[OAW]

Given all the heightened political tensions of late, I thought it'd be interesting to do a little exercise as a way of ratcheting things down a notch or two. Often in "marriage counseling" or "couple's therapy" the participants are asked to list several things that they like or appreciate about the other person. It's a way of re-establishing common ground and all that. So with that in mind, let's try something similar here from a political standpoint.

Conservatives - list 3 positions typically held by liberals/progressives that you agree with. And why.

Liberals/Progressives - list 3 positions typically held by conservatives that you agree with. And why.

Moderates/Other - just list 3 positions I suppose. And why.

Remember. This is NOT a debate thread! We have plenty of others ongoing for all that.

[Laminar]

Missionary, reverse cowgirl, and retrograde wheelbarrow. Why? You tell me.

[Doofy]

I'd list something but it doesn't say how many items a minarchist should list.

(Typical of a lib to imagine that there's only two positions and the centre ground between them.)

[OAW]

1. Parental Notification for abortion - Like seriously ... WTF? You need parental permission to give a teenager an aspirin but they can get an abortion without telling their parents? Not so much.

2. Gun control - I think citizens have the right to own a firearm. Provided that right has not been revoked due to a felony gun related conviction or mental impairment. And by "firearm" I mean just that. A handgun, a shotgun, or a rifle. Fully-automatic machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, or other "military class" weapons? Not so much. I don't think such firearms need to be "registered" .... provided all firearm sales (individual or commercial) first confirm that the purchaser has not had their gun rights revoked. This should be a nationwide law. Gun laws that vary by city/state are pretty silly. People should be able to have a firearm in their home, vehicle, or place of business (stores, shops, NOT the workplace). However, I'm not in favor of carrying a firearm on your person except in non-urban areas (i.e. hunting, camping, etc.).

3. Separation of Church & State - The Constitution guarantees "Freedom OF religion". It does not guarantee "Freedom FROM religion". So it's pretty silly IMO to get bent out of shape because of a Nativity scene on the grounds of City Hall during Christmas. Or to have a hissy fit because a Bible Study Club wants to meet on school property. Having said that, one has to keep in mind that this means "Freedom of RELIGION". NOT "Freedom of CHRISTIANITY". If you are going to get upset by seeing a Star of David display on City Hall grounds ... or a Quran Study Club on public school property then I daresay you are someone who has confused the two. IOW, if it's open to all then fine. If not, then it's best not to go there at all.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Missionary, reverse cowgirl, and retrograde wheelbarrow. Why? You tell me.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'd list something but it doesn't say how many items a minarchist should list.

(Typical of a lib to imagine that there's only two positions and the centre ground between them.)

Point taken Doofy. I've updated the position list.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Conservative points I agree with: 1, responsible spending; 2, gun ownership; and 3, emphasis on states' rights.
Progressive points I agree with: 4, Women's rights (especially pro choice); 5, separation of religion and politics; and 6, aggressive funding for the arts & sciences.

1. Responsible spending is not deficit spending, but good book keeping, reduced overspending, and overhauling government contracts to reduce corruption.

2. Gun ownership is exactly that, everyone should have the right to own a gun. The only caveat is that it needs to be responsible gun ownership; you have to take a class and be licensed to own a firearm.

3. Ultimately the power resides in the state, the Federal Government is there to protect our rights and to protect the union.

4. Women should have the right to make their own choices, especially as it pertains to their body. You may be against abortion, but it should not be illegal for a woman to choose to have one.

5. Religion has no place in politics.

6. This has more to do with art as it pertains to education, as a creative mind is absolutely critical in the development process of children, even up through adulthood. For sciences, I don't think there's enough funding; and I don't mean for specific goals. The best medicine almost always comes from accidents or completely unrelated subjects like studying sea sponges. Targeted grants are not the way to do this, nor is goal specific funding like "curing cancer."

[Doofy]

@OAW: Good man. I still can't think of anything to list though.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

4. Women should have the right to make their own choices, especially as it pertains to their body. You may be against abortion, but it should not be illegal for a woman to choose to have one.

Is that on her own buck or on the taxpayer? And can I sell a kidney if I want to?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

@OAW: Good man. I still can't think of anything to list though.

On a side note, thanks for listing your political philosophy. I'd figured you to be more on the libertarian side of things based on a lot of your posts. But now I was able to google that term and get a better description. So now I'm like "Ahhhh .... that's where he's coming from!".

OAW

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I don't think such firearms need to be "registered" .... provided all firearm sales (individual or commercial) first confirm that the purchaser has not had their gun rights revoked.

