Are you Liberal, Moderate or Conservative? And why?

[Feuer Frei!]

Not limited to Politics or Religion,
share your thoughts, Kaleuns!

[gimpy117]

I am a liberal.

I support they liberal policies of social responsibility. I feel that we, via government should use every available option to help citizens. I don't see using government programs such as universal healthcare, or raising wages as "socialistic" or policies hurting business; I seem them as ways of bolstering the common man in my country.

I feel the conservative ideals are not ideal at all, rather a collection of selfish policies that serve to give the wealthy more at the expense of the common man, or push personal beliefs onto others, Such as in the case of the gay marriage bans or trickle down economics.

[Sailor Steve]

None of the above. I side with the Conservatives on some issues, the Liberals on others, though often for the same reasons, which gets me into trouble with both. I'm hardly Moderate, but I'm still somewhere in between.

I don't trust anybody with any authority. I see the government as a useful tool and a necessary evil, which should be used in...Moderation.

I guess I'm a knee-jerk independent.

@Gimpy: We could have an interesting debate over your last paragraph, but I'm sure this is not the thread for arguments, and I'm hoping that while those who follow us will feel free to say how they really feel, we won't go down that road.

[edit] After rereading the OP, I thought I'd state my views on religion as well. In politics and religion I have a hard time believing anything that isn't proven, and nothing in either has been proven to my satisfaction. I don't know the answers, and I maintain a severe distrust of anyone who claims he does. People who are certain they are right leave no room for the possibility that they might be wrong, and when their most cherished beliefs are called into question they usually turn ugly. Those who "know" they are right (on any subject) also have left no room to learn anything new.

So I watch, and listen, and try to learn. And mostly fail.

[nikimcbee]

@ Steve
I'd say that's what I beleive regarding religion. I;ll just add, that's the beauty of this country, you can (almost) believe what you want to believe. The pursecution seems to be selective at times.

I'll just add, my views on religions are changing anyways.

[Feuer Frei!]

I better answer my own thread, after all, fair's fair.

It's been my constant belief that all individuals have both the right and responsibility to live under a state of maximal liberty. Only under such conditions is the best of ourselves allowed to express itself.
Conservatives, liberals and moderates all share one thing in common: the idea that they know what's best for the rest of us in some degree or another.
I tend to be rather moderate on most issues. Maybe it's a sign of aging. We all tend to move toward moderation and away from extremism with time and maturity.

It depends on the issue, I can go from side to side. There are a lot of contradictions in the stance liberals conservatives and libertarians have on certain issues.

[TLAM Strike]

I guess I'm what most would consider "far left". I would say I'm a quasi-anarcho-communist. I believe in a socialistic economic system but a federalized representative government.

[Castout]

I hate labeling I'm a human being!

[antikristuseke]

I like beer. Also I am an agnostic atheist. In politics it really depends on the issue which "side" i side with.

[Gerald]

I like beer. Also I am an agnostic atheist. In politics it really depends on the issue which "side" i side with. We know you like beer, which is common, but right now the bar is closed, according to current regulations, :D

[Betonov]

Liberal

Support free trade, free market, free speech, free press, free internet etc.
Universal healthcare or private subsidized, as long as it's not the US system.
Support gay marriages, die hard supporter of secularization (to a point that someone might call me a communist).
Hate communism and despise fascism

But there are some points I go conservative:
Immigration should be closed and selective, no rifraf, educated only and with background checks. Then I also agree that some types of piece are worse than war.

Why ??? I'm to young to be a conservative, I'm fed up with fat incompetent carrier politicians and I despise the church.

One more curious thing, I support an old roman republic custom of dictatorships. When the going got tough they elected someone (competent) to single handedly run the country and put things in order. no BS

[Skybird]

I have been called in this forum an extreme conservative, a reasonable consesrvative, a moderate, a liberal, a lefty, a socialist, a racist, a Nazi, a mad man, and a phobic. Sometimes very opposing terms were used on me by one and the same person, with just some short time between both statements.

For my own part, I can say only this: I am what I am, and labels and categories like these do not hold any fascination for me, nor do I think it makes sense to voluntarily agree to get limited in one's thinking by the descriptions of any of these categories. Not to mention that different people do not always mean the same things when using the same label. If anything, then I try to be a realist.

[GoldenRivet]

I consider myself to be a conservative libertarian on paper. For the most part i feel like government should stay out of the private affairs of the citizens. I think the government should be used as a means to create and enforce laws, wage war, protect the nation from foreign aggression and build infrastructure... i completely disagree that it is the governments job to provide the means for advancement for each individual citizen.

Whether i stand liberal, or conservative on an issue, depends entirely upon the issue being discussed.

for example - religion, abortion and guns - three major issues:

On Religion: I think someone should have the freedom to practice religion as they wish. I also think that there should be no "push" to convert others or force the religion onto others. While i believe that there is a supreme being responsible for creation... I honestly go to church only a couple of times per year, and i feel that someone can be "spiritual" without being a strictly devoted church member.

On abortion: I'm mixed... I support abortion - *IF* 1) medical opinion dictates that the infant will die prior to birth or shortly after birth 2) the infant would be still born 3) the infant will be plagued with ailments which would significantly reduce quality of life (bed ridden, brain dead etc). 4) the life of the mother is in any way threatened by continuing the pregnancy. 5) pregnancy as the result of rape or pregnancy of a minor as a result of rape or molestation etc. I think the final "authority" as to whether or not the procedure should be carried out should be the woman. I do not support abortion as a means for birth control. If someone is willing to engage in sexual intercourse, they surely realize that pregnancy is one of the risks of doing so. They should not be allowed to get an abortion simply because the life of the child would prove really inconvenient for their new years party plans. No questions asked adoption should be the alternative in such cases.

