Most people probably know I'm generally liberal - not like some irresponsible reckless hippie lol, but more in the sense of just having compassion, respect and just trying to see where everyone is coming from. That being said, I'm more right-leaning on things like abortion (pretty much just a fancy, "polite" form of murder that I don't think is ever excusable) and generally very pro-law enforcement.

There's also right-wingers I feel like I should commend for certain things. For instance Rudy Giuliani - I think he did a great job cleaning up New York City in the early-mid '90s, compared to how it was in the '80s. Overall crime was reduced and I heard he instilled a politeness code for cab drivers, and it just seemed to be alot safer in general. Reagan seemed classy too, and I respect that.

On this board I'd say Mushroom too, I'm pretty sure he's a Republican. He speaks very well and seems to calmly discuss decent points that are hard to argue with. So it's like even if there's probably certain stuff I'd disagree with him on, I'd still be thinking "Hey, that's a really good point". Oftentimes what sways my thinking isn't even the issue itself, but the way its communicated.

I'm mostly Libertarian, so I find myself agreeing with each side about half of the time.  I do tend to agree with liberals slightly more than conservatives though.

It's funny you mention abortion though.  I'm very pro-choice, mostly because I think the repercussions of an abortion ban would result in me having to pay a lot more in taxes for welfare and orphanages.

Well I consider myself liberal apart from a few things: For example, the abortion issue, I'm fine if the woman wants to get rid of it in say the first 1-2 months, but not in the 7th or 8th month. And also it needs to be a 2 way decision, if the woman wants an abortion but the man doesn't then it shouldn't happen. Also I agree we should be tougher on violent crime (I'm speaking from my own country's experience here), longer prison sentences for repeat criminals and those who commit completely horrific crimes. But with that I'd like to see greater rehab programs in place.

Those would be the major 2 issues I'm not so "left wing" on.

Also I agree we should be tougher on violent crime (I'm speaking from my own country's experience here), longer prison sentences for repeat criminals and those who commit completely horrific crimes. But with that I'd like to see greater rehab programs in place.


I couldn't agree more, on both points. :)

I think rehabilitation is great for more minor criminals who can logically be turned around. Like maybe someone who got in a fight, smoked weed or did some petty theft as a teen, but who isn't really a "bad person" per se. I think it's important for THOSE (generally) nondangerous offenders to work towards something positive, and hopefully become a productive member of society when they get out of jail, and so they won't end up back there.

That being said, I hate when some cold-blooded murderer or rapist gets paroled in 15 years for "good behavior" or maybe they escape after being moved down to a minimum security prison. I agree that a life sentence should be a life sentence for good, especially to keep society and innocent people safe from them. I'm very pro-law and order in that sense.


As far as the abortion thing, I see what you're saying, but I think we've got to be careful who'se hands it's in. What if two deadbeats have sex and the girl unexpectedly gets pregnant, and they both decide to abort the baby? If they don't want to raise a child and/or can't afford it (I bet those two reasons are mostly why people get them), they should AT LEAST give it up for adoption, so it has a shot at a good life.

I used to be pro-choice too, until I thought about it and said "Wait a second, what if the woman doesn't make the RIGHT choice".

As far as the abortion thing, I see what you're saying, but I think we've got to be careful who'se hands it's in. What if two deadbeats have sex and the girl unexpectedly gets pregnant, and they both decide to abort the baby? If they don't want to raise a child and/or can't afford it (I bet those two reasons are mostly why people get them), they should AT LEAST give it up for adoption, so it has a shot at a good life.

I used to be pro-choice too, until I thought about it and said "Wait a second, what if the woman doesn't make the RIGHT choice".


You can't legislate morality.  The best the government can do is streamline the adoption process and make it easier for a woman to afford a pregnancy.  Considering how expensive a hospital stay can be for giving birth (and how most insurance policies still regard it as an "emergency procedure"), it's a hard sell to get the woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

If we set up socialized medicine, most of the expense issues will be dealt with.  Ultimately, however, it should still be the woman's choice.  At least, if I were a woman, I'd sure as hell want the government to keep its hands off my body.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm very much a pragmatist and an individualist.  I prefer the government stay out of private affairs as much as possible.

You can't legislate morality.  The best the government can do is streamline the adoption process and make it easier for a woman to afford a pregnancy.  Considering how expensive a hospital stay can be for giving birth (and how most insurance policies still regard it as an "emergency procedure"), it's a hard sell to get the woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

If we set up socialized medicine, most of the expense issues will be dealt with.  Ultimately, however, it should still be the woman's choice.  At least, if I were a woman, I'd sure as hell want the government to keep its hands off my body.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm very much a pragmatist and an individualist.  I prefer the government stay out of private affairs as much as possible.


