I’m a moderate with conservative leanings. Meaning, I think both sides are fucked up, but I hold the Constitution sacred and it’s important to weigh all new laws against the wording of that document, and when in doubt, err on the side of liberty.

Separation of Church and State: It’s hard to separate religion from politics when the politicians rule with their dogma and fail to uphold the Constitution. The laws of this country are to protect the freedoms of the individual, even if they go against the morals of those making the laws. Morals are not always shared by everyone, ethics are a greater common denominator than morals are, IMO.

Gun Control: Use both hands. We already have laws on the books, use them. There’s no point in making more laws, when the current ones aren’t fully enforced. The AWB was stupid, I’m glad it sunset. Oh yes, I support the NRA.

Abortion: Medical procedures are between a Dr. and his/her patient. An abortion is a medical procedure, the State does not have the right to dictate what medical procedures can or cannot be used, unless there is a safer and equally effective procedure. Abortion is not a means of birth control, and those who use it as such will reap the consequences of that choice. It is an unnatural procedure and eventually the body will react to it negatively. I would much prefer to see the use of the chemical abortions that mimic the actual birth instead of a procedure that violently removes the zygote/embryo/fetus.

Welfare: There are people who need it, and I have no issue with its existence outside the need to put a cap limit on it and include job training with continuing ed. In regards to those who wish to abuse it by continuing to have children to remain on welfare, or get more money… if it is determined that a woman, or couple, continues to have children that they cannot support the state should have a say in regards to those children, as it is supporting them and as such has the right to take them away.

Sex Ed: Not enough parents are giving their children the information needed to make informed decisions. The idea that if we don’t discuss it, it won’t happen is ignorant. I’d be less for Sex Ed in schools if parents were taking the responsibility that they should be taking. But as enough aren’t, schools have to supplement, and that includes information on how to utilize contraception (this goes back to the abortion stuff too). The idea that kids are going to remain chaste is nice, in theory, and some actually will. Those that do will probably have a greater knowledge base and be able to decide on whether or not they are ready to accept the consequences of having sex.

Military: Never have a smaller military capability than the largest military outside your own borders.

Drugs: Those that just give you the munchies, legalize them and treat it like alcohol. If you’re caught driving under the influence, ticket it. Those that make you thrash around like a fish out of water and beat the crap out of your girlfriend that you mistook for your couch, leave them illegal and bust those that sell. In the words of Marilyn Manson (as much as I can’t stand the guy) Drug abusers give drug users a bad rap.

Immigration: If you do it legally, I respect you. If you break the laws of this country to get here, you deserve to be sent home because you don’t deserve to be here. I believe in workers visas, and have no issues with people coming here just to work under those, I think we need heftier fines for those who hire illegals.

Health Care: For those who can’t afford it, I think a semi-socialized health care program could work. Or at least an affordable comprehensive program would be nice.

This is the start, if you all have any questions or want to know my position on things that I haven’t addressed here, ask. If I don’t have enough info on the subject, I’ll research and develop a base opinion and let you know.

22 comments

  1. heh. i consider myself a moderate with liberal leanings. the only places i differ from you in these lists would be on drugs (keeping any illegal will only continue the cachet of the illegal ones, and allow illegal syndicates to profit by supplying them) and welfare (i have seen no credible evidence of so-called “welfare mothers”, and regardless of their existence, the total budget of welfare in this country is not sizable enough to worry as much as some do over some potential minor corruption – better to tighten up the bidding process for defense items to prevent $500 hammers and $25,000 toilet seats due to the arbitrary decisions of engineers).

    very similar, we are, politically speaking.

    Like

    1. As far as drugs go, the lighter ones will be taken off the black market, if the gov’t is smart they’d start cheap to bottom out that market. Yes, the ones that are considered illegal would continue on the black market, but all drugs are going to continue on the market regardless our drug policy (which we’ve been oh so successful with 😉 ).

      Welfare mothers- well, I’d rather plan for their existence than deny their existence, if you understand what I mean. I would just rather see people take more initiative to better their life than sit around accepting handouts whenever they can and not doing anything in between.

      And yes, I agree that the Gov’t bidding process needs to be revamped. There’s no need for them to be spending half the money they do, just because someone can make a shoddy product and jack up the price.