On guns: i think anyone should be able to purchase and own a hand gun or rifle. I also strongly support the concealed hand gun initiative. Once you have a history of certain violent crimes your right to gun ownership is revoked. High powered rifles, military grade rifles, or assault rifles are fair game providing you can pass an FBI background check. I am strongly opposed to virtually all other forms of gun control (ban ammo, tax firearms at a rate that makes it unrealistic to buy one, outlaw them completely etc).

[the_tyrant]

I'm generally pro-government
Don't care who's in power, but i generally support the incumbent
I never really supported the political activists (like the guys at tiananmen)

and yes, I hate being labeled, and being represented

[Armistead]

I use to be a fundy Baptist, fairly racist, ect. Maybe growing up in the south in a white country church that spewed hate and hellfire through my youth had effect, reminds me of the GOP now. Course that made me a strong GOP supporter. I'm not sure when a light bulb went off, probably a teacher I had in bible college, but I started using an open mind and mass study. I'm not a brain, barely got through high school, but I became a student of all history, politics and religion and lost faith in all three.


Like Steve, I trust hardly anyone in a position of power in government. I'm liberal on some issues, conservative on others.

I hate the GOP now. They are a group of elitist hiding under the disguise of religion and capitalism. They claim self-responsibility, unregulated capitalism, basically each man for himself can succeed or not, then all their policies support a mass corporate state of wealth.

They claim to be the party of individual responsibility, but then pass laws that give corporations an unfair right to get rich off the middle class. The GOP is the party of bail outs, but only the rich, with poor regulation, unfair tax code, unfair trade. The GOP doesn't believe in responsibility when it comes to corporations, they've gave them every advantage passing laws to make a few filthy rich off the backs of the rest of us.

We only need look back to how it was from the 1950's to about the 80's. Most that wanted had a decent wage, full benefits and a pension. To a fair degree corporate America served America. Then about 60% of us held all wealth, now about 20% hold all wealth, just 1% owns 40% of all wealth in America. That didn't happen because Americans were lazy, that happened due to government cutting back room deals and selling their vote. This proves trickle down doesn't work. Leave it to the GOP and we'll be a two class society in 20 years or less.

Then we have people following the Glen Becks....just a clown, using the same scare tactics radical preachers used. Glen, like most politicians will tell you a hundred truths to get you to believe one big lie and this is how most americans are scammed.

I would probably vote for Ralph Nader.

[Sailor Steve]

@ Armistead: You never cease to surprise me. I feel I owe you an apology for some of the things I've thought when we've discussed "certain issues".

I see some people have expanded on specific issues, so I'll do the same.

Big Corporations: I actually agree with the liberals in the belief that it's wrong for some to earn huge amounts of money while paying employees a pittance. On the other hand I also feel that what I find right or wrong isn't necessarily the truth. My problem is with the concept of using the government to make it better, simply because I don't think that government is capable of making anything better, only of shifting the badness around. Government needs to punish those who actually do something illegal, but controlling the way things work just makes for bigger and more powerful government, without actually fixing anything. So no, I don't have a sure answer, but I still don't trust people who think they do.

Abortion: While within myself I feel that abortion is just plain wrong, I also acknowledge that my feelings and opinions are just that. The only person whose opinion matters is that of the expectant mother, and if she chooses to take that route then all the options, including competent medical help, must be legally available to her. As for late-term abortions, I feel that if the child has reached a stage where it can live outside the mother, it should be allowed to.

[Takeda Shingen]

I don't fit neatly into the categories either. I am on the right when it comes to fiscal issues, and more centrist on social issues. As per GoldenRivet's post:

Religion: The state needs to leave religion alone, and religion needs to leave the state alone. There are too many people on each side that like to meddle in the other's business.

Abortion: Abortion is legal, as per the law of the land. It's legality does not infringe on anyone's civil liberties. Outlawing abortion would impose on civil liberties. As such, I am in favor of retaining it's legality. Arguments against abortion are largely of a religious or spritual nature, and for that, you can see above for my stance on religion leaving the state alone.

Guns: I am fine with the purchase and ownership of firearms pending background checks. I am also fine with carry and concealed carry permits with proper paperwork.

And to expand:

Homosexual civil unions: The prohibition of civil unions is an infringement on the rights of homosexuals. As such, I am in favor of lifting that prohibition. The opposition to this is of a religious nature, and for my response, again, see my stance on religion leaving the state alone.

[CaptainHaplo]

Man alive I could so correct some of the earlier posters with their alternative views of history. Perhaps in another thread... (Must... Use.... Restraint.... UGH!)

I have been told that if politics were an airplane, I'd hae 2 right wings. Oddly enough, I disagree. I am not a republican. I am independant. I am socially and fiscally a conservative. However, there is a huge misnomer about what that means. Conservative and republican are NOT the same things, though the media often uses the terms interchangeably.

Republicans bailed out banks, in an effort to support their fat cat bank buddies. Democrats bailed out the auto industry, in an effort to support their fat cat union buddies. That is "party politics" - and both were wrong. The banks and the auto industry (minus Ford and the foreign auto makers) all should have been allowed to fail. This "too big to fail" is a crock. Sure, the banks crashing would have been hard - sure the loss of GM would have hurt employment numbers, but all we have done is traded time for height - because we have delayd the crash, but we will fall farther (due to increased debt) than we would have if we had taken our medicine initially.

I am a constitutionalist. The federal government is in way to many things it was never intended to go into. Due to its medical regulation, there is no such thing as the doctor you call on the phone, he comes to your house, fixes you up, you pay him cash and the deal is done. Instead, he has overhead of an office, a dozen staff members (half or more of which have to be working to "file" insurance/ gov't claims/ paperwork. His costs are now astronomical - so he has to pass them on to you.

