I couldn’t decide between 1, 2, and 3 myself. The mistake wasn’t in staying, but in going in initially with only a half-vast array of forces. Shock and awe didn’t work. That said, I don’t see anything morally wrong with America toppling dictatorships. It’s the human and financial costs involved that need calculating, of course.
Those are all reasonable responses. But to this day, I still hear #5 from some folks.
Cite?
OP, it’s very odd that the scale you suggest isn’t based on people’s actual positions, but instead how they fall in relation to others. I can see you saying that anyone who is too extreme on certain hot button issues being not worth talking to, but you seem to be saying simply being too conservative across the board means not worth talking to.
If people answer “correctly” to your poll and you had enough of a sample size, you are aware that the average would be 30, right? Are you saying that that anyone above 30 isn’t worth talking to?
The other question on this one is what’s the answer now, with benefit of hindsight? Or what was the persons position at the time of the invasion? Being pro-Iraq war now puts someone at a five. Being pro-Iraq war at the time of the invasion puts someone at a two.
My own feelings were “sure, we can get rid of Saddam, but damn, he better have a secret political knowledge or something cause even I can tell that there aren’t enough troops for an occupation.”
I also didn’t care too much about lying about WMD, not because it wasn’t a big deal, but because the lying was so blatantly obvious (“mushroom cloud?” :dubious:). The revelation that they were deliberately exagerrating the dangers did not really add any new information. It was sort of like if Obama created one of those retro-Soviet pro-worker posters and didn’t mean it ironically. I’d stare slack-jawed and wonder if he thought we were really that stupid, and I’m surprised the rest of the country did not similarly ignore, and thus discount, such propaganda.
But still, technically I could be a “1” because yes, it was a clusterfuck.
**Debt ceiling **
The folks who lowered taxes during two wars are complaining about the debt. I agree. But I’d love to see them be consistent about it and stop wasting money whenever they come to power. I’m afraid that they’ve ceded the moral high ground regarding the debt and I’m willing to give Obama and the dems some breathing room to get the economy back in shape. That might take stimulus spending and tax breaks for the middle class, plus some spending cuts elsewhere and higher taxes on those who can afford it.
It is not a crisis where an additional raising of the debt limit will hurt the country. Not increasing it, however, will.
** Immigration **
If you’re here illegally you shouldn’t get to vote, you’re not entitled to entitlement spending, and just about any other crime you commit should come with deportation.
However, if you’re holding down a job or otherwise not causing trouble, I don’t care. At the same time, reforms to make the process for entering the country legally could be a good idea, and a pathway to legal citizenship through public service and background checks and so forth would be great. I’d even go so far as to suggest getting some documentation and getting a background check (so we can find out exactly where and who everyone is) would be worth trading a temporary legal visa for.
**Taxes **
Taxes have been historically much, much higher, and the economy did just fine. Our government isn’t taking in enough money and the classes most affected by lower taxes didn’t need lower taxes in the first place in order to prosper. It’s basically a big wet kiss to the rich at a time when lowering the amount of money we take in for basic government services is terribly irresponsible.
I’m not suggesting jacking taxes up to 80 percent, but a few percentage points would go a long way toward restoring fiscal balance and the upper classes can afford it easily. They did before.
** Gov’t spending**
Spending too much on wars and military interventions. Libya is a textbook example of how to defend liberty without spending trillions of dollars.
We can afford to cut waste, subsidies to industries making huge profits, but touching the money we paid into the system for a safety net for medicine or social security is taking money away from the poor that they put there for themselves for a rainy day. It’s literally the worst thing on the budget to be cutting at any time, let alone an economic depression.
Spending is too high in many areas, too low in others.
** US as Christian country**
As an atheist, you can kiss my ass. It’s a secular country populated with lots of Christians whose religious beliefs are protected by law. But start saying this isn’t my country too, or that the government is supposed to enforce religious values or principles, and once again, you can kiss my ass.
** Abortion**
Must be legal. Anything else takes away a woman’s right to her own bodily integrity and allows a rapist to force her to raise his child. It’s completely immoral to tell a woman what she cannot do with her own body. There are no circumstances where I would infringe upon the abortion right.
The people who are actually lunatics on this issue are the ones who would force an underage woman to raise her AIDS-infected rapist father’s child, and blow up abortion clinics to stop her from freeing herself from that fate. They can also kiss my ass.
Obamacare
Ridiculously inexpensive and necessary, especially for the poorest classes who otherwise cannot afford insurance due to private employers not paying enough nor providing benefits. Since not everyone can be a doctor or politician, someone has to sweep floors and pick up trash. Those people deserve to see a doctor after working a 40 hour week, too.
Why? Because they’re human beings, jackass.
Birtherism
Personally I don’t give a crap if someone was born in another country. Our own laws are wrong. If someone is a legal citizen they should be able to hold any elected office. So you can imagine how little I care about this non-issue, especially in Obama’s case, where he was clearly born in this country.
Racial equality/ civil rights
Inequality still exists largely along racial lines. I continue to support government efforts to improve the conditions for the poor and the unemployed and the uneducated, regardless of race. You tackle those issues, and you solve racial inequality as a systemic issue. You can’t fix racism but you can give people a fairer shake. Where I draw the line- I don’t support racial quotas. If all the qualified candidates are not a certain race, then you don’t appoint someone who is not qualified just to fill some arbitrary number of minorities.