But CSI has taught me that gun registries solve thousands of crimes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

On a side note, thanks for listing your political philosophy. I'd figured you to be more on the libertarian side of things based on a lot of your posts. But now I was able to google that term and get a better description. So now I'm like "Ahhhh .... that's where he's coming from!".

In an ideal world, we don't whine at politicians for spending all their time on the golf course - we whine at them for not spending all their time there (where they can't bother the rest of us). Once the optimum default state is achieved, obviously.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Is that on her own buck or on the taxpayer?

Taxpayer money comes in the form of information such as planned parenting. Whether or not she has to pay for it is sort of dependent on her income. If her insurance doesn't cover it, then everyone else who has health insurance pays for it through higher premiums.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And can I sell a kidney if I want to?

In America you can donate your kidney, but you can't sell it. You can, however, sell it in India.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Whether or not she has to pay for it is sort of dependent on her income.

Screw that then. If I ain't had the pleasure of bouncing around on her to make the baby, why should I pay to have it aborted?

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

In America you can donate your kidney, but you can't sell it.

So when it comes to a woman's body it's hers and "hands off!", but when it comes to mine the government gets a say in what happens?

[OAW]

4. Elimination of the Estate Tax - Like really? You have to pay taxes to DIE around here?

5. Fair Tax - This is actually a very intriguing proposal. Abolish all federal income, SS, Medicare, payroll, etc. taxes and replace it with a national sales tax on ALL retail transactions.. PREbates (i.e. in advance rather than after the fact) for all US resident Social Security card holders equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. This makes it pretty progressive. Only get taxed on what you SPEND .. .not what you MAKE. Encourages savings and investment. Of course, the devil is in the details ... but on the surface a pretty sensible proposal.

OAW

[Snow-i]

This is a good idea for a thread :-).

Conservatives:

1. Smaller Government - I believe that the federal government should reduce its size and reach into local municipalities...as has been discussed endlessly in other threads.

2. Right to bear arms - I am not against having checks in place to make sure only responsible and law-abiding citizens can buy firearms, and am further not against restrictions on military-grade weapons though this right is essential to the security of my family and future from domestic threats, both criminal and otherwise.

3. Ideas for health reform/wealth redistribution - Same issue as #1 really, but I think we should have started with opening up competition before making the government involved and trying to make the outcomes equal, as opposed to its actual commitment to ensure equal oppurtunity.

Liberal

4. Environment (=/ global warming). I think it is important to consider the effect we are having on our planet that our children and grandchildren will have to endure. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with the abuses and fruad being perpretuated under the name of environmentalism. Don't get me wrong though, there are still many good things coming from environmentalists which slip under the radar of the news outlets...its just that some prominent figures have decided to cash in on this movement to the detriment of us all.

5. Equality for homosexuals. Although I don't agree with "marriage" for gays, I do agree with the term being renamed "civil unions" legally for everyone with the term marriage as a strictly private/social term. I do not acknowledge marriage for gays however I expect them to have the right to partake in civil unions like married folks do with the same benefits and whatnot.

6. The push for alternative energy sources. Although I don't agree with the tactics and furiousness of the liberal/progressive movement towards alternative energy, I think that we can only gain from exploring different technologies. That being said, I don't think it should be forced down anyone's throat, but instead allowed to blossom as we progress as a society. Whatever takes the place of oil/gas will take years to develope and penetrate into the masses. Lets not be in a rush.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This is a good idea for a thread :-).

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

5. Equality for homosexuals. Although I don't agree with "marriage" for gays, I do agree with the term being renamed "civil unions" legally for everyone with the term marriage as a strictly private/social term. I do not acknowledge marriage for gays however I expect them to have the right to partake in civil unions like married folks do with the same benefits and whatnot.

Agreed. I think the government should just get out of the "marriage" business altogether. They should issue a "civil union" license with all the same benefits and responsibilities to any eligible couple ... heterosexual or homosexual. If homosexual couples then want to say they are legally "married" ... fine, have at it. But religious institutions can perform "marriage" ceremonies if they desire .... or not depending upon their doctrines and beliefs. That would have nothing whatsoever to do with the government and legalities. It seems to me that's the best way to finally get to the point where this is no longer a political issue.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Thanks!



Agreed. I think the government should just get out of the "marriage" business altogether. They should issue a "civil union" license with all the same benefits and responsibilities to any eligible couple ... heterosexual or homosexual. If homosexual couples then want to say they are legally "married" ... fine, have at it. But religious institutions can perform "marriage" ceremonies if they desire .... or not depending upon their doctrines and beliefs. That would have nothing whatsoever to do with the government and legalities. It seems to me that's the best way to finally get to the point where this is no longer a political issue.