The federal government isn't there to pay your bills when you lose your job, or put welfare parents into housing so they have a place to make more babies, or to take your money via SS taxes to pay for the retirement of someone else. The federal government needs to be put back within the bounds of the US Constitution, and allow each state to handle matters from there.

On social issues - Gay Marriage for example - I am against it. Living in the east coast San Francisco, I pointed out to a bunch of activists that they could have every benefit of marriage without the penalties via other actions - its not about "equality" - its about forcing the rest of society to accept their view as the only "equal" one. Needless to say when I pointed out that their forcing their views when they claim ours if forced upon them, they took great offense. Its now about being fair - its about making something mainstream because of a few who want it - when the rest of society does not. Its about changing the terms to gain acceptance. Its never been about "equality".

I could go on and on. Abortion, Gun Control, taxes, foreign policy, etc.

One should never be a party hack, but have a stand on each issue because you have examined it, made your own decisions as to what is the right course of action, and be able to promote or defend that position through civil debate.

[Penguin]

Hmm, to fit into a pre-fab name I would call myself a leftie with the ability to think for oneself. Yep, I know some people might think: "Is this even possible?" :O:

As a part of the Generation Ferris Bueller I am against any isms. Maybe calling myself a libertarian in the non-US meaning fits... My first rule is individual freedom, but also freedom from oppression, exploitation and also important: freedom from damned idiots who are unable to have a mind of themselves! Greetings to the PC fraction and all the ism-people!:salute:

[mookiemookie]

Lefty, liberal, communist, socialist, marxist, blah blah whatever label you want to use I don't care.

Religion - Keep it at home or in the church/synagogue/mosque. A theocracy is a theocracy, be it a Muslim one or a Christian one. And that's a bad thing. Allow people free expression of their religion, so long as it's on their own private property.

Abortion - as Takeda

Economics - unfettered capitalism is a scary thing. Corporations are psychopathic entities that have no qualms when it comes to maximizing profit. Regulations need to be in place to ensure that they operate fairly. Recent government intervention into failing business highlights the need for appropriate regulation - if you're too big to fail, then you're too big period. The financial crisis was the fault of investment banks greed and short term thinking. If regulation is needed to check that, then so be it. Speculation on commodities should be banned. "Drill baby drill" and "windfall taxes on oil companies" were both idiotic responses to a problem that was never because of Exxon's greed or China's demand - it was because of speculators at firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

States rights - I have to admit I've not much of an opinion on this. I believe that unfunded mandates are indeed an infringement of the federal government. I believe that any talk of secession is foolish. I also believe that some people think that "state's rights" or "10th amendment" can be used to enact laws that undermine federal law. I think that sets a dangerous precedent.

Gay marriage - if people are too dense or bigoted to want to recognize the rights of all citizens to marry, then yes, the view that everyone is equal should be forced on them. And I say tough, get over it. Your moral approval of gay marriage, gay people or whether or not society wants it means about as much as a sparrow's fart. Tyranny of the majority, suckers.

Social security - I don't know quite enough to have a very informed opinion. I do recognize the need for some sort of social safety net for old folks, lest we go back to the days of pauper's asylums. The nuts and bolts of the system....well, I don't know.

Health care - Health care is a right, I don't care what you say. Universal single payer healthcare would get the corrupt insurance companies out of the health care industry. I'm all for it. It's been proven to work, in country after country. Anecdotal horror stories of foreign health care systems hold no water. Anyone can have a horror story about anything. On the whole, it's been statistically shown to work.

Federal government - Campaign contributions from anyone who is not an individual citizen should be banned. Contribution limits should be enacted. PAC's should be banned. The sources of all money going to a political campaign or in support of one should be clearly disclosed. Corporate lobbyist influence is destroying this country. On the subject of term limits - we already have them, they're called elections. Don't tell me who I can vote for or who I can't. More should be done to break up the monopoly of the two party system.

Gun control - Licenses and background checks are fine by me. Concealed carry is fine by me. I guess the system works well enough as it is now. I don't really have strong feelings on the issue. Most gun nuts I know are harmless. Criminals are going to get guns one way or another if they really want them...any sort of ban isn't going to stop that.

Border issues - It's not an either/or proposition. We need law reform and a stronger border. Like it or not, we've come to depend on cheap immigrant labor for many things. Our immigration laws need to be overhauled. We need to provide a system where these folks can work freely and pay taxes and have a path to citizenship if they desire that doesn't take 20 years. That being said, we also need to station the military at our border. A fence isn't going to do anything. Drug and people smuggling is dangerous business and represents a clear and present danger to our citizens. People attempting to sneak across the border need to be turned back immediately. Illegal immigrants already here need to be immediately deported. Any illegal caught committing a crime needs to be deported and banned from entry to the U.S. for life.

Death penalty - barbaric. Our justice system is not about revenge. Killing a murderer will do nothing for their victims. Life in prison with no parole is an appropriate replacement.

[Armistead]

Man alive I could so correct some of the earlier posters with their alternative views of history. Perhaps in another thread... (Must... Use.... Restraint.... UGH!)

I have been told that if politics were an airplane, I'd hae 2 right wings. Oddly enough, I disagree. I am not a republican. I am independant. I am socially and fiscally a conservative. However, there is a huge misnomer about what that means. Conservative and republican are NOT the same things, though the media often uses the terms interchangeably.

