Originally posted by rival
I'm having a hard time deciding where I fit in. I've been lumped in with "libtards"
and "right-wing gun nuts" and I'm just wondering is there anyone else like me who
doesn't "fit" the ready made mold of either party.
1. I'm pro-gun, pro 2nd amendment. I'll take it a step further, any "arms" your local
governments possess (Police, SWAT, FBI, DHS, ATF, etc) I believe the American people
have the right to possess.
2. I'm pro-woman. I think Roe vs Wade is just about right. The tough distinction to
make is the one between a mother's right to her body and when that right is superseded by
the fetus's right to life. IMO the existing law is just about as good as it gets.
3. I'm anti-social programs, like social medicine, social security, food stamps, and welfare.
I realize these programs are needed because sometimes circumstances dictate that some people
end up helpless and need a safety net, but I resist against these programs because, unchecked
these programs can become corrupt money pits of red tape and over-regulated government excess.
4. I'm pro-gay issues. Let them marry and have the benefit of validation AND the benefit of
the tax and insurance breaks hetero couples enjoy.
5. I believe in the total separation of church and state. Keep your god, your philosophy, and
your religion personal. No one should impose their religious views in a government
controlled venue. To each his own, in his own time.
6. I believe we should cut military spending. Drastically reduce the amount we spend on
defense, by at least half. It has become abundantly clear that we are no longer deploying
our military for defense. Over the last fifty years our military has been deployed in aggressive
action that has less to do with national defense and more to do with political and government
7. Go Green. I believe we, as a nation, should embrace solar and wind technology on a
large scale, complete with subsidy and tax incentive for new construction and retrofitted
existing structures, such as homes, schools, and businesses. Though I am against big
government and government subsidy of private sector this issue is too beneficial to
humanity for us to ignore. America should be writing the blueprint and leading the way.
I have other political views that I may express later, but that's enough for now to
pose my question...
So am I blue or am I red?
edit on 26-1-2013 by rival because: (no reason given)
You're conservative. If you think government is the answer to everything, you're a democrat. If you think the states should be fairly free to decide
for themselves, and less government is good, your a republican, however, either way, you're fairly conservative, bordering between conservative and
I have similar views, no limits on the second amendment (everybody should have the right to open carry).
I believe green energy is the future, but I dislike giant government projects even more than argument over the second amendment. States and
free-markets do just fine, and they have for a very, very long time. If the states were responsible, they have surpluses, not deficits, and would have
money to encourage trade, and support and expand infrastructure as a primary reason to lure business there.
Goals like doubling the efficiency of cars are great, and will only help us get there before everybody else (eventually, oil prices would have made
these types of technologies necessary), hence, it will allow us to continue to lead the world with the same respect currently commanded by our
I dislike welfare more than anything else in the world, other than terrorists, and socialists.
I think that the free but less-regulated market solves most things (obviously derivatives and other high-risk behavior resemble gambling far too much
to be considered banking, or trading, and doing it with other peoples money should be illegal...leave that crap up to the hedge funds and investment
I think that existing laws on abortion are fine, but improvements could be made--i.e. requiring the fathers signature as well, to proceed with
termination except in the case where the relationship is abusive....I don't think anyone really questions a woman's choice to choose to keep, or abort
in the case of rape/abuse....
But it's also a #ing joke that abortion is a big issue in the first place, if you wrap your tool (as a woman, just say no), or use reasonable math and
science, there's no reason you should get pregnant. Too often it's a case of people using plan-b, or abortion as a contraceptive. As a civilized
society, I'm positive that outlaw in abortion except in the case of rape would lead to a lot of bogus rape charges, but ultimately, it would force
people onto the pill, or it would force them to use condoms.
I disagree when it comes to foreign policy. If we have the means to stop a genocide, or to destroy a group with targets our citizens, or stop the
madmen of the world from slaughtering their citizens, we should.
If you kill hundreds, if not thousands Americans for decades, and kidnap hundreds more like Iran has, then create a secret nuclear program, reveal it,
then call it peaceful, create more fuel than you could possibly use, enrich it more than you need to, assemble the rockets you don't need, do the
explosives testing you don't need, build your "peaceful" nuclear program under a mountain (people have no reason to attack a peaceful program), then
refuse an international agreement that would allow you to keep your technology, get fuel for free by swapping out unenriched uranium for enriched
uranium, saving you millions of dollars, then you should expect an attack.
I can't say that I agreed with the invasion of Iraq, but I did agree with removing Saddam....we weren't going to lose pilots and hundreds of millions
of dollars getting our planes shot down for forever, nor were we going to let Saddam gas his own people again. Reminder: it was US law that the
official policy of the United States was to remove Saddam by any means for two decades.
I think that lesbians/gays should be able to receive equal benefits under the law/tax codes, but to protect tradition, and to avoid the religious
debate, the law should be revised to support "marriage or civil union". A different but exalted term could be used. It would be appropriate for
churches to marry gays and lesbians if that's what they believe in, but marriage is a religious term with a definition. If you don't call it marriage
on paper, at the court house, this is a non issue.
Everyone should be equal under the law, and that includes women. They should be paid equal to their abilities--but not their capabilities.. I.e. a
person better qualified for a job should be paid the same as the next person doing the job, whether they're not as qualified, or they're a woman
shouldn't matter. Ability and performance don't recognize gender, or preference.
I'm conservative...on the left to right pendulum. I'm fairly progressive when it comes to domestic policy, so I suppose you could call me a
Progressive Conservative Libertarian Constitutionalist. :-)
edit on 28-1-2013 by MonkeyCarrier because: spelling, amend