People have to care about morality first.  If enough men find it not-quite-immoral to walk with a lady of the night, the ladies of the night will always have a market.  They don't have a good enough reason to believe otherwise.  The principles Jesus laid out were really radical in the animal kingdom.  It just goes agains our baser instincts.  Now, you can easily keep the baser instincts at bay when your...huh?  This crap is going nowhere...

People have to care about morality first.  If enough men find it not-quite-immoral to walk with a lady of the night, the ladies of the night will always have a market.  They don't have a good enough reason to believe otherwise.  The principles Jesus laid out were really radical in the animal kingdom.  It just goes agains our baser instincts.  Now, you can easily keep the baser instincts at bay when your...huh?  This crap is going nowhere...


Relying on the morality of others is usually a very disappointing pursuit.  It's funny that you mention prostitution though.  I think it should be legalized and regulated.  Granted, we would still need to stay alert to things like human trafficking.  In short, prostitution would require heavy regulation to function properly because of the related illegal markets that would likely rise in significance as a result of this change.

Generally speaking, it usually works best when you give people as many choices as you can, but you direct policy in such a way that unhealthy and irresponsible behaviors are mostly allowed but have a high enough cost (monetarily or otherwise) that said behaviors are naturally discouraged.  By the same token, healthy and responsible behaviors should be rewarded through policy.

People have to care about morality first.  If enough men find it not-quite-immoral to walk with a lady of the night, the ladies of the night will always have a market.  They don't have a good enough reason to believe otherwise.  The principles Jesus laid out were really radical in the animal kingdom.  It just goes agains our baser instincts.  Now, you can easily keep the baser instincts at bay when your...huh?  This crap is going nowhere...


Great points, Max. :)

I've thought about that quite a bit too. The market for anything exists because enough people want it, or at least succumb to the temptation if it's there.


You can't legislate morality.  The best the government can do is streamline the adoption process and make it easier for a woman to afford a pregnancy.  Considering how expensive a hospital stay can be for giving birth (and how most insurance policies still regard it as an "emergency procedure"), it's a hard sell to get the woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

If we set up socialized medicine, most of the expense issues will be dealt with.  Ultimately, however, it should still be the woman's choice.  At least, if I were a woman, I'd sure as hell want the government to keep its hands off my body.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm very much a pragmatist and an individualist.  I prefer the government stay out of private affairs as much as possible.

Even though I disagree overall, I do see what you're saying. That's probably one of the things I'm more right-leaning on, because we're talking about two lives if there's a baby growing inside of a woman. Again, what do you do if some chick who's a junkie or otherwise doesn't want a kid (but didn't use protection, for instance) gets pregnant and wants to terminate it? The decision making is on shaky ground.

The bolded parts I agree with, and yeah the cost is high enough even to women who are financially well off, not to mention someone who's struggling. That should be changed for everyone.

I try to not judge people who think differently and try to hear all sides without being biased.


It's funny you mention abortion though.  I'm very pro-choice, mostly because I think the repercussions of an abortion ban would result in me having to pay a lot more in taxes for welfare and orphanages.


But then someone says this and all i can do is shake my head and hope one day people wake up to what's important and start saying something worth applauding.

I'm sure everyone here knows that I am pretty much left wing. I have mentioned to Carlos on numerous occasions that I admire our Lt. Governor Brian Dubie who is a Republican because of his stance on Cuba. Yes, a Republican who wants to lift the embargo.  :o :o :o


Of course, every time I hear his name, I can't help but think of the show "What's Happening?" when they had the Doobie Bros. on it and Roger called hoping to get tickets and said, "Which Doobie you be?"  :D ;D ;D

Ok, back to topic:

I also admire Martha Rainville-a Republican who ran against Congressman Peter Welch in 2006. She ran a VERY clean campaign-no mud slinging, or anything nasty. I wouldn't have minded voting for her-her only major flaw IMO is that she was a Republican.


Cat 

I try to not judge people who think differently and try to hear all sides without being biased.

But then someone says this and all i can do is shake my head and hope one day people wake up to what's important and start saying something worth applauding.

How's that abortion ban situation going in Brazil?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Brazil

Perhaps, the Catholics of Brazil should realize that a ban only helps to keep their nation poorer and results in considerably higher illegal abortion rates than we have legal ones.

Do tell what's "worth applauding" though.  I figure being practical and realistic is applauded in most circles.

How's that abortion ban situation going in Brazil?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Brazil

Perhaps, the Catholics of Brazil should realize that a ban only helps to keep their nation poorer and results in considerably higher illegal abortion rates than we have legal ones.