Republicans bailed out banks, in an effort to support their fat cat bank buddies. Democrats bailed out the auto industry, in an effort to support their fat cat union buddies. That is "party politics" - and both were wrong. The banks and the auto industry (minus Ford and the foreign auto makers) all should have been allowed to fail. This "too big to fail" is a crock. Sure, the banks crashing would have been hard - sure the loss of GM would have hurt employment numbers, but all we have done is traded time for height - because we have delayd the crash, but we will fall farther (due to increased debt) than we would have if we had taken our medicine initially.

I am a constitutionalist. The federal government is in way to many things it was never intended to go into. Due to its medical regulation, there is no such thing as the doctor you call on the phone, he comes to your house, fixes you up, you pay him cash and the deal is done. Instead, he has overhead of an office, a dozen staff members (half or more of which have to be working to "file" insurance/ gov't claims/ paperwork. His costs are now astronomical - so he has to pass them on to you.

The federal government isn't there to pay your bills when you lose your job, or put welfare parents into housing so they have a place to make more babies, or to take your money via SS taxes to pay for the retirement of someone else. The federal government needs to be put back within the bounds of the US Constitution, and allow each state to handle matters from there.

On social issues - Gay Marriage for example - I am against it. Living in the east coast San Francisco, I pointed out to a bunch of activists that they could have every benefit of marriage without the penalties via other actions - its not about "equality" - its about forcing the rest of society to accept their view as the only "equal" one. Needless to say when I pointed out that their forcing their views when they claim ours if forced upon them, they took great offense. Its now about being fair - its about making something mainstream because of a few who want it - when the rest of society does not. Its about changing the terms to gain acceptance. Its never been about "equality".

I could go on and on. Abortion, Gun Control, taxes, foreign policy, etc.

One should never be a party hack, but have a stand on each issue because you have examined it, made your own decisions as to what is the right course of action, and be able to promote or defend that position through civil debate.



I laugh at the GOP's response to gay marriage. Some say give them civil unions, all the same rights, but let's not call it marriage. That's the GOP's hypocrisy....let's give them "marriage lite" instead of marriage, so our religious base can better deal with their self righteousness.

You say they want to force their way as the "only equal one"... Don't even know how to respond to such stupidity. I laugh, most imply if we allow gay marriage, then all strait people are gonna turn gay. They aren't forcing anything, they asking to have the same constitutional rights you do. It's you that have forced your views on them by denying them those rights.

They only want the same equal rights as you do...Gays live and interact among us. We have a gay couple living down the road for the last 20 years...tell me, how will it effect me it they have a marriage certificate stuck in a bottom drawer. The rights they seek are not against you, but for themselves. These rights shouldn't even be a marriage issue. If I paid for property and the taxes on it, I should be able to give it free and clear to anyone.

Most are against gays as abnormal, ect...that same sex is repulsive. I know many men who claim gay men make them sick, that the same sex attraction is sickening, but then they go turn on porn and jerk off to two women having sex....it's about perspective. Sure, I don't want to watch to men, but face it, you watch two women go at it...it turns males on. It's about perspective....your sexuality.

People long fought against the religious base that supported slavery. Trust me, there is a connection that the south is the bible belt...much religion today is still connected to residue left over from the civil war. The south used religion after the war as a means to still promote racism. Most today saw that hate for what it was and as we accepted blacks had equal rights..{not that they really do} hopefully we'll let gays have those same rights.

You will still have the right to not be gay, teach your kids it's wrong, ect...

[Takeda Shingen]

I laugh at the GOP's response to gay marriage. Some say give them civil unions, all the same rights, but let's not call it marriage. That's the GOP's hypocrisy....let's give them "marriage lite" instead of marriage, so our religious base can better deal with their self righteousness.

I'm okay with labeling it as a civil union. Marriage, as a term, likely had a religious or spiritual connection dating back to the time of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. As such, I am fine with allowing religious intitutions to retain the title. If a church does not want to marry two individuals of the same sex, than this is their perogative. Equality under the law is what is sought, and so it should be given. In doing so, we allow churches to preserve their concepts while allowing homosexuals to enjoy the same rights.

[MaddogK]

I consider myself to be a conservative libertarian on paper. For the most part i feel like government should stay out of the private affairs of the citizens. I think the government should be used as a means to create and enforce laws, wage war, protect the nation from foreign aggression and build infrastructure... i completely disagree that it is the governments job to provide the means for advancement for each individual citizen.


On guns: i think anyone should be able to purchase and own a hand gun or rifle. I also strongly support the concealed hand gun initiative. Once you have a history of certain violent crimes your right to gun ownership is revoked. High powered rifles, military grade rifles, or assault rifles are fair game providing you can pass an FBI background check. I am strongly opposed to virtually all other forms of gun control (ban ammo, tax firearms at a rate that makes it unrealistic to buy one, outlaw them completely etc).
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/spezial/Fool/appl.gif

Very well said, sir. Lemme buy you a drink sometime.

[yubba]

Thanks too the lefties if you break one of these new light bulbs you got to call a Haz mat team too clean it up. I see gas is going over 3 bucks and neither side is really concerned, I guess the don't ask don't tell issue is more important.

[Takeda Shingen]

Thanks too the lefties if you break one of these new light bulbs you got to call a Haz mat team too clean it up. I see gas is going over 3 bucks and neither side is really concerned, I guess the don't ask don't tell issue is more important.

I remember gas prices over $4 back in 2004.

[Armistead]

I'm okay with labeling it as a civil union. Marriage, as a term, likely had a religious or spiritual connection dating back to the time of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. As such, I am fine with allowing religious intitutions to retain the title. If a church does not want to marry two individuals of the same sex, than this is their perogative. Equality under the law is what is sought, and so it should be given. In doing so, we allow churches to preserve their concepts while allowing homosexuals to enjoy the same rights.

