ ｄｏｅｓｎ’ｔ ｅｘｉｓｔ， ｔｈｅｎ ｓａｙｉｎｇ ｙｏｕ ｔｒｕｓｔ ｉｎ ｈｅ／ｓｈｅ ｓｈｏｕｌｄｎ’ｔ ｂｅ ａ ｂｉｇ ｄｅａｌ！
Ｗｅｌｆａｒｅ： Ｌｉｂｅｒａｌ
Ｅｄｕｃａｔｉｏｎ： Ｌiberal. I think, at least in my country, Education should have FAR more emphasis, as I believe it to be one of, if not the most important thing for our society. Our government funded schools are HORRIBLY underfunded, while our private schools receive far more government funding! Odd.. it just means that I will definately send my kids to a private school, but for those who genuinly can't afford a private school they are getting a pretty wide shaft.
Stem Cell research: For it.
Quote:Ｔｈｅ ｆｉｒｓｔ ｓｅｎｔｅｎｃｅ ａｌｍｏｓｔ ｓａｙｓ ｔｈａｔ ｓｈｅ’ｓ ａｌｌｏｗｅｄ ｔｏ ｃｈｏｓｅ ｗｈｅｔｈｅｒ ｓｈｅ ｋｉｌｌｓ ｔｈｅ ｂａｂｙ ｏｒ ｎｏｔ， ａｓ ｌｏｎｇ ａｓ ｓｈｅ ｃｈｏｓｅｓ ｎｏｔ ｔｏ．．
Yeah, exactly. Which is why it's so confusing.
Quote:Ａｎｙｗａｙｓ，ｌｉｖｉｎｇ ｉｎ ａ ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｔ ｃｏｕｎｔｒｙ ｍｙ ｏｐｉｎｉｏｎ ｍａｙ ｄｉｆｆｅｒ ｔｏ ｓｏｍｅ ｏｆ ｙｏｕ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ． Ｈｅｌｌ， Ｉ ｄｉｄｎ’ｔ ｅｖｅｎ ｋｎｏｗ ｔｈｅ ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｃｅ ｂｅｔｗｅｅｎ Ｌｉｂｅｒａｌ ａｎｄ Ｃｏｎｓｅｒｖａｔｉｖｅ ｕｎｔｉｌ ｒｅｃｅｎｔｌｙ． Ｉ’ｍ ｓｔｉｌｌ ｕｎｓｕｒｅ ａｓ ｔｏ ｗｈｉｃｈ ｉｓ Ｌｅｆｔ ａｎｄ ｗｈｉｃｈ ｉｓ Ｒｉｇｈｔ．．
Liberals are left, conservatives right. :)
Allow me to make it clear then. I am against abortion. However, I am FOR logical arguments. To that end, I pointed out the whole debate over what word to use to call fetuses is completely pointless as it has no baring whatsoever on who is right.
About the issue of unsolicited pregnancy. I still think it's a human life we're dealing with here. The means of the creation of it, however horrible, are irrelevent to it's own future. The child has nothing to do with the criminal. Again, adoption or something, but not killing.
Now HERE'S a REAL tough question. There are the situations where a doctor must decide between the life of a mother or the fetus (or the mother or neither survives). For the former, hoenstly, I can't answer that! That's a really messed up situation life just offered! That's right up there with a murderer with a gun pointed to your children's heads ordering you to say which one the murderer should kill or they both die. How can there BE a right answer to that? Well, there is ONE right answer.... *Goku breaks in and batters the murderer to a bloody pulp and everyone that matters survives.* For the latter, if the fetus is completely beyond help, no matter what, but the mother can be saved if they just give up on the child doomed to death anyway... Well, I guess logically, I must choose the rational choice, the one who has the actual chance of survival, the mother. What a choice though.
PH, what on EARTH is up with your font? Why did you even CHANGE it?! WHY?!
Okay, the drug issue. Here's my thoughts. All addictive substances like that are filthy vices that all people would be wise to avoid. Wizards excluded, because they are magical, and it makes them look cool :D.
