(June 22, 2014 at 2:24 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I wasn't asking you to give up your pro-life position. I was asking you to consider how pro-life you really are considering how Republican policies only ever exacerbate demand for abortions by keeping people impoverished, health care inaccessible and limiting access to contraceptives and family planning resources, and every vote you cast for one only makes worse the problem you want to solve.

I was asking you to think about how many abortions you're really going to stop simply by voting to make the procedure illegal, as opposed to voting to alleviate the economic problems and social stigmas that overwhelmingly compel women to seek this option.

Voting to kill human beings through capital punishment makes your position inconsistent, but that's far from the only consistency problem you have. You vote for people who advocate refusing to provide basic necessities to people who can't afford them, who deny affordable healthcare to millions of Americans, and who start wars that kill thousands of innocent people, just because you might save some fetuses (many of whom will grow up in poverty thanks in part to the votes you cast). This is about as magnificently inconsistent a position as I can imagine someone holding. From what I gather, you believe that life, and the rights accorded to the living, begin at conception and end at birth.

Democrats are guilty of the many of the same things.

Lets look at Wars:
Truman took us to war in Korea.
Johnson took us to war in Vietnam.
Clinton took us to war in Kosovo.
Clinton took us to war in Haiti.
Obama took us to war in Libya.

Voting democrat is voting for people seem to love taking the United States into Military conflicts.

Clinton also signed into law welfare reforms that drastically cut people's benefits....yet it didn't seem to cause any societal harm. There were no massive famines etc. Bush on the other hand expanded Healthcare benefits with his Medicare prescription drug benefit.

You have this view that democrats are angels and republicans are demons. The reality is they are a lot more alike than not.

(June 22, 2014 at 6:25 pm)Heywood Wrote: You have this view that democrats are angels and republicans are demons. The reality is they are a lot more alike than not.

Given what I've seen, his view is that republicans are very, very lousy.

I have not witnessed him claiming that the democrats are blameless. Only that they are lesser of the two evils, whereas the Republicans are the greater of the two evils.

(June 22, 2014 at 6:25 pm)Heywood Wrote: Johnson took us to war in Vietnam.

Oddly, the first combat casualties in Vietnam were in 1957 - during the Eisenhower presidency.

Oddly enough, you also didn't mention any of the wars that started during Republican presidencies. As I served in the U.S. Army under both Reagan and Bush Sr I can attest that there were several under their presidencies alone.

Quote:The reality is they are a lot more alike than not.

When it comes to whoring out to corporations and waging war, yeah, there's a lot of similarities - but there's a lot more to policy than that.

(June 22, 2014 at 7:18 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 22, 2014 at 6:25 pm)Heywood Wrote: Johnson took us to war in Vietnam.

Oddly, the first combat casualties in Vietnam were in 1957 - during the Eisenhower presidency.

Oddly enough, you also didn't mention any of the wars that started during Republican presidencies. As I served in the U.S. Army under both Reagan and Bush Sr I can attest that there were several under their presidencies alone.

Quote:The reality is they are a lot more alike than not.

When it comes to whoring out to corporations and waging war, yeah, there's a lot of similarities - but there's a lot more to policy than that.

I left out the republicans presidents because my point was that democrats take us to war just as often as republicans...You dems seem to forget all the military conflicts you've dragged this country into. But you are right...I was incomplete. I missed Somalia under Clinton. Also Clinton bombed Iraq several times....and Afghanistan at least once...I forgot about those.

I doubt very much that voting republican increases our likelihood of going to war as Ryantology is suggesting.

(June 22, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Given what I've seen, his view is that republicans are very, very lousy.

I have not witnessed him claiming that the democrats are blameless. Only that they are lesser of the two evils, whereas the Republicans are the greater of the two evils.

Precisely so, and this is rather the point. I'm not a one-issue voter. I have opinions on a wide variety of matters, and I choose the party which most closely aligns with them. Do Democrats vote to do things like start wars and attack other countries? Yeah. Do they occasionally vote as if they were conservatives, caring more about the ledger than whether people starve? Sadly, yeah. It happens a lot more than I would like.

But, the Republicans do it far more often and in far worse proportions. Democrats aren't engaged in an internal struggle to see who is best at wrecking the government. They aren't the ones clamoring for a resumption of the Iraq clusterfuck. They aren't the ones, by and large, governing states in which food and health care are vigorously denied to their people who can't get it on their own. They're not the ones rooting for a maximum of deadly weaponry in the hands of citizens or armed rebellion against the government.