Totally agree. Still, the need to call it civil unions over marriage shouldn't be decided by law, but by the persons involved. Many gays are spiritual and it they want the spiritual union called marriage, they shouldn't be forced to accept something less than other spiritual people. Each can seek a church based on their beliefs and rights. Certainly a church against gay marriage shouldn't be forced to marry gays and no one states that and I doubt a gay couple would desire it.

[GoldenRivet]

Abortion: Abortion is legal, as per the law of the land. It's legality does not infringe on anyone's civil liberties.

If those little infants could speak... i'm quite sure they would disagree.

not that i usually prefer to discuss this issue.

i dont think abortion should be necessarily illegal

i just think that there are a lot of "moms" out there felt they were plenty ready to jump into bed with 5 different men a week - but not quite ready to get pregnant, so they hire a doctor to vacuum out the fetus within them... rinse - wash - repeat the cycle. :shifty:

there should be more incentives for such women to give birth and place the baby up for adoption as opposed to just scrambling it like some sort of egg and referring to it as medical waste.

another question... what does it say about us as a society when we place absolutely ZERO value on human life? when we refuse to defend the defenseless? What does it say about our society, when even a mother, who's own flesh and blood grows inside her womb and she would just cast out her unborn child with the same degree of thought that one might place on throwing out bad fruit from their refrigerator.

if there is a medical necessity

if there is a high risk of death to mom or baby or both

if this is the result of rape or child molestation

by all means - have an abortion




but dont have an abortion just because you've made a poor life decision.

[Takeda Shingen]

The issue of whether a fetus is life or not is a spiritual one. As such, I believe the law should not be beholden to religious interpretation. Legally, a fetus is not a human being, and as we are not a theocracy (yet) we should no more legislate from the pulpit than we should legislate from the bench.

[razark]

I'm okay with labeling it as a civil union. Marriage, as a term, likely had a religious or spiritual connection dating back to the time of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. As such, I am fine with allowing religious intitutions to retain the title.
Would that mean that a heterosexual couple that got married by a judge would be "civil unioned" instead of "married", as well?

[GoldenRivet]

The issue of whether a fetus is life or not is a spiritual one. As such, I believe the law should not be beholden to religious interpretation. Legally, a fetus is not a human being.

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this one.

While my posts made no reference at all to the connection or lack of connection between abortion and religion... you and i are both intelligent enough to know right from wrong.

I would no sooner go out into my yard and seek to do harm to a small animal than i would to an unborn fetus however undeveloped or developed it might be.

If i were to murder a pregnant woman - I am liable to be tried and found guilty of double homicide. If i just kill the baby... has no wrong been done?

Its heart beats, it bleeds when you cut it, it moves about, it responds to stimuli... it does live.

abortion is just another of the millions of little ugly injustices vomited out onto the world.

[Ducimus]

Are you Liberal, Moderate or Conservative? And why?

Depends on what the subject is. On some things i'm very liberal, on other things im very conservative. :O:

[Gerald]

Depends on what the subject is. On some things i'm very liberal, on other things im very conservative. :O: Then you can call yourself a "hybrid" :D

[Armistead]

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this one.

While my posts made no reference at all to the connection or lack of connection between abortion and religion... you and i are both intelligent enough to know right from wrong.

I would no sooner go out into my yard and seek to do harm to a small animal than i would to an unborn fetus however undeveloped or developed it might be.

If i were to murder a pregnant woman - I am liable to be tried and found guilty of double homicide. If i just kill the baby... has no wrong been done?

Its heart beats, it bleeds when you cut it, it moves about, it responds to stimuli... it does live.

abortion is just another of the millions of little ugly injustices vomited out onto the world.


I tend more to agree with you. Obvious they should be legal, but they have become a method of birth control. I can't believe that so many would accept late term or partial birth abortions.

My son, now 13 was almost aborted. We got pregnant late and my wife has a blood disorder and was told for her health to abort at age 35. We actually went to the clinic and signed in twice only for her to walk out. The third time they called her to the back and I waited 45 minutes. I thought she had done it. She got on the table and the second he touched her to insert, she yelled stop. They even tried to talk her through it, but she walked out and told me she was having it regardless. She went through hell and in the hospital the last 3 months, but had a healthy boy, few weeks early at 6lbs...today he's wears a bigger shoe than I.

What amazed me as I sat in the waiting room I couldn't believe the amount of women with swollen bellies....like why wait. The laws may have been different back then, I don't know, but can't understand why so many wait to the last moments. You could also hearing nurses talk to them..."This is your 3rd or 4th abortion"....

Not sure about laws in all states, but if you kill a pregnant woman that decided to keep a baby, you would be charged with murder of both humans...not sure where that debate is now.

[Growler]

Interesting thread - and one curiously absent of the acrimony I expected to see. Well done, good gentlemen of all persuasions. Well done, indeed! (I mean this in all seriousness.)

Well. To the matter at hand.

I'm an atheist; well, more precisely, a secular humanist. Was raised Catholic, and am glad I recovered. To paraphrase Stephen Roberts: "I feel that we're all atheists; when you understand why you don't believe in any other gods, you'll understand why I discount yours as well." The current trend of blending conservative Christianity with right-leaning politics; a combined nationalist pride (which I'm mostly OK with) with religious zealotry (which I'm totally not OK with) scares the hell out of me.

