Are you Liberal or Conservative or somewhere in between?

[guywithashovel]

Number two on the objections you report on is interesting - what else is the government for? Arranging an army is supposed to be to defend the citizens, taking care of them from enemies foreign and domestic. Are they saying they don't want to government to take care of them when they're old and infirm? Are they saying that they want huge debt owed by them to vast medical corporations for life-saving treatment?

Admittedly, I don't talk about this much offline, but if what I read online is any indication, the military is not seen as "taking care of people" in the same sense as something like national health care. People who support national heath care are often accused of wanting the government to be "Mommy and Daddy."

If you want an illustration, here is a clip of Sean Hannity interviewing Rush Limbaugh in early 2009. At around 6:50 minutes into the clip, Limbaugh starts speaking against nationalized health care and people being "dependent on the government."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4Ycw...7477518140FD2B

[HYHYBT]

This is an element of the "Fuck you, I got mine" mantra that seems to be rather prevalent in the US. It seems like a combination of the upper tier going "Fuck you, I got millions" and the lower tier going "Fuck you, I got nothing, but I might have millions one day, and when that day comes you can't have any". Which relies on the total delusion being sold to them by the upper tier that some day they could be just like them.

Very much the same way that slavery held on in the South as long as it did, if I remember history class right.

On the Founding Fathers... they were people. They were right about some things, and wrong on others, and all had their faults like anybody else. Yet the way they're often treated amounts to idolatry. (And, as the people most likely to be that way seem to be certain segments of Christianity, they ought to be reminded that that's, like, HALF the Ten Commandments.)

There is so much rage against the idea that someone, anyone, might possibly receive something that they did not earn, that they did not deserve...

Importantly, this comes with the silent caveat "...and anything that *I* receive is earned by definition, whether others receiving the same or less in the same way is or not."

[Panacea]

I've found the more someone lionizes the Founding Fathers, the less they tend to know about them.

You know, I find it scary, pathetic, and sad that Canadians know more about the American Founding Fathers than the Americans themselves do. When I debate with local ultra conservatives, and they start quoting the Founding Fathers, they ALWAYS get it wrong.

There's this tendency to romaticize the Founding Fathers and forget that they themselves had bitter differences about how government should work. It's really a miracle we managed to get the governmental system we did, really. We're very lucky we didn't end up with a monarchy or a dictatorship.

[Gravekeeper]

You know, I find it scary, pathetic, and sad that Canadians know more about the American Founding Fathers than the Americans themselves do.

In all fairness, our politics, like our TV shows, are rather boring so we have to tune in to stuff from the States. >.>

Kids in the Hall aside of course.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

I've been called a very liberal conservative or a very conservative liberal.

In reality I see myself as neither. I am a social realist.

I am what seems to be a rare breed that can see that both sides have good points.

I am for the rights of people to have guns. I also do not see why a hunter should be allowed armor piercing ammunition. As Robin Williams once put it "How many deer wear a bullet proof vest?"

I believe in the right for everyone to marry while at the same time I'm all for the right of the various churches to decide for themselves if they are willing to perform the marriage ceremony. After all a marriage in the US is a civil union that can be but does not have to be ratified by a church elder or official. So let gays marry and let the churches decide for themselves what they wish to do.

I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. That's a really odd one I know. But do not approve of using abortion as the first and only option for when someone makes a mistake and gets knocked up. I would rather there be other options put into place (the safe haven laws are a tentative baby step in the right direction but we need more) and abortion lowered to a third, fourth or a fifth choice. BUT I am not the sort that is going to force my morals on to someone else when it is not my body so to do.

In many cases there are good and bad points to either side's arguments. This is why there is supposed to be a compromise. Sadly however we (in the US at least) live in a society where the extreme right 2.5% and the extreme left 2.5% are governing the remaining 95% that live in the shades of grey between them.

[Gravekeeper]

I am what seems to be a rare breed that can see that both sides have good points.

Both sides, on a normal political spectrum ( Not the extremist fringe being inhibited lately ), do make good points.

I am for the rights of people to have guns. I also do not see why a hunter should be allowed armor piercing ammunition. As Robin Williams once put it "How many deer wear a bullet proof vest?"

I on the other hand, do not see why someone would need to have a gun in their house if they were not a hunter. I do not view them as something one should possess if one does not require it. That said, after several debates on this site, I have come to recognize this as a cultural issue. I do not see why someone would need a gun, because where I live there is no threat to myself or my home that would warrant having one. But there are places in the US where this is a completely different story.