Do tell what's "worth applauding" though.  I figure being practical and realistic is applauded in most circles.
i figure isabel's reaction probably has to do with your talking about orphans in terms of your tax burden. it comes off more than a little morally indifferent, and unfortunately i think moral indifference is far too popular in america these days, and is far too often dressed up as being "realistic" or "practical" when really it's just callous.

i figure isabel's reaction probably has to do with your talking about orphans in terms of your tax burden. it comes off more than a little morally indifferent, and unfortunately i think moral indifference is far too popular in america these days, and is far too often dressed up as being "realistic" or "practical" when really it's just callous.


Morals are somewhat subjective.  Finances aren't.

I would much rather live in a society where there is less spending on welfare and more access to contraceptives/birth control and healthcare/childcare than one where abortions aren't allowed, healthcare access is mostly for the rich, but spending on welfare is high as well as on orphanages.

In other words, I support policies that stop the problem where it starts.  Keep the poor from getting pregnant in the first place by making it easy to prevent pregnancy and access abortion.  This is not only cost-effective, but if you think about it, it's more compassionate as well.  I really don't see allowing someone to be born into this world unwanted and a ward of the state as being compassionate.  Why not terminate the pregnancy early on?  Life may begin at conception, but that's only in a technical sense.  A fertilized egg is little more than a microorganism at the earliest stages, and the fetus doesn't even really resemble a human life until a few months into the pregnancy.

At the very least, abortion should be allowed in the first trimester.

i totally agree with your position on abortion, but your way of justifying the position is... erm, disconcerting. i actually think finances ARE very subjective -- little pieces of paper we arbitrarily decide to exchange for goods and services. what could possibly be more abstract?

i totally agree with your position on abortion, but your way of justifying the position is... erm, disconcerting. i actually think finances ARE very subjective -- little pieces of paper we arbitrarily decide to exchange for goods and services. what could possibly be more abstract?


Hmmm...  good point.  Well, philosophically, you are correct.  If we keep going further into debt as a nation, our little green pieces of paper aren't going to be worth much.

Still, barring a complete financial collapse, it is more objective to try to decrease debt and conserve money than to declare one policy more moral than another.  I guess most people are used to discussing policy from the moral angle, but I usually avoid it because of how easy it can be spun.

I usually try to break things down into numbers for the sake of showing what the net financial impact of a choice is -- something much easier to logically defend than the moral angle.  Of course, I'm also an economist by study.  We tend to have a dry, monetary outlook on things.

check out a bbc documentary called "the trap" on youtube sometime, it's really interesting about kinda where this philosophy of distilling ethical dilemmas to quantifiable terms comes from. if you google "f&^k you buddy" it'll probably come up on youtube.

How's that abortion ban situation going in Brazil?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Brazil

Perhaps, the Catholics of Brazil should realize that a ban only helps to keep their nation poorer and results in considerably higher illegal abortion rates than we have legal ones.

Do tell what's "worth applauding" though.  I figure being practical and realistic is applauded in most circles.


How wrong you are ::) I'm in favor of legal abortion since i could understand what it meant and i agree that making abortion illegal only helps the growth of shady alternatives where both lives are at risk.

But what you said about why you support it is of bad taste and heartless. I don't give a damn if you're an economist that doesn't give you carte blanche for acting like a major jerk.
We're talking about real problems that affect real people like you and me so get off of your high horse and realise that if you want to live in society then you do have to care and worry about everyone around you and i don't know about you but i rather my taxes going to help who needs it than to the pockets of crooks in power.

Concerning things on the opposite side I applaud, I admire the ability that my country's Left has to manipulate the majority of voters, preaching one thing and practicing the opposite. I applaud their talent to get extremely rich while condemning Capitalism. And I commend their ability to fool almost everyone when they say they “extend social rights” while in actuality they are cutting down more and more liberties.

I am NOT being ironic. Of course I detest their policies, but I do admire their capacity to acquire and increase their power.

Unfortunately, my country’s Right is almost as evil as the Left -which is all well and good-, but they are clearly far more stupid, so they remain powerless. Too bad! 

how is the right powerless when they've been running the government for the last eight years and have their own dedicated cable news channel? i'm befuddled.

How wrong you are ::) I'm in favor of legal abortion since i could understand what it meant and i agree that making abortion illegal only helps the growth of shady alternatives where both lives are at risk.

But what you said about why you support it is of bad taste and heartless. I don't give a damn if you're an economist that doesn't give you carte blanche for acting like a major jerk.
We're talking about real problems that affect real people like you and me so get off of your high horse and realise that if you want to live in society then you do have to care and worry about everyone around you and i don't know about you but i rather my taxes going to help who needs it than to the pockets of crooks in power.