That said, honestly while I would rather people did not hurt themselves, I respect their right to do so to an extent. It's when they start getting to ME that's the problem. The drunkards that suddenly end up on the road for example are threatening MY life, in a VERY immediate way. There is NO justification for that! Smoking doesn't do as much damage, but it's still there, and I would rather NOT have my lungs needlessly damaged (and my various allergen sensitive face holes irritated) due to someone's little addiction. Honestly, the smokers just care about the nicoteen, so why can't they just go with the patch? I'm not saying they have to quit here! I'm just saying they should all be forced to get their fix in a way that doesn't send it into my lungs, that's all. Hey, they can draw cool flaming skull things all over the patches to make them look cool, or whatever.
Here's something that might annoy, but caffiene goes on that list of vices too. It's the least harmful really, AND the least addictive from my experience, but being a slave to a substance is never fun. Myself? I used to drink mountain dew all the time, then I stopped because I suddenly stopped liking the taste. Now I just don't even go near the stuff because, well mainly the bad taste of it totally destroyed any semblance of whatever addiction I may have had to caffeine. Now, either that substance's addictive qualities are even weaker than taste preference, or that really says something about how horrible mountain dew is, I dunno (realistically, I lean towards the former), but for some people, they have got to the point where they really DO go into a horrible mental lapse without their morning coffee. It's just such a pathetic thing to watch these people all irritable, walking around like zombies, until they get that fix. They may think they are just tired, but honestly that's way more than tired. Tired people get over it, these people are experiencing actual withdrawl symptons. How does this affect me? Well, not much really. Once they have that fix, they seem to be up and running efficiently enough. It's just the harm they are doing to themselves that freaks me out. See that sketch from Kids in the Hall where the boss guy tears his own heart out and poors coffee on it telling it to "GET BACK TO WORK!" . Well, actually that was incredibly disturbing for some reason... :D, but it was funny!
All in all, substance addiction is a very harmful thing no one should get involved in if they know what's good for them. If they want to though, it's their right to hurt themselves to a degree, just don't think it gives you the right to hurt ME! Stupid drunk drivers...
That's why whenever I envision myself acting like Sherlock Holmes (you know, that "excentric richy" fantasy we all have, you didn't? Hmm, maybe it was just the cool kids who had that dream...), I'm using a very well built bubble blowing novelty pipe :D.
DJ, surprisingly I actually agree with a lot of your stances on these issues, but I think that you like most people here don't know just how much of a problem racism still is. The thing is that it's subtle racism that is wide-spread, which in many ways is worse than blunt, obvious racism because it's more difficult for other people to see, therefor making most people think that racism is all but completely gone. It's not, I have seen such racism first-hand, and it disgusts me. And before you ask me, no, I'm not confusing it for anything else. I have friends of various different races and when I spend time with them in public I notice these things. The worse thing we can do right now is try to convince ourselves that racism is no longer a wide-spread problem in our society. It will only get worse that way.
Yeah, I was going to say something about that, but didn't get around to it... DJ definitely underestimates how much racism still exists.
Most white people do. It's very easy to scoff at someone else's claim when you never witness it yourself. And it's especially easy to do that when it's subtle racism, where you really have to be there with the person to see that it happens. So it's basically about trust, and it's much easier to believe that things are rosy than not.
However on the other hand, I can see why some people might totally disregard the chance of this happening when there are some people that exaggerate. But that doesn't make it any less real for the real victims of racism.
Abortion: Slightly Liberal
Immigration: Slightly Conservative
Gay Marriage: Liberal
Death Penalty: Moderate
Religion: Slightly Conservative
Affirmative Action: Ultra-conservative
Welfare: Moderate
Education: Liberal
Foreign Policy: Liberal
Stem Cell Research: Liberal
I mostly consider myself a moderate. I'm liberal in more places than I'm conservative, but whenever I am conservative, I usually feel more strongly about it than I do about something I'm liberal about.
[QUOTE=Dark Jaguar]
PH, what on EARTH is up with your font? Why did you even CHANGE it?! WHY?!
[QUOTE]
I'm on a public computer and it has all sorts of language and font hot keys and I don't know how they work and often times it just changes mid-post.. :(
I definitely think that the government that governs least governs best; America is so rich and bored that our lawmakers waste time and money coming up with these dumb, unfair laws--liquors-age laws when we can get drafted into a war but can't have a drink before going out; mandatory seat belts, it is illegal to smoke inside a public building in Massachusetts... its insane. People should live as they want as long as it doesnt effect anyone. It's fucking crazy, we need regime change right here (not Bush in particular; we need a new government all together.)