      Like

      1. fair enough. as i said, we have very similar views, overall.

        there is one thing, though, which you touch on briefly in your discussion of immigration, but which seems critical to me: reform of corporate law, to make corporations both more accountable for their actions, and also improve the ability of other business models (such as proprietorships and partnerships) to compete effectively. corporations should be given the same liabilities as other people, or else other people should be given the same liability protections as corporations.

        Like

      2. I’m not fully familiar with Corp. Law, in regards to Immigration. What I do know, in regards to the liabilities, is that they are determined by what set-up at start-up an proprietor chooses. I own an LLC, so there are something that I’m liable for, in regards to my interactions with my employees and clients, and some things that I am not.

        Given what I have seen with some of the larger Corps, in regards to their actions as an entity, I do think there needs to be some kind of reform, especially in regards to such incidents as Enron and WorldCom.

        Like

  2. I agree with pretty much all of this.

    To me, this is all common sense. I don’t think that any reasonable person can strictly follow either side’s party line exclusively, because both sides have good points, and both sides are equally full of shit. Let me expand upon what you’ve stated here…

    Separation of Church & State: One thing my local conservative friends and I agree on is our disgust when Bush starts evoking God, or any references to his “morality” in his speeches. This is unfortunately difficult for people in most of the red states to understand, since their areas are almost exclusively Christian. Having grown up in a college town (Iowa City, IA), lived in New York for 12 years, and worked in a scientific field that most Americans avoid like rectal cancer, I’ve been exposed to a great deal of ethnic and religious diversity. To say that my WASPish background is the only right way to go would be completely wrong. There’s many people from different backgrounds who have been far better and kinder people than most of the devout Christians I’ve met. And while the diversity seems to be limited to the coasts, our nation IS diverse, and our leaders should be more conscious of that. And it’s doubly important in our international dealings, since the vast majority of the rest of the world is NOT Christian. Not showing some level of respect for other people’s viewpoints has been a major failing of the current Administration, and while I don’t agree with Rove that the liberals wanted to offer terrorists therapy, we do have to be more understanding and respectful of their background they came from so as not to further alienate the people at large, thus becomming a terrorist recruiting tool in our ignorance.

    Gun Control: Nothing really to add. Some weapons don’t need to be in the hands of the public, but how many of the people committing crimes with them are the ones who went through legal channels to get them anyway?

    Sex Ed: Agreed. I think it’s actually good for schools to teach the simplest basics about reproduction and contraception. It’s religion and parental supervision that should teach the morality of behavior and the SOCIAL consequences. And I’m not talking about cop outs like “you’ll go to hell if you go gay”. Teach kids the biology early while they have NO interest in peforming any of it (I got my first classes in grade school), and the parents can supplement it with their sense of ethics. Done deal. Ignorance about the biology is actually MORE dangerous, because people will be more likely to make mistakes that way (ie: teen pregnancy, STDs, etc.).

    I don’t really have anything to add to your other points here.

    What are your views on taxation (I’m a liberal here, and am for progressive taxation)? What law decisions should be federal jurisdiction, and what do you feel should remain the sole responsibility of the State (ie: gay marriage)? How about Affirmative Action (I’m more conservative here; is this really still necessary? Shouldn’t we just focus on economic need and academic merit regardless of ethnic background)?

    Interesting discussion, freaky. 🙂

    Like

    1. Re: I agree with pretty much all of this.

      My leanings with taxation right now is almost in line with the Libertarian idea of moving it towards taxable goods and away from the Federal “savings” account (least, as I don’t make much, that’s what it is for me). I don’t agree with the current set-up, because in all honesty, there’s too much room for corruption and I could have stored the money I had to shell out previous, for taxes, in a money market account and supplemented my income to where I wouldn’t have to depend on others for living support (effectively, I’m a stay-at-homer with no kids and not even a p-t job). But that’s a whole different avenue to explain why I haven’t gotten a more stable income.

      Marriage, IMO, is something the States need to be more involved in, and the Fed. needs to stay out of. If the states are going to be in the business of recognizing and validating marriage contracts, they need to recognize both gay and straight marriage and leave the dogmatic recognition to the Churches who perform the ceremonies. This kinda goes back into the separation of Church and State to me, because contracts are contracts, regardless whether they’re between those of the same sex, or those of different ethnic backgrounds. The Constitution does not differentiate this and should not discriminate on the basis of religious motivations (e.g. marriage is for procreation, if you can’t procreate then you can’t marry). Honestly, if they really want to make marriage between a Man and a Woman, because only they can procreate, then we need to start issuing fertility tests to prevent those who are infertile from marrying (yes, I’m taking it to an extreme).