They're the lesser of two evils, and I feel that I do the most good for the most people, with my vote, by casting it for Democratic candidates (as long as they are sufficiently liberal). Even if Republicans had a stance on any single issue, no matter how important to me, that I really liked, it wouldn't be enough to cast a vote condemning other Americans to worse poverty and more violence. I vote for candidates that treat human life, in general, as sacred, not just the undeveloped variety in wombs. That deserves the title 'pro-life' more than you do, with the way you vote.

Aside from your views on abortion, you're a social Libertarian.

Kim Stanley Robinson Wrote:"Even if you want no state, or a minimal state, then you have to argue point by point. Especially since the minimalists want to keep the economic and police system that keeps them privileged. That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. No! If you want to make the minimum-state case, you have to argue it from the ground up."

-Green Mars (1993)

Concerning: "What am I? Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent?"

I would have said "self-absorbed".

(June 21, 2014 at 1:47 am)Heywood Wrote: These are my position:
Abortion: I am pro life.

Capital punishment: I am against it.

At least you aren't being blatantly inconsistent. But if your rationale for being pro-life is religious, I'd like to see what part of Scripture (maybe quote the relevant Bible verses?) that you believe explicitly support this.

And if you are against capital punishment for economic reasons (since it actually costs more than imprisonment), then I'd ask why you are not for abortion.

Quote:Gay Marriage: Indifferent....What ever the people decide.

Are you indifferent to interracial marriage being allowed?

/is a product of an interracial couple.

Why do you think it is reasonable for consenting adults to even be considered to not be allowed to marry by other adults who have nothing to do with them? If it is because of religious reasons, you should know there are plenty of religious people who support marriage equality (by necessity of the number of people who support gay marriage, there have to be multitudes of religious people supporting it). If you think the people should be able to decide to disallow this, then you are in fact at least infringing on freedom of religion, among other things.

Quote:Drugs: should be de-criminalized.

Agreed.

Quote:Healthcare: Against Obamacare, Against Single payer, no problem with government building hospitals, hiring/training health care and/or contracting with health care providers to provide health care to anyone who wants it for no cost. However a private health care market should not be restricted.

I'd be somewhat interested in hearing why you're against a single payer system. Seems the obvious best fix we can make to our healthcare system, and has precedence for working well (not perfectly, obviously) in numerous countries.

Quote:Safety Nets: Social security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, house assistance, heating assistance, WIC, etc. Should all be eliminated and replaced with a universal basic income.

I'd need to see the details on this. The problem is that, at least from what I'm guessing, all those things would still end up being payed for. In what way would this actually change anything?

Quote:Minimum wage: there should be none.

Now THIS I gotta hear explained.

Quote:Discrimination laws: people and businesses should be free to discriminate. They should be able to hire and fire whoever they want, when ever they want for any reason.

Why is that? Businesses are part of the society's they're surrounded by. The idea that they are somehow entitled to do whatever they want in terms of hiring and treatment of people in their establishments is a little absurd. The only possible case I can see being made for this is for small businesses in some circumstances, and even that wouldn't seem to justify this.

Quote:Subsidies: There should be no subsidies.

Depends. We sure as hell don't need to be subsidizing massively profitable industries which need no help (like oil), who lobby their asses off to manipulate the system for an unnatural advantage to their company.

Quote:Military spending: Not opposed to cutting it, but we should have the best military in the world.....hands down.

What is that supposed to mean in terms of justification? Sure, we have the most advanced military around. Being as that's the case, why are we spending more than the next 5 or 6 best militaries COMBINED? Answer: military industrial complex. The fact that we went into Iraq at all (making many of these companies/Dick Cheney's friends ludicrous amounts of money & fucking up the entire region) is a good reason to start trimming it significantly, and changing our completely unsustainable foreign policy.
Anyway long story short, being the best doesn't mean we need to be spending obscene amounts of money trying to control regions of the world.

Quote:Environment: Not opposed to a cap and trade system depending on the details. EPA is a net good.

Maybe you aren't lost.

[quote
Regulation: should be minimal.[/quote]

And why is that? Corporations have an inherent incentive to be corrupt. They have a feduciary responsibility to make as much capital as possible. That's why they've gone as far as controlling government officials through legal bribes like campaign donations, and destroying those they don't like by pouring massive amounts of money into elections to ensure one side wins (think Koch brothers, Bloomberg, etc.).