Uh, THOSE are your examples of things that don't help the general public good? Drinking age, smoking in public buildings, and seat belts? It'd be tough to find three that are BETTER for the public good, especially seatbelts and smoking!
America is doomed. In 20 years, China will be the world power.
America was a great empire, but it will now perish with the events that are currently happening.
The United States of America
RIP
Illusion, that's delisional.
Darunia, what idiotic things to be concerned about!
First off, I already talked about how alcohol and smokes DO hurt others, so by your own words, those SHOULD be banned.
As for seatbelts, is it really THAT aweful a thing to be forced to wear them?
I WILL demand this to be explained! Why, OH WHY, don't school buses, things many kids MUST ride in to get to public school, have ANY seat belts? Kids, by necesity brought on BY the government, are breaking the law every school day!
Darunia, how does smoking in a public building not efferct anyone?
Seatbelts save lives. Lots of them. If everyone used them traffic fatalities would go down substantially. How many times do you hear of people being thrown from their car and killed? Same with banning smoking -- secondhand smoke kills, especially for people like restaurant workers who had to work around it all the time -- and restricting alchohol.
And yes, Illusion is wrong. But if we continue on this path he'd be partially right, because if we don't change we will succeed at making everyone else in the world utterly detest us.
Thank you Alien Space Marine.
It's pretty evident that America is on a decline. The thing is, it's not just America. It's all of humanity. We need to open our eyes up.
It's come to the point where humanity has become blinded by what really matters: our planet, our goals, and our own blood. There's too much petty fighting going on in the world, and I highly doubt that one day humans will realize that they're going no where. Like Reagan said, perhaps we need some sort of alien invasion for humanity to join hands and stop fighting against another. =)
Talk about only thinking of the negative. Yeesh, every era there's this same talk. "REPENT! The end is NEAR!" People thought the SAME thing long ago.
If I were the last human left, I would make SURE every OTHER species went with me! Nyahaha!
Humans are the same that we always have been. The difference is that now we have more power to affect our environment.
Perhaps if you didn't use runon sentances that dragged on like a 10 year old, I'd get what you are saying. As it is, you really misinterpretted what I was saying. There are bad things yes, but there are ALSO good things. I'm not saying "ignore the bad", I'm saying "The world isn't ending!".
I'll turn YOU into my redger...bug...flute...what?
I can't believe everyone's stance here! You think the government should regulate everything? The government regulates morality to people, and it shouldn't--the goverment should keep the power going, keep the roads paved, provide for the common defense--and little more. It SHOULD NOT tell me what I may drink, what I may do because it allegedly knows whats best for me. As long as I don't murder anyone, let me drink, and not wear a seat belt (though I always have) and smoke indoors (though I would never smoke anyway.) It goes too far, and regulates TOO MUCH! Well, REGULATE THIS!! *Flips off government*
Look Darunia, I don't care if you drink and drive and kill YOURSELF (well that's a lie, but you get what I mean). I care that you drink and drive and might kill ME! See? It DOES threaten other people!
Darunia Wrote:I can't believe everyone's stance here! You think the government should regulate everything? The government regulates morality to people, and it shouldn't--the goverment should keep the power going, keep the roads paved, provide for the common defense--and little more. It SHOULD NOT tell me what I may drink, what I may do because it allegedly knows whats best for me. As long as I don't murder anyone, let me drink, and not wear a seat belt (though I always have) and smoke indoors (though I would never smoke anyway.) It goes too far, and regulates TOO MUCH! Well, REGULATE THIS!! *Flips off government*
This is why you're still republican at heart :D
It's all about cost vs. benefit.
If you are in the car with other people you endanger them by not wearing a seatbelt. If you're ever in an accident you become a projectile, and can kill the other people in the car even if they have a seatbelt
Dark Lord Neo Wrote:If you are in the car with other people you endanger them by not wearing a seatbelt. If you're ever in an accident you become a projectile, and can kill the other people in the car even if they have a seatbelt
Depends on the collision angle. From a side impact, maybe. The other angles don't really see this.
What would you do if 8 year-olds were buying alcohol? Let them throw their life down the toilet and perish?
I would.
What would you do if you saw an 8 year old growing up in Oklahoma? Let them grow up to do the only thing people in this forsaken place are good at, get into a fight with some convenience store clerk because he made a pass at "your baby's momma"?
I HATE this state...