I believe in the right for everyone to marry while at the same time I'm all for the right of the various churches to decide for themselves if they are willing to perform the marriage ceremony.

Which is exactly how it would be. It was never and has never been about forcing churchs to marry anyone. Every gay marriage law proposed fully allows churches to decide for themselves. The gay marriage law in Canada, for example, clearly states it has no power over religious institutions to force them to marry anyone, and that their religious freedom is to remain completely intact in regards to the law.

Anyone that suggests otherwise is just trying to drum up fear.

I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. That's a really odd one I know.

In all fairness, nobody is pro-abortion nor do I think anyone treats the decision lightly. The problem, however, is that carrying a child to term is very hard on the body and actually dangerous for younger mothers. Asking someone to endure all of that, risk their health and if we're talking a teen mother or single mother in one of the more "puritan" areas of the US, endure the stigma of the pregnancy for 9 months. Nevermind the potential trauma of being seperated from the child after its born ( That can be a much harder descision than abortion and presents a potential life long problem ). All just to fullfill your own personal belief on abortion is neither fair nor just. ( Not you personally, I just mean in general ).

Sadly however we (in the US at least) live in a society where the extreme right 2.5% and the extreme left 2.5% are governing the remaining 95% that live in the shades of grey between them.

Point of contention: The US does not have an extreme left. It doesn't even really have much of a left. It has extreme right and center, and the extreme right legitimizes its extremeness to a much greater except than the "left" does.

What the US calls left, the rest of us out here call a centerist. -.- Canada's government is Conservative, but its still left of your Democrats.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

All just to fullfill your own personal belief on abortion is neither fair nor just. ( Not you personally, I just mean in general ).

Hence the reason that I am pro-choice. This is my personal bugaboo and not something that I am willing nor should be allowed to force down the throats of people who think differently than me.

I just do not like the lack of options. I'll admit that I'm at a loss for ideas as to what these other options should be but I'd just like to see some more cards on the table than just abortion.

But because of the reasons that you mentioned (as well as others) I am personally content with supporting legislators that put forth those options and withholding my support for those who try to stop abortion.

A little considered fact was that Roe vs. Wade was not a decision to allow abortion for the sake of letting people kill unborn babies, but a law to prevent mothers from having to seek less than optimal choices in abortion practitioners. More women have been saved because they didn't have to go to a schmuck with dirty hands and a coat hanger in a seedy back alley room and could instead go to a place that was a fully licensed medical facility complete with hospital sterilization and proper after care options.

Point of contention: The US does not have an extreme left. It doesn't even really have much of a left. It has extreme right and center, and the extreme right legitimizes its extremeness to a much greater except than the "left" does.

What the US calls left, the rest of us out here call a centerist. -.- Canada's government is Conservative, but its still left of your Democrats.

Regardless of how our system is perceived by other nations, my point is still valid. You have a narrow band of people on one side of the political coin fighting with another narrow band of people on the other side. And both of these sides are so polarized that if one side said that the sky is blue the other would stick their head out a window, point at a cloud and say "See! That part is white! The other side LIED! Since they can't be honest about the color of the sky they obviously can't be trusted to be honest about what goes on in America!"

This is why you never see moderate members of the two parties anymore. At least not in the higher echelons. The Republicans are a great example of this. They have denounced and kicked out a number of Republican Moderates who looked at Obama's health care package and said "It's not perfect, but I have people who need something because they're lacking anything resembling quality healthcare."

And please let's not go into the merits of the healthcare package...that's really neither here nor there in this discussion and was brought up as an example of how the two parties refuse to play nice any more.

So while our "left" may not be all that left in the eyes of the rest of the world...it is our left. It is the polar opposite of the other party which considers itself the right.

[Gravekeeper]

I just do not like the lack of options. I'll admit that I'm at a loss for ideas as to what these other options should be but I'd just like to see some more cards on the table than just abortion.

That's kind of the heart of it, there just isn't a lot of options on the table because ultimately there's only the two choices: Abortion or carrying it to term. I agree there should definately be more options on the table for the latter, but I don't think having more options for the latter should in any way lessen access to the former. Nor should said options be pressured onto someone that has chosen the former.

Regardless of how our system is perceived by other nations, my point is still valid. You have a narrow band of people on one side of the political coin fighting with another narrow band of people on the other side.

