SouthernStyle, I agree with you on everything (your definition of Centrist fits me well) except abortion. Who are we to decide what a woman does? And don’t tell me ‘human at conception’. That is a religious argument and religion has no place in politics. There should be no restrictions for the first two trimesters, life-saving abortions only for the last one. Tell me, how many more abused, neglected kids do you want in this world? Women will have them regardless. Where would you rather have it done: Back-alley or Doctor’s Office? We have too many people in the world. You said it yourself. The last thing we need is an increase, especially of neglected ones.
SouthernStyle wrote:
So, who did you vote for in the Constitution Party’s primary? 
Im pro-death, kill everyone. 
I’m odd. I’m not “right-wing”. I’m not “left-wing”. I’m not “moderate”. Hell, I’m not even “libertarian” (I don’t think).
I’m very “right-winged” about some things… mostly, issues that have a significant effect on vast numbers of people (like guns and military… if those were sudden to vanish, the country’d be defenseless). But I’m very “left-winged” about other things, things that affect people as individuals (abortion, homosexuality, etc.). I can’t stand any religious point of view, though… I can UNDERstand it, but I don’t like it.
I’m still young (first voted in the California Primary… wee!), so I haven’t developed an “opinion” on a lot of the issues (like Social Security). Gotta learn more about stuff. Issues like abortion, I have trouble with… I put a lot of value on every human life, but I also put value on a person’s emotional security/stability. I also don’t consider the environment to be as fragile as some would like us to believe (eco-terrorists who place plants above the lives of human beings shouldn’t be considered sentient, in my opinion).
Anyway, that’s sorta-kinda how I lean. It’d take a much longer post to say EVERYthing that’s on my mind, of course.
SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote:
Now now, sentience does not imply sanity.
BTW, Spoofe, what’s your stance on economic issues such as taxation, minimum-wage laws, and subsidies? You might be more Libertarian than you think!
Cool! I’ve been moved! First time for a thread I started!
(hands out Cake)
Now then. (Munch)
Affirmative Action: Hoo Boy. Living where I am, I have only seen it become a touchstone issue for the politically active. We all, Black and White, get along nicely unless someone brings up politics, which says something about politics right there Not needed anymore.
Nafta/gatt Sure… give GM/Ford/Wal Mart/Thompson Electronics/Clothing Manufacturer/Magna-Tech a chance to move someplace with ultra cheap labor and lax government/no labor laws, and you claim this is GOOD for america? I hear Perot laughs a lot these days, mumbling “I told you so.” when he catches his breath.
Soc Sec: Won’t be there when I get old enough to need it. I’m betting on stocks/401k.
Abortion: Poor choice of birth control, which is all it really is. Either find a better method of BC or don’t have sex. There’s no right to sex.
Gun Control: Leave a gun on a table, and under normal circumstances, it won’t kill anyone. Put someone behind it, and it’s dangerous. People can over come locks/laws and the like to kill. They’ll resort to knives and crude bombs if they can’t get one, so why claim guns are the problem?
Nat. Health Insurance: I would have loved to have this, but I don’t trust the government to manage it right, having seen other countries examples.
Enviromental Issues: Save it while we have it.
That’s obvious. Nobody would seriously say that we should ‘burn it, hack it up, poison it, and dance about on the remains’. I’m asking you: How far would you go to preserve the environment? My opinion: Companies and private groups should be left to clean up. They will, to build goodwill and sell their products. If they won’t, an informed populace won’t buy.
affirmative action - can it. Now if not sooner.
nafta/gatt - I like it in general.
social security - privatize at least half of it.
abortion - You know, this is a difficult one. Although I am very morally opposed to abortion, I can’t say that I favor changing the laws from how they currently stand.
gun control - No.
national health insurance - I think we could look a lot at how a system like Blue Cross works, and starting from there make a national system for those who are not covered by their employers.
environmental issues - We’ve done enough to the big companies. We need to focus hard on the middle-sized and small companies, that receive little regulation and almost no monitoring/reporting requirements. Auto emissions should be clamped down on for trucks, SUV’s, minivans, etc. Researching for a recent thread revealed to me that cars pollute a lot more than I thought before.
energy issues - bring back nukes by streamlining the process for approval for the newer, safer plants that have been designed (like GE’s system, being built in Thailand). Stop bothering coal plants any further unless you want serious blackouts across the country. Restrict new gas turbine installations unless you want several dozens of millions of homes with no heat in 20 years. Put much more (at least 100 times the money) research into biofuels, improving solar by a factor of two or three (if possible), high-density energy storage systems, etc…
sexual issues - leave gays and lesbians alone, damnit, but make sure we have no special rights that anyone else doesn’t. Gay/Lesbian marriage - who cares? I don’t want any free rides, nor any shortchanges either.
foreign realtions - start a process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Castro won’t live forever. Resist the urge to link more closely with the EC. Help the former Soviet republics (and Russia) more. By God, stop giving China free reign!