That said, on the nationalist pride front - I'm glad I'm an American, even though I disagree with a lot of what my country does. I won a genetic lottery, being born here - I wasn't born in a third-world nation with little chance to make something of myself. My wife isn't a baby factory, because we were born here, and have had opportunities that majorities of people worldwide don't have. On the other hand, I will not blindly follow whatever the guy sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue tells me to do; regardless of which party he claims. My responsibility now is to question my leaders when they say they're doing something for my best interest. For instance, I can tell you that I experienced no personal benefit from the actions of certain Mssrs. Abramoff and DeLay, and I know no one who has.

Abortion, end-of-life options, LGBT marriage, gun control - none of these issues belong in governmental control, beyond the steps necessary to permit them as options. Government should not be in the business of RESTRICTING choice; it should be protecting the right to choose. Let an individual's faith structure determine his or her choices around these issues.

[gimpy117]

I tend more to agree with you. Obvious they should be legal, but they have become a method of birth control. I can't believe that so many would accept late term or partial birth abortions.

I highly debate that. Most decent people who get abortions because some type of control has failed. How easy would it be to have a small tear in the condom and not notice it until shes late? I even known women who have had babies while on the pill. As you may or may not know, these procedures are not cheap. 300-400 dollars a pop, and for people who cannot financially support a baby, the same people who mostly have abortions, it's nothing th sneeze at. So no, i don't agree with your statement, other than the part about late term or partial birth.

but im glad your child is with you and well. my brother was also a premie

[Tribesman]

I'm okay with labeling it as a civil union. Marriage, as a term, likely had a religious or spiritual connection dating back to the time of our hunter-gatherer ancestors.
Its the other way round, it became a religious thing, its origins are basicly a business contract between two parties which is exactly what they want with gay marriage

[FIREWALL]

I'm what you all said. :p2: Or... I adapt to the situation at the time.

[GoldenRivet]

I'm an atheist

Was raised Catholic

That would do it :haha:

:woot:

[GoldenRivet]

I highly debate that. Most decent people who get abortions because some type of control has failed.

without regards to control methods.

If you feel you are adequately prepared for sex

you must be - by virtue of responsibility - prepared for the consequences.

[GoldenRivet]

on the subject of gay marriage - i only wish it were illegal for me to get married.

I say - let them marry one another if they wish... and suffer as the rest of us do :DL

[gimpy117]

without regards to control methods.

If you feel you are adequately prepared for sex

you must be - by virtue of responsibility - prepared for the consequences.

thats why i always protect myself...not matter what she says. But i am under the opinion that if mistakes are made and you do wind up with a pregnant woman, and you know you can not support that child, it is not shameful to have an abortion, granted its done non late term.

[GoldenRivet]

you do wind up with a pregnant woman, and you know you can not support that child, it is not shameful to have an abortion, granted its done non late term.

which is the greater shame...

abortion?

or adoption?

:hmmm:

what do you think gimpy?

with an abortion - a person is denied the right to life.

with adoption - many people are blessed with a new life. People who may otherwise not have a child are given this child's love, and give it love in turn.





sometimes, we must choose the lesser of two evils... yes?

[gimpy117]

which is the greater shame...

abortion?

or adoption?

:hmmm:

what do you think gimpy?

with an abortion - a person is denied the right to life.

with adoption - many people are blessed with a new life. People who may otherwise not have a child are given this child's love, and give it love in turn.





sometimes, we must choose the lesser of two evils... yes?

depends on when you define life. you can adopt yes, but it still costs THOUSANDS of dollars to even have a baby in a hospital. hypothetically I would consider it yes, but i am not morally opposed to abortion.

if you are opposed to it don't have an abortion...but don't try to push you're personal dogma onto others.

[Sailor Steve]

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/spezial/Fool/appl.gif

Very well said, sir. Lemme buy you a drink sometime.
Please, when you quote someone include who it is. It's a pain to have to back and look up who it was that said it.

Thanks too the lefties if you break one of these new light bulbs you got to call a Haz mat team too clean it up. I see gas is going over 3 bucks and neither side is really concerned, I guess the don't ask don't tell issue is more important.
This is a thread asking you to state your philosophies, not go on a rant about what you don't like. Do you have any actual beliefs? If so please tell us who you are philosophically. If not, take it somewhere else.

[GoldenRivet]

if you are opposed to it don't have an abortion...but don't try to push you're personal dogma onto others.

no pushing of personal dogmas here... just a simple question as to which you thought the lesser evil might be.

but consider this... and prepare to be enlightened :smug:

technically, if a pregnant woman - goes to the ER in labor today - and delivers... she is not obligated to make a single payment. often times, the county (generally - but other times some other govet entity) pays for such deliveries wherein the individual cannot afford it.

or the hospital writes it off as a charity case.

trust me - thats a fact.

[Sailor Steve]

Its the other way round, it became a religious thing, its origins are basicly a business contract between two parties which is exactly what they want with gay marriage
On the other hand, it's my understanding that the purpose of the contract was to force a man and woman to stay together to guarantee the safety of the children of the union.

Which would mean that gay marriage in that context would negate the purpose of the contract in the first place.

I agree with you for the most part. I'm just raising a point.

[Madox58]

Technically, that's if she made a choice to carry to delivery.

So if the discussion is based on choice to carry to delivery or not?

That is not a good argument.
It presumes a choice was made but does not invalidate other choices.

[GoldenRivet]

Technically, that's if she made a choice to carry to delivery.

So if the discussion is based on choice to carry to delivery or not?

That is not a good argument.
It presumes a choice was made but does not invalidate other choices.

we were discussing whether it is a lesser evil to abort or place the child up for adoption.

all other things being equal... i think it is a shame that most people would site a completely imaginary expense as a reason to abort a fetus.

it costs nothing to have a baby - if you go to the ER in labor and you tell the hospital you cant pay thats their tough cookie, they are required by law to deliver the baby and not charge you for it.

my father does just exactly that for a living in Texas border towns to the tune of about 300 border babies per month.

depending on the facility his payment comes from the city, county, state or federal government for such services and the little Senorita pays ZERO


EDIT:

i had no intentions of turning this into an abortion debate... it is an issue i almost never discuss.

but to say it costs tens of thousands of dollars to deliver a baby hence that is an argument FOR a $500 abortion is ludicrous.

