The pro abortion and anti death penalty & vice versa people get me
I'm from the pro-abortion and anti-death penalty camp, and I'll explain my reasoning.
I'm pro-abortion as long as it's not a late term or partial birth abortion, as I believe that the baby is not truly alive in the early stages of pregnancy, and the government does not have the right to impede on the life of the mother at this point since hers is the only life in question at that time. Later in the term, yes there is a living baby that can be taken from the mother and kept alive and therefore the government has the right to intervene on the baby's behalf. I believe calling Plan B, and other pills or procedures to rid a woman's body of cells is no more murder than a condom, birth control pill, or a tissue, they all results in cells dying.
The reason I'm against capital punishment is the following. For any crime, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, this is help protect our citizens from wrongful imprisonment. We accept that we may let some criminals go to help ensure that we do not punish the innocent. Yet, it still happens. People spend years in prison, their reputation tarnished possibly forever for a mistake. When this happens, we can't give them their years back, but we can give them back their freedom. With the death penalty, we can't correct our mistakes, innocent people have been executed, but there is nothing we can do. While I believe that some people do indeed deserve to die, I also believe that we should never take something that we can not give back if we discover that we were wrong.
I hope it helps explain why someone might take completely opposite stances on seemingly identical issues.
You never heard the kind of bs in this thread when Bush was president as when Obama is. "Tyranny" "Some of us won't see these benefits before we die" "We're spending money we don't have", etc, etc. None of this stuff is new, everyone thinks they're a political analyst because Obama becoming president sparked a little curiosity. Now half of those posters here should start over and read a little more into anything discussed here before they think they have the right to tell others what to think.
It's funny how people can hear one story from one source, take is as the truth. Tell everyone else is the truth, and they believe it now too. It's like a virus or something. Do yourselves a favor and next time don't vote unless you can at least take the initiative to read up on an issue online.
You're not doing America any favors exercising you "Patriotic" duty to make an ill-informed decision (I personally like Obama) for voting for someone you don't understand. Just so you can jump on the next bandwagon after Obama's comes to a halt (Obama is a DICTATOR!!!!!!!).
Someone has to fix the problems of long past.. I'm sure Obama has thought of that. We as Canadians have had past problems,going all the way back to John Diefenbaker, or Pierre Elliot Trudeau, we in these times, have the same problems with our current political leaders. Its all how our leaders effect everyone, then when elected we have to go by what they say.. we have to deal with the consequences, not always.. but still we have some inflence on what bills can get passed, by writing to senate/parliament. We just have to deal with our repsonsabilites.
The pro abortion and anti death penalty & vice versa people get me
That is me as well *sigh*
It is not so hard to understand the reasoning behind it though. Forcing one to give birth is taking away control of their bodies and slavery.
The only people in favor of the death penalty are not on death row(and are not suicidal inmates). Besides due to all the litigation it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives.
it takes about $25k a day to keep an inmate alive, so pro-death penalty is an obvious choice.
Women have the right to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies, as long they don't become unsuccessful, welfare leeching ***
The pro abortion and anti death penalty & vice versa people get me
That is me as well *sigh*
It is not so hard to understand the reasoning behind it though. Forcing one to give birth is taking away control of their bodies and slavery.
The only people in favor of the death penalty are not on death row(and are not suicidal inmates). Besides due to all the litigation it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives.
There are some cases where ending a persons life is the only logical thing to do, saw some guy on oprah a couple days ago raped and murdered like 5 girls, got caught served a few years- got out on a technicality did it again and is now just chillin in prison and keeps appealing off death row.. that guy got a 2nd chance at life, which was way more than he deserved
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. We're actually in more agreement with you than you think.
What I'm saying is, people should express more of a spectrum of beliefs across these (wildly disparate) topics than they do. The middle should be more numerous than the extremists. Otherwise, it's a false dichotomy, as you said.
Unfortunately, the nature of our two-party system tends to make people adopt the same beliefs on issues that should have nothing to do with one another. While there are independents, they are not as numerous as a natural bell curve distribution would predict.
Example: there is no logical argument that one's views on global warming should correlate to their views on abortion. The two arguments share no common logical ground.