True. I think one side, the right, has fallen further than the other though. But that's due to who each side cater's too and relies on for their base. Which is the mistake the Republicans made. As you said, moderate Republicans are dying off. Because the GOP rallied the hard rights and evangelicals into their base, and now the base are demanding their due by trying to elect similar thinking candidates. Hence you get the alarming spectrum of current nominees. Few of which have a chance in hell with moderates.

Which is a good portion of Obama's problem. He is a moderate in the middle of the American spectrum. One side hates him because he's the other team, and his own team complains he's not enough like them. While he sits in the middle mistakenly thinking both teams will somehow work together if he just talks long enough.

[AdminAssistant]

That's kind of the heart of it, there just isn't a lot of options on the table because ultimately there's only the two choices: Abortion or carrying it to term.

Actually, there are more options, such as: better access to cheap/free birth control, more sex education, and the morning-after pill (which is not an abortion). I recently got a copper IUD and it's fantastic....why aren't we giving them to more women? Non-hormonal, extremely effective birth control that's good for 10 years.

The other thing that would help would be to eliminate the teaching that Jesus thinks birth control is evil, but that's not going away anytime soon.

[Rageaholic]

There is so much rage against the idea that someone, anyone, might possibly receive something that they did not earn, that they did not deserve, that they are more than willing to let those with genuine need go without just to spite the tiny minority of those who would abuse the system.

^-.-^

That's the impression I get from many of the far right capitalists. It's never about who can benefit from something, but always about who abuses it. I remember the thread about the drug testing people on welfare. Even though it would cost MORE money to impliment, quite a few people were willing to pay that price and potentially hurt those who actually need. Why, because *gasp* a few people might use the money to buy drugs!! We must punish them!

This is what I meant by being sick of the complaints about entitlement. There's a difference between a PFB letter to target about returns and someone who might die because their insurance won't cover the treatment and there job pays barely enough to get by.

[Hyena Dandy]

Point of contention: The US does not have an extreme left. It doesn't even really have much of a left.

I would say it does have an extreme left. Its simply that the extreme left often keeps out of the political establishment, while the extreme right doesn't have a problem with it.

[HYHYBT]

I do not view [guns] as something one should possess if one does not require it.

How about historical interest? For example, Dad has maybe ten, ranging from reproductions of Civil War and before to modern, because he finds them interesting. They all work, but have only ever been used to show how they work or, in some cases, for target practice. The modern stuff is hidden and locked away, while the "oldest" tend to sit out in the den as curiosities, along with other things he has left over from reenacting, like hats and belt buckles. Unloaded, and even were the ammunition there instead of also being locked away, it would take an impractically long time to get one ready to fire even if you knew how to work them. (Powder, ramrod, etc.) Sure, if it were premeditated you certainly could kill someone with one of those... but then, there are usually going to be easier ways, and it wouldn't exactly be hard to narrow down a list of suspects. And the chance of anything happening by accident, in the heat of the moment, or even as self defense (except perhaps using one as a club of sorts) is zero.

[HYHYBT]

Actually, there are more options, such as: better access to cheap/free birth control, more sex education, and the morning-after pill (which is not an abortion). I recently got a copper IUD and it's fantastic....why aren't we giving them to more women? Non-hormonal, extremely effective birth control that's good for 10 years.

The other thing that would help would be to eliminate the teaching that Jesus thinks birth control is evil, but that's not going away anytime soon.

All given, of course... but *once you are pregnant* there are only two options. And the biggest problem is that the point of contention between the sides is something that's inherently uncertain. You can *circumvent* the "when does life begin*" question by artificially defining the beginning as being at this point or that, but barring that, there may not *be* an answer specific enough to be useful, and even if there is, it may be inherently impossible to discover.

*Or personhood. After all, before they meet, the egg and sperm are already alive. Life does not begin, present tense, so far as is known. It begAn long ago and has continued unbroken since.

[Gravekeeper]

How about historical interest? For example, Dad has maybe ten, ranging from reproductions of Civil War and before to modern, because he finds them interesting.

I don't have a problem with historical interests. Like you said, its not exactly a practical weapon and certainly not a spur of the moment one. Someone planning ahead that far could find a better option. -.-

I would say it does have an extreme left. Its simply that the extreme left often keeps out of the political establishment, while the extreme right doesn't have a problem with it.

Very true.

[Gravekeeper]

Ah, here's an example of the Canadian right wing to demonstrate my point about the American spectrum: The Canadian right wing just released an It Gets Better video.

That's how far left our right is compared to the US spectrum >.>