[gimpy117]

no pushing of personal dogmas here... just a simple question as to which you thought the lesser evil might be.

The way you worded that makes that hard to believe rivet. I mean no offense, but thats the feeling i get out of that.

[GoldenRivet]

The way you worded that makes that hard to believe rivet. I mean no offense, but thats the feeling i get out of that.

no offense taken... and none intended.

I guess it was the "What do you think gimpy?" part.

i was just addressing you as an individual for a reply, i wasnt trying to be an ass... thats all.

[Learjetcap]

I respect everyone's opinion, but for god sakes rivet, get the 152 off of my screen....I have 1800 hours instructing in that p.o.s. and can't stand to even look at another one.

[razark]

On the other hand, it's my understanding that the purpose of the contract was to force a man and woman to stay together to guarantee the safety of the children of the union.

Which would mean that gay marriage in that context would negate the purpose of the contract in the first place.
So would a heterosexual couple that chooses or is unable to have children.

[Platapus]

If someone accepts the concept that the purpose of marriage is to procreate, then logically sterile men and barren women should not be allowed to marry, right?

I don't think so. :nope:

Besides there is much more to marriage than procreating. There is the suffering, manipulation, mental anguish, and the lowering of the standard of living to keep in mind too. :D

[Armistead]

thats why i always protect myself...not matter what she says. But i am under the opinion that if mistakes are made and you do wind up with a pregnant woman, and you know you can not support that child, it is not shameful to have an abortion, granted its done non late term.

My wife was on the pill both times she got pregnant...and she didn't skip.

I think if abortion is done is should be done early. There is much evidence that late term aborted babies feel pain, go into distress, ect.. Most liberals will go out of there way to save animals over babies...seems to me they would champion this issue, but that's me.

[GoldenRivet]

I respect everyone's opinion, but for god sakes rivet, get the 152 off of my screen....I have 1800 hours instructing in that p.o.s. and can't stand to even look at another one.

That's about what I've got haha

Been wanting to change my sig but nothing comes to mind

[Learjetcap]

I would recommend any Lear (they never built an ugly one) or the badass Citation X if you must stick with Cessna

[Feuer Frei!]

thats why i always protect myself...not matter what she says. But i am under the opinion that if mistakes are made and you do wind up with a pregnant woman, and you know you can not support that child, it is not shameful to have an abortion, granted its done non late term.

Of course protecting oneself is a 'responsible' thing to do, however, and this is not a direct attack on you, sir, but it is a shame to see people say that when it comes to pregnancy, that it was a "mistake" and furthermore, that when such a (bad choice of words) 'mistake' happens, that the 2 people 'decide' that they cannot support this life is even more disturbing... and that the only way out is to have an abortion, i cannot stomach that.
Easy way out, it seems.
I read of many stories of new-borns being literally dumped out the front of church doors, or hospital entrances, or in extreme cases, and this sickens me, dumped in bins and god knows where else, where the only outcome is inevitable. Death. To a life that deserves to live, like we deserve to live. Like everything deserves to live.
I get the point about parents, or in a lot of cases, single mothers not being able to cope mentally or financially, trauma, physical abuse, mental abuse, drug abuse, and the list goes on...
Sure, we could delve deeper into the whys and the possible solutions to these matters, but that is another thread, at another time.
That saddens me to no end.
Surely there is some sort of compassion and remorse in these people who are charged with making these abhorrant decisions to just dump a baby and not care about his or her outcome?

Contraceptives are not 100% safe, nothing is, however, the 2 parties should be, and i stress the point should, responsible and mature enough to realize that if 2 people engage in acts of love that there may be a time when the contraceptive may fail.
It is before this time of failure that the 2 parties should have already engaged and come to the solution of such a possible outcome. Not afterwards, when the simple throaway (it seems) line is used of : "oh, it was a mistake, it just happened" and we cannot deal with this so there is only one thing left to do and that is to abort.
And before you condemn me for not having been in the situation of having to endure day in day out, for the rest of my life of what it is like to have a woman abort your child, many years ago, a woman i was with made that decision, without my consent, letalone not even discussing it with me.
You cannot imagine the pain and suffering i went through at that moment when she told me.
I wonder to this day what that child would have been like, our child, my child.
Yes, we practiced safe sex, yes, we discussed the consequences of our nights of passion and what could happen, and i was under the understanding that all would be well and that were it to happen that she would fall pregnant that that child, unborn, would be given a chance to live. Like we have been given the chance to live, by our parents.
Who are we to deny a yet unborn child the right to live, to grow up and be a good person, to excel at school, to be what they want to be in life, to love, to smell the flowers, to experience, happiness?
That is my belief, yes, it's my belief, we will differ in that belief, of course, i hope my belief will not cause a flame war, for that is not why i started this thread, far from it.

[TLAM Strike]

I would recommend any Lear (they never built an ugly one) or the badass Citation X if you must stick with Cessna

If you are going to put a Cessna there be bad ass and use the Dragonfly. :03:

[Sailor Steve]

So would a heterosexual couple that chooses or is unable to have children.
If someone accepts the concept that the purpose of marriage is to procreate, then logically sterile men and barren women should not be allowed to marry, right?