Derleth wrote:
I disagree. Pollution control is one of the many areas where libertarianism fails. First, you’re assuming that the populace will be informed. Why would they, necessarily? Without government inspections, companies can simply keep their pollution out of the public eye.
Furthermore, what happens when a company simply goes out of business, and leaves pollution behind? (E.g., buried toxic waste.) Who cleans up then?
The government has to step in (and damn well ought to step in) to stop pollution before it happens, and to help clean it up after it happens, if there is no one else to do it.
WARNING - Partial thread hijack below.
I have to agree with spoke- here. I’ve worked on emissions-related subjects in detail with nearly every US utility and power company, as well as several non-US ones. Not one of these companies would have put any emissions controls on their power plants voluntarily. The simple reason is that, contrary to what politicians and the enviro crowd says, emissions controls on large power plants are hideously EXPENSIVE.
To scrub 95% of SO2 emissions from a 600 MW coal plant, you must first build a scrubber and booster fan system (about $100 million capital cost). Then, you must pay for the energy required to operate the system (assume 10 additional MW, at a low average cost of $25/MW-hr, and assume the plant runs for 70% of the year, and you have $1.53 million in energy cost alone (annual cost). A system like this uses about 8 tons/hour of limestone, at a cost of about $10/ton, and must dispose of it’s gypsum sludge (produced at about 12 tons/hour) at a landfill and hauling cost of about $15/ton (for Eastern US). This is an additional annual cost of approx. $1.5 million. Then add 5 additional operators and maintenance personnel (at a loaded cost of $70,000/person-year) and you get about $350,000 annual cost per year. Then add inspections, cleaning, routine maintenance parts, etc. and you get about $1 million per year. AND then add in certification tests, monitoring equipment, paperwork, and you get another $500,000 per year.
And this is just to remove one type of pollutant. No utility would voluntarily spend this much to clean up their emissions. And it’s not like customers can just choose to buy their power elsewhere (well, at least not in the majority of the US).
Well, I was going to point out the assumptions inherent in that, but two already have.
If I was running a company and had two choices, either add expensive pollution controls, or lie I’d do the latter. I’m betting that most people won’t do dig up gov’t records on polution, filled with all them big words and hard math, and try to figure out what the hell it all means! Also it’s dependent on that there IS competion in your general field (Telephone and electricity in most areas), or that the individual companies haven’t decided to band together so oppose anti-pollution methods.
This should not be problematic for the utilities from an economic standpoint. Most state’s public utilities commissions allow a minimum return on investment in capital costs - the utilities are free to raise rates to cover the amortized cost. This translates into “the more the utility spends, the more it earns.” Every organization’s purpose is to increase its size, power, and net return. IMHO, this is why every nuclear power plant in this country is designed and built from the ground up-in order to increase costs and ultimately income. It is my understanding that in other parts of the world, nuclear power plants are substantially designed the same-cookie cutter fashion. But in other countries, the governments own and operate the nukes rather than private companies, as here in the U.S.
Apologies for continuing the thread hijack. Back to the OP.
I’m a gun totin’ right wing wacko who takes the Constitution and the Bible LITERALLY. And, no, I am not a ‘redneck’ living in a trailer in some southern state. I am a college educated professional working in a high technology environment in an economic powerhouse urban area.
So, stuff it, liberals. You can have my guns- BULLETS FIRST!
Affirmative action: pitch it, it’s ceased to be of any real value and only serves to further inflame racial tensions.
NAFTA/GATT: not informed enough to say one way or another.
Social Security: a joke - privatize it and allow me to plan for my own retirement, thankyouverymuch.
Abortion: 100% adamantly against.
Gun control: enforce the current regulations first, then we’ll see how much more “control” we need.
National health insurance: no freakin’ way. The government has thoroughly screwed up Medicare, why on earth would I want to give them any more control?