      As for Affirmative Action, the way I understand it from my sociology studies, it’s just giving the minority who’s as equally qualified as the majority a chance vs. hiring someone on the basis of their gender and skin colour. I agree with the principles, but I don’t agree with the implementation, as we’ve ended up in a back-swing on the pendulum in the same manner that we get the vocal Christian groups claiming discrimination against the government. At this point, I would think that we have gotten past that in our hiring practices, but having worked in corp America, I know some haven’t. I don’t think it’s really necessary, as the only thing it’s doing is giving a means to blackmail into a job. Why someone would want to work somewhere, where they got hired on the basis of fear is beyond me. But I don’t think that’s really all that commonplace. And yes, we should focus on the need and academic merit in hiring. One of the check-points in Affirmative Action is the measuring of work experience between two candidates of different ethnic backgrounds. Well, that’s entirely rhetorical because one can have a short experience in that work field, but the quality could be more in-depth than that of someone who’s been in the field for years. It’s too wide a view to really be able to make any use of the foundations to implement. Short-story, it’s a useless hiring tactic.

      Like

      1. Re: I agree with pretty much all of this.

        Explain what you mean by “taxable goods”. The only image that comes to my mind at the moment is “sales tax”, which is regressive taxation (puts more burden on the poor, as both rich and poor end up paying the same dollar amount for things, but that has far less impact on the guy making 10x the amount of money). Believe me, my salary has increased enough over the years for me to discover the painful side of higher tax brackets and progressive taxation eating increasing percentages of my paycheck, but within reason I find it far more reasonable that the typical conservative tax cut obsessions that only benefit the rich. And what Federal savings account are you talking about? Last I heard we had a deficit in the order of trillions. (Yeah, thanks for all the economic manipulations that increased the national debt and made you and your buddies richer, Bush, you fucking hack).

        I actually don’t think you’re being extreme with the fertility test schtick. I thought that before you even mentioned it. I think the libs should get their shit together and start forcing that issue in retaliation every time the Right goes on their anti-gay rampage next time.

        Like

      2. Re: I agree with pretty much all of this.

        I’m actually going to have to read up more on how the Libertarians set-up their tax scheme. Just, the way it’s been explained to me is taxation on luxury goods, and the like, while doing away with federal taxes (oh Scotsman, you want to explain this?). Ok, I call Federal taxes a savings account because that’s what it is for me. I get all my taxes back come tax time, because I don’t make enough to actually pay taxes, hence the term savings account. If you took my earnings on their own, then I would be elgible for welfare, but I refuse to take that, and I have people who are willing to help me out as my business gets on its feet. Reality is, it’s the middle class that bears most of the burden of taxation, not the poor. Irregardless, the current system does not work and I would like to see it reformed so that the economic class divide shrinks vs get larger.

        Like

      3. Re: I agree with pretty much all of this.

        The Fair Tax Plan actually makes accommodation for the poor in a very direct manner and through indirect methods as well.

        The first is that every person (or dependent) receives a base rebate every month that’s handled by the Social Security Administration. It’s paid in advance and is around $9000 for a single individual, going up for each member in the family. The calculation is based on the expected tax paid on basic goods and services that every person would pay as part of normal going. The end result is that the Poor people pay not net sales tax up to the poverty level. After that, they pay based on what they spend on new goods and services. If they go out and buy spinners, they pay taxes on them. If they buy a used car, they don’t pay sales tax. Expensive consumption will be taxed. However, if you choose to save money for a rainy day, you’re not taxed. Most of the money thats in off shore accounts earning interest overseas and providing capital for overseas banks would come back home to roost where it would be invested domestically. Some people would still invest overseas, but it would be specifically to diversify as opposed to being a means of evading domestic income taxes.

        The nice thing about this system is that those that are normally under the radar (black market, illegal immigrants, unreported income) is taxed on the consumption side with out all of the excessive government intrusion into our banking and other financial transactions, our monthly tax payments made through work and IRS audits. The Constitution was Amended to allow IRS type income taxation. That should say something.

        The other big thing about the Fair Tax Plan is that the whole IRS tax system costs a lot of money. Each Company pays something on the order of $2000 per employee per year on IRS tax compliance. Economist that have looked at this plan tend to agree that the whole IRS system costs us an extra 23-30% that’s hidden in the entire structure of all goods and services.