OAW

I agree :-)

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

2. Gun ownership is exactly that, everyone should have the right to own a gun. The only caveat is that it needs to be responsible gun ownership; you have to take a class and be licensed to own a firearm.

I agree with all of this except the very last part. Far too many places have employed "licensing" to deny gun rights to specific individuals or groups, or to outright ban-in the guise of public safety-gun ownership. Have to take a class (and pass a difficult test)? Sure. Have to have a background check? Maybe-that's fuzzy*. But a "license" that some bureaucrat can dink with to exercise his own political bent? No. Not at all. Include a formal requirement that if someone passes the (rigorous) class they MUST be cleared to purchase firearms, and maybe we can talk about this.

*Background checks are mandatory for formal sales from licensed dealers. But individuals selling their own property are not required to do background checks. Some say that this would make us "safer," but to me it looks an awful lot like a "back door" fee and/or intentional hindrance. And a background check is only as effective as the information in the database that's checked is accurate. Remember Virginia Tech? The shooter should have been disqualified, but the state of Virginia decided that including information that by federal law disqualifies a person from buying a gun was "private" and did not even allow psychological information ("adjudged mentally defective") in its database. Assuming it were quick, FREE, and did not require a lot of documentation (hassle factor), even the easiest and simplest background check process is still only as good as its database.

[Osedax]

Liberal
1. Gay Marriage. I don't care what others do so long as it doesn't cost me money via taxes or infring on my freedoms and they, as couples, deserve the rights of any other couples. Does it have to be marriage or can it be seperate but equal? In my opinion "seperate but equal" did not work so well back in the 50s - it was very not equal.

2. Pro Choice. It's hard enough decision to make, and women need the right to make that decision based on their circumstances. If all the Pro Lifers are willing to adopt and completely care for the kids (without government help), I'm all for that.

3. Greener Planet. Keeping our planet clean is important. I don't litter and hate it when people do and just as much don't like polution.


Conservative
1. Less spending / government. Cut taxes, cut government spending, cut waste. Start running the government more like a not for profit business. I don't like paying my taxes into a government that is sooo wasteful.

2. Right to Bare Arms. I live in a state with extremely strict gun control laws to the point that I am breaking the law by having a gun in my house for home defense. and I do not like it.

3. Free Trade / anti-union. I think strong unions can only extend how long over payed workers keep their jobs. Eventually the company will collapse from the extremely high labor costs and end up wiping out or crippling what would have and could have otherwise been a very successful company. GM is a good example - ridiculous union benefits was the major factor in GM's becoming insolvent and needing government bailout.


Moderate
I don't think Abortions should be as easy as a tooth cleaning - it's not birth control.

Making potential owners wait for guns, and registering them, is preferred. Also, close the gun show loopholes etc if they are still there.

Education is critical to one's future - a lot more money should be spent on education.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

This is an interesting thread. It's early, so I can only think of two off the top of my head. Maybe later as the day progresses I'll think of a third. (Okay, thought of the third after some late breakfast).

1.Gay Marriage- I'm pretty much in complete agreement with the left that this should be legal, and in fact that government should get out of the business of marriage as much as possiible. What two, non-related, adults of legal age decide to get together and do or call themselves (married or whatever) is their own business, and gender has nothing to do with it.

2. Sensible environmental issues- We all want a clean planet- it's a strawman to say one side or the other doesn't- we just disagree with how to achieve it without pretending we're all going back to the stoneage (we aren't) and whether or not we have to push scare tactics of gloom and doomsday to sell environmental issues rather than more common sense (I believe we don't need the scare-tactics, but need more of the common sense). So at the end of the day- a cleaner planet and cleaner local environment for all- yes, great ideas. Cleaner, more efficient energy, less waste, better technology, more conservation, harsh punishment for those caught blatantly polluting- total agreement.

3. Separation of Church and State- to me it's just a natural part of wanting a smaller, less obtrusive government. I fail to understand how anyone for that goal, would want a government powerful enough to make ruling based solely or even largely on religious beliefs. This is nothing to do with being against anyone's religious beliefs, just that I don't believe that's an area where government belongs, constitutionally or otherwise. Those with real faith should be happy to , nay, even PREFER to leave a bloated, over-reaching, easily corrupted government as far out of it as possible (just as those with true 'progressive' beliefs should for their beliefs as well, but I digress.) Now, where religious views and laws happen to overlap, fine- IE: Thou shall not murder. But sorry, there are only about 3 commandments that are actually illegal, and we should keep it that way, otherwise, it's big-government in another direction it shouldn't be going. Mostly I agree with liberals on important matters of sep church/state, but we part company when the debate gets silly like crying about 'God' being printed on money. It's no more harmful than masonic symbolism, all-seeing eye pyramids, eagles with arrows, Latin slogans, etc. Also, it's freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion, a simple yet vast distinction that a few annoying loudmouths don't seem to get.