I don't think so. :nope:

Don't get me wrong. If you remember a couple of years back we had a huge debate on Gay Marriage, and I was one of the main supporters. It was then that I first used the phrase "Either you have freedom or you don't".

As I said before, I was just raising a point, not arguing it.

[TheSatyr]

I have always been a moderate. Unfortunately,because of things I've seen and heard and read I have also become a bit of a racist towards certain ethnic groups.

I also admit to leaning more to the right than to the left,BUT I feel that the left and right both have good and bad ideas.

What I do not like are the extremists on both sides. I consider them to be dangerous.

Finally,I vote for whoever seems to be closest to my personal views. Regardless of what political party they belong to.

[Takeda Shingen]

Reading the views in this thread has convinced me to join the Rent is too Damn High Party.

[gimpy117]

I think to be honest we've touched on what is more a moral issue than a political one. But by a pure moral standpoint this is what i feel:

I would be outraged if, when the time came i wanted a child, the government told me that i could not have a child due to some law. telling me what to do with my own seed.

on the flip side, i am also offended when people suggest the the government ought to be able to tell that you have to have a child if impregnation has occurred. I believe that until the baby can think for itself (Ie. why late term abortions should be illegal unless absolutely nessicary) it is an extension of your own body and something i think the government should never be able to tell you what to do with.

[Rockstar]

Gimpy, do you mind if I ask you what the basis of your moral standpoint is? In other words where do you derive your sense of right and wrong?

Secondly it is known a fetus can feel pain at 7.5 weeks without the mother ever being aware this pain herself. How do you define 'late term' and 'thinking for oneself'?

[gimpy117]

well my moral standpoint is my own rockstar. It would be sad if somebody else was telling me what the believe.

[Rockstar]

OK, I have as your answer that the basis of right and wrong boils down to you don't like being told what to do. But isn't that just lawlessness or did I miss something?

Now last I heard pain is a feeling and one responds to it by getting out of the way by thinking for themselves, just like you do. Morals aside how did you come to define 'late term' and 'thinking for ones self' then?

[Growler]

That would do it :haha:

:woot:

Oh yeah, that did it.

I've questioned "faith" and "religion" for years, and was best termed "agnostic" for a while. As I've gotten older, the answers I'm given make less and less sense. Watching my devoutly Catholic mother die in agony from leukemia and its treatments emphatically put the final nail in the religion & faith coffin for me.

[GoldenRivet]

When I was a kid I went to a catholic school for a couple of years. I wasn't catholic though as several other class mates weren't either.

Seems that the curriculum was based upon telling kids every day that they were going to hell for just damned near any reason.

[Sailor Steve]

OK, I have as your answer that the basis of right and wrong boils down to you don't like being told what to do. But isn't that just lawlessness or did I miss something?
We all have an inate sense of right and wrong. Whether that comes from reason or is given to us from an outside source is pure speculation.

Now last I heard pain is a feeling and one responds to it by getting out of the way by thinking for themselves, just like you do. Morals aside how did you come to define 'late term' and 'thinking for ones self' then?
I can't speak for Gimpy, but "late term" comes from the idea that the child is capable of surviving on its own outside the mother's body. The argument isn't whether the fetus feels pain, but who should decide whether an abortion should take place.

You have every right to say that you think a woman "shouldn't" terminate her pregnancy, and within that right a discussion of what the fetus can or cannot feel is valid. The only argument here is whether you or anyone else has the right to say she "can't". All other moral points are moot.

[the_tyrant]

you know, in places that abortion is illegal, is it allowed if by not aborting the baby the mother could die?

[Sailor Steve]

you know, in places that abortion is illegal, is it allowed if by not aborting the baby the mother could die?
Yeah, well, but, you see, in that case the baby's life is less important, so God doesn't care as much, which makes it okay.

Sorry to be trite, but it really annoys me when people say it's wrong but then come up with reasons why it's not so wrong, like in cases of rape or incest. Does that child have less of a right to live?

[GoldenRivet]

Yes as far as I know. In such a situation it would be legal

Abortion is a recognized medical procedure, which was once a tool used in dire circumstances, it is today often used to correct for the thoughtless and irresponsible life choices of others.

[Growler]

Seems that the curriculum was based upon telling kids every day that they were going to hell for just damned near any reason.

Yeah, does that sound like a loving, paternal god who created you in his image as his most perfect creation?

[antikristuseke]

He also fathered himself whom he sacrificed to himself so that his creation could be cleansed of sins in front of himself.

[Sailor Steve]

Yes as far as I know. In such a situation it would be legal

Abortion is a recognized medical procedure, which was once a tool used in dire circumstances, it is today often used to correct for the thoughtless and irresponsible life choices of others.
Actually, it has been used that way for thousands of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

[gimpy117]

OK, I have as your answer that the basis of right and wrong boils down to you don't like being told what to do. But isn't that just lawlessness or did I miss something?

Now last I heard pain is a feeling and one responds to it by getting out of the way by thinking for themselves, just like you do. Morals aside how did you come to define 'late term' and 'thinking for ones self' then?

late term is when the baby is as far as i know developed enough for consciousness. physical response to pain stimuli does not necessarily the same as conscious thought. Much of the pain response is reflex action, not actual higher thinking. But im sure the right to lifers have tried to pass this off as "proof" the baby is thinking.

[Fish]

I'll just add, my views on religions are changing anyways.

Your not the only one.

http://www.slate.com/id/2278923/

[Rockstar]

I have no pony in any political party or interest group. It isn't anything to do with right to lifers or pro-choice. I was interested what use as your foundation or moral guide. Which if I'm not mistaken was simply your own perception of what is right and wrong. I was just inquiring what you base that on.


I'll end by saying there is nothing like pain to make oneself aware they exist.