Quote:Education: There should be a voucher system.

Why on Earth do you want a voucher system? Educational reform, theory and philosophy have become a recent, big interest of mine.



I'd say you're a conservative who'd consistently vote Republican, except in cases like capital punishment.

(June 23, 2014 at 2:38 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(June 22, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Given what I've seen, his view is that republicans are very, very lousy.

I have not witnessed him claiming that the democrats are blameless. Only that they are lesser of the two evils, whereas the Republicans are the greater of the two evils.

Precisely so, and this is rather the point. I'm not a one-issue voter. I have opinions on a wide variety of matters, and I choose the party which most closely aligns with them. Do Democrats vote to do things like start wars and attack other countries? Yeah. Do they occasionally vote as if they were conservatives, caring more about the ledger than whether people starve? Sadly, yeah. It happens a lot more than I would like.

But, the Republicans do it far more often and in far worse proportions. Democrats aren't engaged in an internal struggle to see who is best at wrecking the government. They aren't the ones clamoring for a resumption of the Iraq clusterfuck. They aren't the ones, by and large, governing states in which food and health care are vigorously denied to their people who can't get it on their own. They're not the ones rooting for a maximum of deadly weaponry in the hands of citizens or armed rebellion against the government.

They're the lesser of two evils, and I feel that I do the most good for the most people, with my vote, by casting it for Democratic candidates (as long as they are sufficiently liberal). Even if Republicans had a stance on any single issue, no matter how important to me, that I really liked, it wouldn't be enough to cast a vote condemning other Americans to worse poverty and more violence. I vote for candidates that treat human life, in general, as sacred, not just the undeveloped variety in wombs. That deserves the title 'pro-life' more than you do, with the way you vote.

I think a lot of government programs/laws progressives have pushed have made peoples lives worse or are simply a waste of resources.

I blame minimum wage a being directly responsible for cutting the legs off the economic ladder blacks were using to better themselves after emancipation.

The following graph suggests OSHA has had 0 effect on work place deaths.



If progressives really wanted to help poor people they would just give them money instead of various government programs designed to control them. Progressives are more about controlling people then actually wanting to help them.

---

(June 24, 2014 at 2:22 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(June 21, 2014 at 1:47 am)Heywood Wrote: These are my position:
Abortion: I am pro life.

Capital punishment: I am against it.

At least you aren't being blatantly inconsistent. But if your rationale for being pro-life is religious, I'd like to see what part of Scripture (maybe quote the relevant Bible verses?) that you believe explicitly support this.

And if you are against capital punishment for economic reasons (since it actually costs more than imprisonment), then I'd ask why you are not for abortion.

Abortion and capital punishment are both predicated on an ideology that some human beings are worse less than others.....that some human beings have a right to decide when other human beings should die. This is the same ideology the NAZI's used to slaughter the jews and the Americans used to slaughter the Indians. I would suggest that it is the ideology that is responsible for more evil in the world than any other. It is an ideology I will not embrace....but you democrats and republicans are more than happy to embrace it when it suits your desires. Trust me, there are plenty of people I would love to see put to death....but I do not let my emotions rule me(or at least I try not too).

Now regarding your other questions....I have pretty much answered those in other threads and I don't intend this thread to be a debate about specific positions of mine.

(June 24, 2014 at 7:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: Abortion and capital punishment are both predicated on an ideology that some human beings are worse less than others.....that some human beings have a right to decide when other human beings should die. This is the same ideology the NAZI's used to slaughter the jews and the Americans used to slaughter the Indians. I would suggest that it is the ideology that is responsible for more evil in the world than any other. It is an ideology I will not embrace....but you democrats and republicans are more than happy to embrace it when it suits your desires. Trust me, there are plenty of people I would love to see put to death....but I do not let my emotions rule me(or at least I try not too).

Okay, no. I should preface by saying I did not say I support capital punishment, because I don't.

Abortion has nothing to do with "Human X is better than human Y", rather that the rights of one do trump those of the other. This is not a foreign concept. It's the reason why killing someone else in a situation where such defense is actually necessary not to die is usually acceptable. Their right to live and act does not extend over your right to live in that case. And way to go with Godwin's law. Firstly, the Nazi's didn't even see Jews as beings with any rights whatsoever, and Native Americans, weren't exactly seen as being comparable to whites. Tell me how this is comparable to getting an abortion?