        Read the FAQ. Its really quite interesting. Even people like Clark Howard have signed on as saying the plan looks really good for everyone involved. Even Tax Accountants endorse it.

        Like

    2. Re: I agree with pretty much all of this.

      Gun Control: Nothing really to add. Some weapons don’t need to be in the hands of the public, but how many of the people committing crimes with them are the ones who went through legal channels to get them anyway?

      Such as? Give a clear reason why such weapons should not be in civilian hands.

      Like

      1. Re: I agree with pretty much all of this.

        Heheh. We’re talking extremes here (and my terms may be way off, as I’m just picking bits of hearsay from my gun-nut friends). Jim Bob doesn’t need a shoulder rocket or a Barrett(?) for his Jeep. Granted, I’m not necessarily saying that obnoxious equipment like this should be illegal to own, but there should be a degree of regulation like any highly lethal piece of machinery (ie: automobiles). Weapons like an AK-47 seems like an iffy subject that could go either way. Selling an AR-15 (friend of mine has one, I LOVE shooting that thing) and the conversion kit to make it an M-16 but having it illegal to have the two together just seems stupid. What is that really going to solve or prove? I suppose I just feel that anything that could take out an armored car probably shouldn’t be in civilian hands.

        I’m kind of in the middle on this one. There should be certain limits and regulations on weaponry, but some of the current gun control meddling strikes me as unnecessary.

        OK, so let’s take the other side of the argument here. How would you justify allowing some of the heavier-duty weaponry into civilian hands? What limits do you think would be appropriate? Where is the cut-off in your mind? Should civilians own live grenades? How about biological weapons? Chemical weapons? Or, more obnoxiously, what if Bill Gates wanted to buy his own personal nuke? Should we let him?

        I guarantee you’ve studied this far more than I have (people with an interest in military schtuff seem to have the same focus on this sort of things as potheads seem to have on the multitude of benefits for marijuana, or I have for the whole MP3/file-sharing madness). I’m actually quite curious to hear your perspective on this subject. I find it rather fascinating. 🙂

        -Packgrog

        Like

      2. Re: I agree with pretty much all of this.

        Jim Bob doesn’t need a shoulder rocket or a Barrett(?) for his Jeep. Granted, I’m not necessarily saying that obnoxious equipment like this should be illegal to own, but there should be a degree of regulation like any highly lethal piece of machinery (ie: automobiles).

        You still haven’t really said why other than “he doesn’t need it”. In a free society, there are a great many things we have that we don’t need. Freedom does not presuppose a prior need. However, given the context of the 2nd amendment (and the fact that in the day, an individual could own and operate a man of war with all the cannons and mortars that could level a town) it seems folly to say that civilians ‘do not need’ a given kind of arm (we’re talking conventional stuff here as I have never seen anyone on the pro side of the 2nd amendment argue that it applies to Nukes or Bio Weapons).

        In the context of the standing population and the traditional (and codified) definition of Militia, the people should have access to the standard arms of the current military. That used to be rifles and muskets (with civilians actually having the better weapons more often in the form of rifles whereas the military went for the faster firing but less accurate smooth bore muskets), now it should arguably be M16s, FN MAGs and M60s.

        OK, so let’s take the other side of the argument here. How would you justify allowing some of the heavier-duty weaponry into civilian hands? What limits do you think would be appropriate? Where is the cut-off in your mind?

        The cutoff should stand where it stood in 1934 after the passage of the NFA. MAchine guns, silencers and short barreled rifles/shotguns would be regulated by being taxed. That’s it. $200 transfer tax, that’s as much as congress has power to do. Anything further violates the text of the 2nd amendment AND the Commerce clause. The Congressmen that passed NFA’34 felt that was the most they could do to limit Machine guns from people like Bonnie and Clyde (who were running around with Browning Automatic Rifles).

        If Bill gates wanted to operate his own bomber force, he could. He’d have to import the right bombers. He could also get permits for the explosives. He would however be limited from flying them at anything faster than Military power and he would not be able to fly the aircraft armed (FAA regs iirc). If he wanted to buy an Avro Vulcan Nuclear bomber from the UK and refurbish it, he could. People own tanks, artillery, mortars and all sorts of destructive device equipped weapons.

