Liberal vs Conservative

First off, I've been drinking...

How can someone be either liberal or conservative. Can a person truely
subscribe to everything each offers? I think to claim to be either is not
only limiting, but close-minded as well.

On some things I'm fairly liberal. I'd like weed to be legal. I'm personally
against abortion, but who the hell am I to say some chick living on $5.15/hr
shouldn't have one? Plus, as a man, should I force a woman to give birth?
Raise EPA estimates on cars and trucks. Try support those in need.

On other things, I'm fairly conservative. 3 Strikes? Too weak. 3rd felony,
electric chair. Cut taxes, but cut spending first. Put another 100,000 guys
in Iraq, straighten the sh!t out and tell Iran to play ball.

I think this whole liberal/conservative thing is BS and just another way to
keep us fighting with each other so we're to busy too see what the people
in power are truely doing.

Just my 2cents, and that being said...beddie-bye, work in 6 hours...sigh.

I would support that if the current laws were not so complex and numerous as to making it difficult not to break some laws repeatedly.
People should be expected to be more responsible for themselves and their actions, laws and overhead can be reduced, and get tougher on those that break reasonable laws, thus creating the need eventually for less prisons.

Yep.

The simple answer is because it is the right and moral thing to do. Is it wrong to punish an innocent party for the indescretion of another? Part of being conservative is a strong sense of personal responsibility; and, that one's actions has consequenses-- consequenses both positive and negative. (For the record, pregnancies resulting from a rape or other type of sexual assault are actually quite rare. RAINN estimates between .024% and .099%). Suffice to say this is a hotly debated issue and deserves more frank discussion that I have time or energy for.

Why?

This is not necessarily a conservative or liberal issue-- helping people. The difference is in the way its done. The simplest way I can explain the difference is 1) Who is responsible for the helping (Conservatives say private sector should be primarily responsible), 2) how to accomplish it (Conservatives say reward acheivement), and 3) how to measure results (Conservatives measure success by stating how many people no longer need help).

Probably one of the largest misconceptions in politics is lower tax rates result in lower revenues. Simply not true. Your instinct is correct: budget deficits are the result of excessive spending, not insufficient revenue. This is the one issue where Republicans in congress are not in line with conservative ideology; by not standing firm on even reducing the rate of increase of government spending. Sometimes I'd like to kick 'em all in the teeth.

Republican does not equal conservative, at least these days.

Huh? I've never been arrested. A felony is pretty deliberate I think.
We could learn something from wolves. Don't contibute to the pack,
off ya' go...

I'm a depends on the issue guy...However I do Lean to the right

Abortion... not good as a means of birth control however in cases of danger to either the mother or the baby should be her decision

Gun laws? I've no problem at all with owning a Hand gun for home defence, a rifle & or shot gun for hunting but the N.R.A.'s assertion that everyone should be able to own assualt weapons because "Its Their Right" is fookin' absurd.

Legalization of drugs...Errr No... not all anyway....Marijuana has proven to be far less evil then "The War on drugs" lobby would have you believe. Although any one who's ever quit Smoking weed for any length of time as I have for employment issues & then reverted to former ways can tell you.

1: the short term memory loss is real... Where the fook did I put my keys?.... They're in your hand shithead

2 : The it makes me more creative hype is just that. What it does is make it so your brain can only concentrate on one thing at a time... No multi tasking...Which is why you can "Get into" what ever it is your doing. Your brain blocks out everything els.

3 Driving while a lil' crispy from the ole' "Ganja" is just as bad as with your old friend J.D.


Liberal tax & spend
Is reaching right into my pocket and handing my hard earned pay over to those who would shirk the system (socialisim)

1: Are there worthwile Govt. sponsered social programs? Of course there are. However I would like to deciede for myself where & what portion of my "Charitable",disposible income should go.

2:Throwing money at the less fortunate dosent help them (In most cases) to get on their feet & fend for themselves.

Seperation of church & state (The wisest of our forefathers lil' ideas)

1ne nation Under "God" is quite hypocritical

2:A public organization such as my local V.F.W. which is 98% christian should be able to put a "Manger Scene" on their lawn at Christmas time as well as predominantly Jewish communitys be able to put a Menorah in their respective "Public places" as the saying goes "Freedom of religon"not "Freedom from religon".
Simply because parents don't want to bother to answer childrens questions of why they Have "This or That" on their lawn and not explain why they believe their views to be right as opposed to others is just lazily hiding behind A.C.L.W. bullshit.

And if these displays offend you individually... Get a grip & grow a thicker skin...



Unfortunately the present 2 party system seems to force both sides to grasp "Lightning Rod" issues & draw clear lines without offering a mid ground. Even though most in both camps would like to search for a mid ground

I only replied to you since it was you who started the thread... wasn't exactly poking at any of your views...Just ranting my own

I'm a liberal (little l) conservative.

At the core of my belief-system are core utilitarian and classical liberal concepts with characters like Jeremy Bentham, John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke having a strong influence. On the liberal side are chaps and ladies like Rousseau, Voltaire, Susan Faludi, Mary Wollstonecraft and Friedrich Von Hayek having an influence.

Modern, post-industrial states like yours have political landscapes that are not drawn down ideological lines, but rather, they are now capitalist entrenched economies with one broad political party (the Republicans and Democrats who strongly subscribe to this economic system) with two factions, namely each other shaping policy that is built around your core state institutions like the constitution and bill of rights; the legal system, and, of course, the constituents that your democratically elected officals represent.