However, if you did a random sampling of the US electorate, you would find they do: if you believe global warming is a hoax, you are many times more likely to also be pro-Life. (And vice versa.)
I've always seen it this way, Stereotypical Republicans tend to be more old school in their way of thinking. That means no gay marriage, no abortion, pro death penalty, ect. They're not known to think outside the box when it comes to certain issues. I don't mean this as a cut, they just seem to be very "my way or the highway".
Stereotypical Democrats tend to look more towards the future, global warming, pro choice, gay marriage, ect. They tend to think more with their hearts. Again I don't mean this as a cut, they just seem to be very "why can't we all just get along?"
So it's not so much that people choose the ideas of their parties because they're too lazy to think for themselves, I just think certain personalities gravitate more towards certain parties.
Again, I'm not lumping everybody into this. I realize every person is different, that's just my theory as to why certain issues which seem irrelevant to each other actually aren't.
Political party views are more for the voters and actually has very little to do with what actually happens when power is given to that party.
Take this quote:
"Conservative Republicans never did want Social Security, and now think they can convert it to a giant 401(k) plan. (White House memo on Social Security privatization) The current strategy was developed in 1982 primarily by the libertarian Cato Institute which opposes almost all government programs. Gingrich recently explained it as "shifting fundamentally all Social Security retirement benefits to the personal accounts over the long run." Bush has pushed this strategy forward with by hyping a non-existent crisis which Cato said would be needed to sell privatization, and through his 2001 privatisation commission."
Republicans should have ended social security long long ago. Bush had the courage to "try" to change it and alienated himself from his own political party. Say what you want about W. He did things because he genuinely believed it and would have likely passed this health bill if he were president right now to be honest.
At 4:46 in he Boehner goes on about how they are taking 500B from Medicare to spend on this bill.
Why is he using the redistribution of funds for a program his party in principle disagrees with as a talking point in the first place?
Perhaps because he knows that that's where the votes are coming from for his party. They sell issues just to get in to power. They say save and decrease and actually spend.
I'd make an argument against this, but it'd just go no where. Abortion debates are about as dumb and pointless as Religious ones.
tl;dr 17 pages but the US Government owns Banks, Education, a car company and now Health care. Wonder what else the Government will want to control on their road to Socialism.
The pro abortion and anti death penalty & vice versa people get me
I'm from the pro-abortion and anti-death penalty camp, and I'll explain my reasoning.
I'm pro-abortion as long as it's not a late term or partial birth abortion, as I believe that the baby is not truly alive in the early stages of pregnancy, and the government does not have the right to impede on the life of the mother at this point since hers is the only life in question at that time. Later in the term, yes there is a living baby that can be taken from the mother and kept alive and therefore the government has the right to intervene on the baby's behalf. I believe calling Plan B, and other pills or procedures to rid a woman's body of cells is no more murder than a condom, birth control pill, or a tissue, they all results in cells dying.
The reason I'm against capital punishment is the following. For any crime, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, this is help protect our citizens from wrongful imprisonment. We accept that we may let some criminals go to help ensure that we do not punish the innocent. Yet, it still happens. People spend years in prison, their reputation tarnished possibly forever for a mistake. When this happens, we can't give them their years back, but we can give them back their freedom. With the death penalty, we can't correct our mistakes, innocent people have been executed, but there is nothing we can do. While I believe that some people do indeed deserve to die, I also believe that we should never take something that we can not give back if we discover that we were wrong.
I hope it helps explain why someone might take completely opposite stances on seemingly identical issues.
I am also. It's not a contradiction.
I'm actually pro-life but I do not want to pass laws prohibiting abortion so that makes me unfortunately pro-abortion. I believe it is life, I believe it has rights like you or me, but I believe in harm reduction and I'm smart enough to know that they will just have them done anyhow and that a law wont actually fix the problem. Education and viable alternatives would go a lot further for harm reduction than a law.
For the death penalty I think the state makes too many mistakes to ever do this.. in fact I'm not much in favor of the prison or so called justice system at all. I think that justice is not punishment.. but that justice is making the persons victim whole (or as whole as possible) again. So for an example.. if you steal something justice is not having your hand cut off.. I mean who does that help? Justice is replacing what you stole.
I'm not going to "do" everyone. =p But my point is:
- Your views on gun control should have nothing to do with your views on global warming.