Environmental issues: clean it up, duh. But I think the government has enough regulations in place, they just need to close the loopholes.
Energy issues: nuclear power is probably the way to go here.
Sexual issues: um, whatever. No special rights for either homosexuals or heterosexuals.
Foreign relations: I’m not at all sure of using economic weapons to get other countries to adhere to how we think they should be run, but if we’re going to… what the hell is the deal with a Cuban embargo yet normalized trade with China?
spooje checks in.
affirmative action. I do not yet believe we have a level playing field, so some form of it is still needed.
nafta/gatt. no. I think that U.S. companies that produce goods in other countries to be sold here should be taxed into oblivion.\
social security and welfare. keep them but punish those that abuse them, particularly crooked administrators.
abortion. should be legal.
Enviromental Issues. I like clean air and water, but I don’t give a squirt about spotted owls and field mice.
gun control. rifles are ok, the rest gotta go.
national health insurance. will never happen.
war on drugs. complete failure that has compounded the problem.
Definetely left of center.
Socialist… I’m to lazy to be anything else really…
spoke- wrote:
No, it is an area where libertarian ideals can be extremely useful. I had to do a little checking around for this kind of info for another thread. Before making these kind of statements in the future, please check out the following:
Earth Day, Then and Now
For the record:
Affirmative Action: Against.
NAFTA/GATT: For free trade in general.
Social Security: Against.
Welfare: Generally against–at the least, it should be confined to the state level.
Abortion: Morally opposed, but believe that it is a personal choice and should not illegal.
Environmental Issues: We have to care for our environment, but I disagree with many approaches currently being taken (see above links).
Gun Control: I believe that the right to defend oneself is fundamental. I am against just about all the gun control legislation I have seen. If we’re going modify items in the Bill of Rights, it should be done by means of a Constitutional Amendment.
National Health Insurance: Way, way against.
War on Drugs: Way against.
-VM
Well, I see no difference between the republicans and democrats myself.
I know nothing aboiut Libertarianism, if anyone here does, they could explain it to me.
Myself, I will vote for Dick gregory, so I’ll have to say I lean to the left!
peaches8:
That statement sounds pretty libertarian. You can learn more at the official party website:
-VM
Hi Derleth,
My abortion position is a personal one. It’s based on my moral compass, not necessarily my regilious beliefs. (Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I do claim to being Christian.)
There are so many things in this world for which we do not have answers. I know of noone whose been blessed with the divine knowledge of what is life, why is life, or what happens when what we call “life” is ended.
Those that defend abortion must, in their own mind, make the determination that life begins at birth, at viability, at the start of the third trimester, at conception, when the fetus can first “feel”, or at some other point in the process. Failure to do so is to condone murder, genocide, or infanticide. Anyone that wants to argue this by claiming that abortion is simply the killing of a fetus gets nowhere in this discussion – they’ve already decided that life begins at some point after.
As I said, I don’t know where life begins. But I cannot, in all good conscience, state that killing a fetus is nothing more than a medical procedure when the fetus would survive with medical treatment avilable to someone that is already born.
Science is advancing every day. The technology exists today to take a fetus only a few months old and nurture it to viability. In fact, the cloning process which has caused such a furor takes a single cell and nurtures it to viability.
Is it right to deny such technology and treatment to a fetus that is or would otherwise become viable? Or is it murder? Given that someone opines that it is acceptable to deny such treatment, can one not then argue that it is also acceptable to deny similar treatment to someone that is already born?
The arguments for abortion are usually those of convenience. “There are already too many people in the world, we don’t need anymore.” “I’m not ready to have a baby.” “I don’t want anyone knowing that my 15 year old daughter got pregnant.” “If my girlfriend has the baby I’ll have to pay child support for the next 20 years.”
It tells me a lot when the prevailing argument is one of convenience.
If life is an accident then none of it matters. We are free to do as we choose with no consequences except those brought upon us by those that survived the birthing process.
But I don’t believe that life is an accident. I don’t believe that any individual has a greater “right” to live than does the next. I [i\do* believe that one can forfeit his “right” to live.
As such, I’ll argue until the day I die against abortion and for capital punishment. (Ever notice how often the two attitudes go together? If you’re for one you’re usually against the other.)
I’d really like to get back on my soapbox but this is a politics thread, not an abortion thread. The next time an abortion argument thread is started, I’ll cut loose.
SouthernStyle