Francis Fukuyama theorised that capitalist-economy democracies had effectively come to political domination around the world (particularly the US) and that 'the end of history' as he so famously put it was at hand because globalisation was an inevitable by-product of such domination thus ensuring the spread of democratic and capitalist principles.

He did not factor much in about Islamo-Fascism as he wrote that book in early 1992. Regardless, his analysis was correct on some but not all parts and his core argument was sound.

Interesting political times, nonetheless. You may have a female president soon...

Including the "Drunk" option gave folks an easy way out. Besides, I can be drunk and a liberal conservative liberal at the same time. Meh, I just take the drunk option

That's exactly the reason we should be able to own automatic weapons. While I don't really believe the government will ever try and us the military against us... it's still possible.

At any rate, if someone did try and do this I don't think the majority of soldiers would go along with it. US Soldiers are freedom loving citizens too.

But I do see your point. No one has a need for an AK-47. But I still think we should be able to own them. (actually we can 'cause the assualt weapons ban expired) I generally dislike laws that take freedoms away from people who've done nothing wrong.

3 round burst blows. It's good for very close quarters combat and that's it, it's extremely inaccurate. Half the time it doesn't even work. My M16A2 would jam all the time when we had to qualify using 3 round burst. SPORTS! (phukface knows what that is)

Yes, that's true. Though it's easier to go on www.gunbroker.com and just buy the necessary parts.

You can own an automatic weapon in the USA, it's just a lot of work to get approval and licenses to do so. I saw a video where a guy took a Glock (17, 19, or 22) handgun and made it into a fully auto weapon. Pretty frikin awesome. It's not completely legal of course...

Didn't that assault weapons ban only end up banning certain things on a weapon? Like the stock can't be foldable, and the 'zine can only have 'x' shells (30?). So you could still buy the assault weapons, you just couldn't buy them with the folding stock or some such...

Mike.

Yeah, those were a few things. The magazine cap. limit was a big one. Now that the ban expired it's open field on those high cap magazines. I've bought a ton of them just in case the ban gets reinstated.

This is one of those fundamental differences between the US and Europe and I still don't quite understand where it comes from. The idea that the government may turn its own troops against the population (who's making up the troops then?) and to use that as an argument for legal gun possession. Do not mistake this for a disapproving post. Obviously I disapprove but I am aware of my own bias as a European. I can understand the reasoning (at least, I try to).

I am just wondering where it comes from. Of course you guys had an independence struggle, uprising against the English. However the French had the same thing but they do not have the same fixation on empowering people with guns so that they can stand up for their own rights against the government. Does it have something to do with the Civil War?

Sorry to say but it go's straight to the heart of American selfishness... Unwilling to part with some minor libertys that would benefit the populace as a whole....Whats the saying?... "From My Cold Dead Hand"???

Just a few comments, that I won't debate here (have done so ad nauseam). I am a former member of the NRA, just don't like paying dues to fund their resolicting efforts. I own several handguns (auto-loaders, not automatics ... you guys need to learn the difference), will not give them up even if those anti-gun laws are passed and Alexis De Toqueville doesn't live in this modern American society ... I also have 2 shotguns.

I'm a big believer in self-defense. I recognize, all too well, that cops don't deter crime ... they just investigate those that have been committed. Sorry, if this disappoints some of you anti-gun types. :?

Why do you need so many weapons for self defense? Wouldn't a taser do just as good a job? A shotgun seems pretty overkill for defending yourself.

Can you state with absolute certainty that in 10-15 years, that you won't be sexually attracted to that "12 year old nymphet next door neighbor" and lose it one day and sexually assult her? So ... should we go ahead and castrate you now?

Your "question" was, my apologies here, a bit sophomoric ... It's so hypothetical that I won't even try to answer it.

Touche'... I'll give you that one

My response would have carried more weight had I left that lil' Grandstand ploy out.

But does not bely the fact that assault weapons were designed solely to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

When was the last time a thief or rapist came with a fookin' platoon of re-enforcements which would require such firepower to repel....I think a Glock-9 or pump action shot gun would do it nicely

Wouldn't it make more sense to address the real problems rather then just get weapons for everyone?

Nah don't need one since we so rarely have break ins and whatnot.

Gez you're pretty defensive about it, it was just an honest question.

I appreciate the eye rolling.

Again, honest question.

You're being defensive about it. There was only one statement which was more question then statement.

Lets go through it again.

Honest question there which was ignored.

Half assed answer.

At least you answered that, though it was with attitude.

I'd like to bring up one point that seems to be missed in many of these discussions about guns...

Gun laws don't affect or effect (both apply if you think about it) outlaws. Sure an outlawed gun is 'harder' to get - so the price goes from $500 to $2500 or something, it still gets to its destination, regardless of the law.

Mike.

Isn't that the goal?

On small (population-wise) island nations that have always had limited citizen ownership laws ... yeah, that might be theoretically possible. But here (USA), with a grand legacy of gun ownership (and a proud record of responsibility, too), and porous borders, I think the very notion of eliminating guns is absurd ... I don't think it's possible.

Here, we remember Prohibition ... just made booze that much more profitable for the criminal element. I think the notion now of a firearms prohibition is insane. Hell, guys like me would never give up our legal guns ... I'd become a "criminal" before I'd give up a few self defense weapons.

And I'd fight the government over it if necessary! It's that "cold dead hands" thing again here.

just to clarify,

the reason we are able to own guns:

well in case the government gets to strict and we need to overthrow them, we will have supplies at our ready.

its the basis of the second amendment, so if needed we wont be stuck fighting with sticks against an "ordered" armed military( not saying that this would happen but just in case.)



thats the main reason i support the ownership of guns.

Gez, calm down.