- Your views on abortion should have nothing to do with your views on tax policy.
- Your views on health care reform should have nothing to do with your views on the death penalty.
- Your views on US foreign policy should have nothing to do with your views on gay marriage.
Yet for some reason, they do. With overwhelming accuracy.
I'm not arguing for one side or the other here. Nor am I interested in engaging in a debate about the ideology behind it.
But from a sheer mathematical probability and statistics model, the chances of 300M people independently sorting themselves into two camps over these (ideally) independent variables ("I am pro-Life and against gun control" versus "I am for gay marriage and want greater environmental regulation") is vanishingly unlikely. More unlikely than winning the lottery, back to back, many times over.
This doesn't worry anyone else?
People yell and scream about "thinking for themselves," but when someone says "the 2nd Amendment is important, thus, abortion is wrong" or "global warming is a problem, thus, legalize pot" people just accept it rather than going "Wait, what?"
I see what you're saying. I don't agree with your conclusions though, as it puts an independent ideology on a pedestal when really all an independent is is another political classification.
The reasons people's opinions on gay marriage often times reveals their opinions on global warming isn't because they are casually accepting whatever Fox news or MSNBC tells them. It is because they have strong moral/philosophical belief structures that dictate what camp they will most likely fall into.
If one believes that government should have very little control of the economy it will follow that that person would be against government control of emissions, and consumer choice of firearms. This would mean that yes, their view on global warming and gun control would be linked, but not because of anything other than their belief of what the role of their government should be.
People having an opinion on the role their government plays is not exactly an air tight case of people not thinking for themselves, nor is it a reason to be concerned.
Political party views are more for the voters and actually has very little to do with what actually happens when power is given to that party.
They do the same things usually.
Bush was a socialist, and Obama is a warmonger.. the only difference is what the opposing party or the press focuses to attack them on.
Policy is mostly the same tho.. remember when McCain and Obama rushed off to Washington to save the country form the economic cluster *** they put it in? What was the difference in their plan? The only difference was who got to pass it and what programs the money was spent on. There was no debate on if the banks were going to be bailed out at all even though Downsize DC reported calls to congress 100 to 1 against ANY bailout. That means 99% of the public opposed the actions of both parties and the ***got rammed through anyhow... and again.. and again..
And some people say the people rule... :) ohh.. yeah.. they sure do.. : wink wink :
I'm not going to "do" everyone. =p But my point is:
- Your views on gun control should have nothing to do with your views on global warming.
- Your views on abortion should have nothing to do with your views on tax policy.
- Your views on health care reform should have nothing to do with your views on the death penalty.
- Your views on US foreign policy should have nothing to do with your views on gay marriage.
Yet for some reason, they do. With overwhelming accuracy.
I'm not arguing for one side or the other here. Nor am I interested in engaging in a debate about the ideology behind it.
But from a sheer mathematical probability and statistics model, the chances of 300M people independently sorting themselves into two camps over these (ideally) independent variables ("I am pro-Life and against gun control" versus "I am for gay marriage and want greater environmental regulation") is vanishingly unlikely. More unlikely than winning the lottery, back to back, many times over.
This doesn't worry anyone else?
People yell and scream about "thinking for themselves," but when someone says "the 2nd Amendment is important, thus, abortion is wrong" or "global warming is a problem, thus, legalize pot" people just accept it rather than going "Wait, what?"
I see what you're saying. I don't agree with your conclusions though, as it puts an independent ideology on a pedestal when really all an independent is is another political classification.
The reasons people's opinions on gay marriage often times reveals their opinions on global warming isn't because they are casually accepting whatever Fox news or MSNBC tells them. It is because they have strong moral/philosophical belief structures that dictate what camp they will most likely fall into.
If one believes that government should have very little control of the economy it will follow that that person would be against government control of emissions, and consumer choice of firearms. This would mean that yes, their view on global warming and gun control would be linked, but not because of anything other than their belief of what the role of their government should be.
People having an opinion on the role their government plays is not exactly an air tight case of people not thinking for themselves, nor is it a reason to be concerned.
Alright, so add one to the mix.. would about Evolution/Creationism? I can't see how that would relate to all 3.