        Where Barret 50’s are concerned, would it surprise you to learn that the whole technology resulted from some guy tinkering in his garage? The technology and development that benefits the military is funded and spurned on in part by the very large civilian population that shoots these weapons. The manufacturers exist in more than one small factory specifically because the civilians buy them too. If Ronnie Barret were the only one making them, (McMillian Brothers is the other big military supplier) then the troops would have fewer options and our tax burden would in fact be greater for a given procurement of a group of weapons. Which is more expensive, developing a given product with a $250,000 development cost amortized over 1000 units or the same product amortized over 10,000 units? The same goes for police departments.

        Ultimately, tanks, RPGs, Mortars, Cannons (155mm, 3″, 37mm AT guns) and other smaller things like simple Machine guns are still legal, if restricted in supply to some degree. If I wanted to, I could drive my Armored Car down the street and into a bank. I don’t because I’m law abiding. I could do the same thing with a bulldozer, a semi or a bus. The fact that I own 3 armored cars didn’t create my opinion, it only re-enforces it. The simple fact is that no-one that’s legally owned this stuff as a civilian over the past 50 years has done anything wrong with it. The only Machine gun recently used in a crime, was owned by a cop who used it to murder an informant.

        Like

      3. Heheh

        I already admitted it’s not an issue I follow closely. No need to crawl up my butt for an ignorant viewpoint. I already admitted to such. 😛 Heheh.

        But thanks for the perspective and info. It’s interesting to hear the perspective of someone who feels passionately enough about it to really explore it.

        That car is pretty cool, though! How is it to drive? Looks a little cramped based on your icon.

        Like

      4. Re: Heheh

        I already admitted it’s not an issue I follow closely. No need to crawl up my butt for an ignorant viewpoint. I already admitted to such. 😛 Heheh.

        I was nice. 🙂

        But thanks for the perspective and info. It’s interesting to hear the perspective of someone who feels passionately enough about it to really explore it.

        The problem with the whole gun control policy argument is that it never actually defines a goal that the public policy is supposed to accomplish other than some nebulous ideal. More often than not it falls short since the policy doesn’t actually address the root problem.

        That car is pretty cool, though! How is it to drive? Looks a little cramped based on your icon.

        Its not so bad, but it’s not super roomy inside. The gunner has the worst of the two seating arrangements.

        Like

      5. Re: I agree with pretty much all of this.

        [Pt 2 character limit]

        Here’s a question for you, why, if civilians are restricted from owning certain classes of firearms, are police given a pass on it? Why would a police department need a squad automatic weapon like an M60? This can be argued more successfully from a stance of fiscal prudence rather than questioning the right of a vietnam veteran (or a collector or a simple guy that likes machine guns) from owning the same kind of weapon.

        One should not be penalized based on what one might do. That flies in the face of the very principles of this nation.

        Some reading material if you really want to wrap your brain around the issue.

        Arms and the Law (has some interesting questions about the whole militia thing and the standing army)

        Guncite.com

        Smallest Minority Kevin is quite articulate in his pro gun discourse.

        Like

  3. hmmmm, thank you Lara for that info, much of which I have learned in previous conversations. The weird thing is . . your descriptions are logical enough that I share these positions, even though I call myself a non-Democrat l

    Like

      1. Ohhhhhhhhh you liberal you! Hehehehe, that’s ok. 😉 I still like ya. And I’m more than happy to open up, just gotta ask the right questions.

        Like

  4. GUN CONTROL: The only thing that I would want is a requirement that people who own guns actually be taught how to use them. I realize that it might not be practical now but if it would have been if established several decades ago.

    Like

    1. Most states, to my knowledge, require that for a license to carry. Ownership would be different due to those who collect, and not always collect working firearms. Of course, I consider it commonsense to learn how to use something you buy, especially one, who’s specific purpose is to mortally wound something. Trust me, I absolutely abhor people who are irresponsible with firearms, especially those in the city and suburbs who have kids and don’t teach their kids firearm safety and responsibility, and instead shirk that and blame the gun manufacturer. 🙂

      Like

    2. Gun Control is largely bullshit. Histrionics and fear mongering to garner votes.

      We used to have shooting ranges and such in school. Why is teaching people how to use a gun in high school (bb,pellet and .22) such a horrible thing now? It used to be Boy scouts learned how to use them. Now a picture of a gun in school will get you suspended.

      I would not be opposed to people being educated in school on firearms safety (just like people get sex ed) but to require government training (tacit approval) before they can exercise their rights is counter to the very fabric of the constitution.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s