[Osedax]

[Deleted to move discussion to new thread]

[besson3c]

My turn!

In general I'm with Conservatives on lame ass attempts to try to educate the public on things through public service announcements, campaigns of various sorts, and other sorts of expenditures. No amount of warning people about the dangers of smoking or eating fast food is going to keep people away from these things. Legislation ought to cater towards people that make smart decisions, but money should not be wasted on preventing people from making poor decisions or being stupid.

In general I'm okay with gun rights, I don't think that banning guns has much of an impact anyway. The Libertarian in me is against banning pot as well.

I'm all for very strict controls on government spending when accusations of frivolous spending amount to more than just rhetoric. I'm not so sure that thriftiness is really something that either party has a monopoly over, but I acknowledge that the Republicans have staked a claim on this ideological stance.

I'm with conservatives when I feel those on the left are going too far with their rhetoric or proposals, as many often do perhaps to draw attention to themselves (the same goes for the right). In short, if you are a reasonable person that says reasonable things I will probably agree with you on a number of things. I feel that the solutions to most problems are somewhere in the moderate center - everything has a balance. It is because of this I can join conservatives in rants about characters on the far left, although in a perfect world we would just be tuning them out, I'm tired of the far left and right dominating conversation.

The reason why I come across as pretty opinionated in here is because I'm completely tired of the rhetoric from the far left and the far right, and I honestly feel defenseless against in. Not enough people are interested in being reasonable and rational, and I can never tell when people are (and when they can keep this up).

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Only get taxed on what you SPEND .. .not what you MAKE. Encourages savings and investment. Of course, the devil is in the details ... but on the surface a pretty sensible proposal.

So people who spend the majority of their income (like the low- to mid-income families) will pick up 90% of the tax burden, while the people who don't can sit on mountains of untaxed revenue while acquiring property through inheritances, bonuses, and gifts.

How about getting rid of sales tax and incorporating a national income tax that is proportional to your income, thereby ensuring an even distribution of the tax burden instead of standing on the backs of the working stiff. And by income, I mean all sources of income while under the age of 65; dividends and interest from investments, and large bonuses would be classified as income.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I agree with all of this except the very last part. Far too many places have employed "licensing" to deny gun rights to specific individuals or groups, or to outright ban-in the guise of public safety-gun ownership. Have to take a class (and pass a difficult test)? Sure. Have to have a background check? Maybe-that's fuzzy*. But a "license" that some bureaucrat can dink with to exercise his own political bent? No. Not at all. Include a formal requirement that if someone passes the (rigorous) class they MUST be cleared to purchase firearms, and maybe we can talk about this.

By license, I mean like how they do it in California. It's not really a license, it's more like proof that you passed a gun safety test. You can go to any gun club to take a test. You also don't need a license or are required to register a shotgun, muzzle loaded, or breach loaded firearm. It's just convenient because you can keep it in your wallet.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

By license, I mean like how they do it in California. It's not really a license, it's more like proof that you passed a gun safety test. You can go to any gun club to take a test. You also don't need a license or are required to register a shotgun, muzzle loaded, or breach loaded firearm. It's just convenient because you can keep it in your wallet.

I would call this a certification then, and I'd be pretty much for it. Again, only if the course were based on objective standards intended to make people functionally safer, rather than including ANY politically-oriented material. For example, the coursework for a concealed carry permit in Texas includes specifics of the law regarding use of deadly force, without any political spin whatsoever. And of course a requirement that the state issue said certification to any citizen who passes the course.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So people who spend the majority of their income (like the low- to mid-income families) will pick up 90% of the tax burden, while the people who don't can sit on mountains of untaxed revenue while acquiring property through inheritances, bonuses, and gifts.

How about getting rid of sales tax and incorporating a national income tax that is proportional to your income, thereby ensuring an even distribution of the tax burden instead of standing on the backs of the working stiff. And by income, I mean all sources of income while under the age of 65; dividends and interest from investments, and large bonuses would be classified as income.

olePigeon,

Please post this in the new thread I started to discuss this topic and I'll reply there. Just trying to keep the debate out of this thread since that isn't it's intended purpose.

OAW