I'm not sure where you got the impression that I support giving money to the "crooks in power."  I was just pointing out that the economics of the situation favor what both of us already seem to support.  You seem to have a knack for creating arguments where there shouldn't be any.

I prefer to have a system where choices are maximized and entitilement spending is minimized.  Granted, there's obviously a debate over how much is the minimum necessary amount.  I support socialized medicine, abortion, and welfare, but I believe we're spending too much on welfare, and Social Security should be phased out.

That doesn't seem so callous to me.  Now, I may speak of it in terms of numbers, but that's because that's how it ultimately pans out.  It may not be the most pleasant thing to mention, but in the end, the finances are what determine if a policy is feasible.  It's unfortunate that this can allow a lot of people to fall through the cracks, but that's pretty much inevitable.  Until we start spending a lot less on the military and phase out Social Security, we're kind of strapped for funds.  Deficit spending is at an alltime high right now in America.

The Democrats were basically powerless between 2001 and 2006.  Your argument doesn't make much sense.


I don't think he's living in the USA.

Ant

I don't think he's living in the USA.

Ant






Good point...  If he's living in the U.K., then he does make sense.

how is the right powerless when they've been running the government for the last eight years and have their own dedicated cable news channel? i'm befuddled.


Please excuse me. I was talking about my country without mentioning which country it was actually. I live in Spain.

I apologize for not being clear.

Please excuse me. I was talking about my country without mentioning which country it was actually. I live in Spain.

I apologize for not being clear.

Ah.. so you're having a pretty good time of it at the moment: the current European football champions, Wimbledon men's champion, Tour de France winner.. and your financial institutions are buying up ours, too.

As for people I admire, I'd have to put in Tony Blair: as a leader, he managed to take the country into a war that 90% of the population were against.  That takes guts, and no small amount of leadership.  That he was wrong doesn't change the basic premise... OTOH, I agree with a lot more of what David Cameron's been saying to try and get himself elected, but don't have anything like the same respect (certainly not yet.. he'd have to show what he's made of in government before earning it.  May not be long now).  To be honest, I don't trust him one iota.

On this board, I'll echo what's been said about Mushroom.

Please excuse me. I was talking about my country without mentioning which country it was actually. I live in Spain.

I apologize for not being clear.
oh ho! i apologize for assuming that everyone is american. :D

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I support giving money to the "crooks in power."  I was just pointing out that the economics of the situation favor what both of us already seem to support.  You seem to have a knack for creating arguments where there shouldn't be any.

I prefer to have a system where choices are maximized and entitilement spending is minimized.  Granted, there's obviously a debate over how much is the minimum necessary amount.  I support socialized medicine, abortion, and welfare, but I believe we're spending too much on welfare, and Social Security should be phased out.

That doesn't seem so callous to me.  Now, I may speak of it in terms of numbers, but that's because that's how it ultimately pans out.  It may not be the most pleasant thing to mention, but in the end, the finances are what determine if a policy is feasible.  It's unfortunate that this can allow a lot of people to fall through the cracks, but that's pretty much inevitable.  Until we start spending a lot less on the military and phase out Social Security, we're kind of strapped for funds.  Deficit spending is at an alltime high right now in America.


And you have a knack for pissing me off with your posts,so i guess we're even :P

You think you're spending too much on welfare,i believe you're not spending enough. You think you pay high taxes when comparing to 1st world countries you don't. See? i don't see the US as 1st world country,your priorities changed so much through the years i sometimes wonder how can a great nation like yours survive when all i hear from you guys is the "f*ck you" attitude. The best countries to live are countries where people understand that for a society to survive we all need to contribute,that the number one priority is the population well being,that the rich need to help the less fortunate. Maybe America was never like that,maybe they sold us the "great country" and it always was a big lie or maybe you just lost all that was great about your nation.
You can talk numbers and economics and that can make sense to you but don't sum all to that because others have tried and it didn't worked. If "a lot of people are falling through the cracks" then it can't be anything but a complete fail.

oh ho! i apologize for assuming that everyone is american. :D


Please, do not worry!  :)

And by the way, neither should you take my political opinions too seriously. Most of them are slightly tongue in cheek.

As I said before, I wasn't being ironic in my last post, but it does not mean that anyone should make a big deal out of it.

After all, politics in general is business. Show business, mostly.  ;D

I'm a Moderate Republican and I really like John Glenn.

He was in the military, in space, and even a Senator. Too bad he never ran for President.