Another interesting (and hopefully informatively neutral) tidbit of data on the original topic:
It will not be possible to repeal health care in the 2010 elections. There are not enough Senate and House seats up for re-election. Even if the Republicans won every single race, they would lack the necessary 2/3's majority in the Senate to overrule Obama's veto.
Another interesting (and hopefully informatively neutral) tidbit of data on the original topic:
It will not be possible to repeal health care in the 2010 elections. There are not enough Senate and House seats up for re-election. Even if the Republicans won every single race, they would lack a 2/3's majority in the Senate to overrule Obama's veto.
Then they'll start complaining the minority are obstructionists and the circle of life will be complete.
I'd make an argument against this, but it'd just go no where. Abortion debates are about as dumb and pointless as Religious ones.
tl;dr 17 pages but the US Government owns Banks, Education, a car company and now Health care. Wonder what else the Government will want to control on their road to Socialism.
Another interesting (and hopefully informatively neutral) tidbit of data on the original topic:
It will not be possible to repeal health care in the 2010 elections. There are not enough Senate and House seats up for re-election. Even if the Republicans won every single race, they would lack the necessary 2/3's majority in the Senate to overrule Obama's veto.
Why would they want to? You forget about Medicare D or Mitt Romney?
HC has been socialized for a while.. the government already pays most of the cost via directly through social services or via tax credits to corporations who provide it.
That's one of the reasons why it's so expensive.. if government bought 75% of all the tires in the world, and you know how it is with government right? They are not limited by price and can pay just about anything (and usually do pay several hundred dollars for things like screws.) If you have one buyer that will pay massive amounts like that then it would stand to reason that the price of tires would grow to be outside the range of the average consumer.
Another interesting (and hopefully informatively neutral) tidbit of data on the original topic:
It will not be possible to repeal health care in the 2010 elections. There are not enough Senate and House seats up for re-election. Even if the Republicans won every single race, they would lack the necessary 2/3's majority in the Senate to overrule Obama's veto.
The only hope for a repeal to this bill is if it somehow infringed on constitutional rights. Then the Supreme Court could step in and overturn it. Chances of that actually happening are minuscule though so get used to it people.
Listen, Ameribuds, we gotta talk. We love you, we really really do! North America is best America, etc etc.
But I gotta say, this point about being able to tell whether you are LEFT or RIGHT without even knowing your name is pretty.. well, frustrating. It's like it's either one or the other, no wiggle room, no in between for anything. It sounds like almost everyone is either 100% Against a public option, or 100% For it.
It is possible to be a little bit in the middle, you know! As a Canadian, living in British Columbia (the leftest, democrat-ist, abortion loving province of all) AND alberta (the rightest, republican-ist, capitalist province of all) both, I can safely say that there is room for in between. You know what? Back in the day, the most conservative citizens protested in droves against public health care for the country! And it is for that reason that any Canadian government, even the current Conservative one, can never undo the Universal health care we have.
I gotta say, its not perfect. I broke my arm one time, I had to wait a whole 3 hours one time to get an xray and a cast! A whole 3 hours. The person who came in after me got into a car accident, and was therefore rushed to the ER before anyone else, right? So, obviously, priority wins. Okay, I mean, youre not gonna leave the car accident person there because they were second in line.
problem up here is the wait times, as many of us point out. However, when I can get mine done for zero dollars, I dont mind waiting around a few hours. Not even a single loonie or toonie! Crazy!
We're not communist, we're not nazis, no men show up at your door with guns! And when you're talking millions of uncovered people... Well, what's the humane thing to do?
Point is that there ARE people in the middle. We're just a small minority that usually gets ignored.
The funny thing about your statment is that the people in the middle are the vast majority. it is the people that are on the far either side that are the loud, obnoxious and insufferable minority.
Though it seems a recent trend for people to side with either polar end as soon as they see some sort of opposition to their key ideals. I however prefer to side with Aristotle and his Nichomachean ethics and i strive in life and in politics to find "The Golden Mean"
find someone who truly will not step out of the "Golden Mean", and I will show you a Republican whose for Abortion, and a green dog that speaks Spanish.
As a red-name, I'm not going to take sides either way. Regardless, it will most certainly be seen as a landmark decision in US politics for a long time to come.