That is simply reverse racism, not as damaging but just as stupid and it shouldn’t be a government policy.
** English as official language of US**
Doesn’t mean jack. There are lots of people here who are citizens who speak other languages more fluently. Saying it is official or unofficial doesn’t change the number of people who speak English, won’t force people to speak it if they don’t speak it. People who don’t speak English but are here legally, I have no issues with. All I ask is that any public system I might use, and any business I might become a customer to, allows me to converse with them in English. I will not patronize businesses that don’t speak to me in my language.
I think the government is also obligated to provide all forms and communications in languages that any significant percentage of the legal population prefers to speak.
Public schools should teach English. We teach Spanish and we teach French and we teach Latin. We obviously should be teaching English, it’s more useful in this country. If a district is primarily more Spanish-speaking, for example, then I don’t mind Spanish-speaking classes to help students learn better. But they should also be taught how to speak English so they can assimilate better. It’s good for them and for us. English doesn’t have to be an official language or “the” official language for that to be sound policy.
Assign whatever numbers you wish to these. I hate numerical systems for determining political alignment. Every stance I have is independent of other stances I have. Every issue is unique. I largely see political compasses as trivia.
It’s an imprecise measure, to be sure, in which people are assigning their own values (or not assigning any, in some cases) but it does I think accurately measure where people place themselves. I am amused by the vehement excuses being offered for not placing oneself on this provisional spectrum.
I am saying that scoring over 30 opens up the possibility that you are a crazy person and nothing will come from discussing issues wiht you. That possibility grows and grows until somewhere in the 40s where it becomes a certainty.
But you could probably tell that without my help.
Mostly I don’t understand the numbering system. For example most people don’t hold my view on abortion, but I wouldn’t consider it “nutty”.
Obamacare is unconstitutional and a similar system implemented in Massachusetts led to rising costs. Either go all socialist or abolish all government insurance programs and mandates. I prefer the second. I’ll take a 5 here I guess even though a socialist system wouldn’t be as objectionable as Pelosicare.
I think the government should neither discriminate on the basis of race nor encourage discrimination with affirmative action. I’ll take a 1 on this.
What is the scale for taxes? They should be lower and not in the form of income taxes. I’ll take a 3.
Life ends with the cessation of brain activity, therefore, life begins with the onset of brain activity. If you abort a fetus with a functioning brain, you are committing homicide. If the health of the mother is at stake it is justifiable. Now if someone says life starts at conception, I consider that nutty. I also consider it nutty to support late term abortions or not resuscitate a potentially viable aborted fetus. I’ll take a 3, but I still don’t get the number system.
Your assessment of my Christian stance is correct and I don’t think an official language law of any kind is appropriate.
So according to you literally half of the country is possibly “crazy” people with whom nothing can come from discussing issues with? This rises to certainty for 40% of the country for you?
That’s an unfortunate attitude.
I’ll pick on of your items as an example:
I am pro-choice, and would like to see a pro-choice amendment to the constitution. Abortion should be legal and available for women without jumping through hoops or being forced to view an image of the fetus. But I think some reasonable restrictions on abortion can be allowed such as late term abortions that don’t have any medical reason. I think states should be allowed to make some of these decisions for themselves and if Utah has more restrictive abortion laws than Massachusetts I can live with that.
I’d say this puts me at #2 on your scale. A #1 is for unrestricted abortion of all kinds including late term. Numbers 2-3 are varying degrees of acceptance of abortions and limitations. Anyone earning a rank of #4-5 is in favor of banning most abortion leading up to banning even in cases of rape and incest at the extreme end.
Now, I think banning abortion for raped women is a bit crazy, which is to be expected since it’s so far from my position on the issue. But I recognize that this is only a fraction of the #5’s on your scale and certainly not the 3’s and 4’s. I certainly wouldn’t say anyone who is opposed to abortion isn’t worth talking to. This is true since many of their beliefs are something that I can learn from if I listen to them without prejudging them to be evil just because they have a different opinion from me.
Agreed. The numbering system doesn’t make any sense. The numbering system is set up to be in relation to what other people believe, and not fixed in place regarding the issue at hand. Even if everyone in the country woke up tomorrow pro-choice there would still be fives since then just wanting to limit late term abortions or have insurance not fully cover them would make someone to the right of their fellow citizens.
Could you state your position on abortion please? The numbering system couldn’t be simpler
- should be legal to anyone who wants one
- should be legal to most women who want one
- I’m torn between partial legality and banning abortions
- abortion should be illegal
- abortion must be illegal NOW and anyone who helps someone get one is a murderer.
If you’re a 4 or a 5, and you’re proud of your position, then I’m sure you don’t consider it nutty. I just want to know your position. Is it a 4 or a 5?
Given the small summary I gave of my position on abortion it could be a 2,3, or 4. Make it a 3 if that makes you happy.
Your position on abortion includes “it should be legal to most women who want one” AND “abortion should be illegal”? Could you explain that, please?
Just to keep picking on abortion to point out how your linear rating system doesn’t work:
What about someone who wants abortion to be legal but wants to repeal Roe vs Wade because they are a constructionist?
What about someone who agrees that abortion is murder but wants to keep it legal because they are more concerned about overpopulation?
Or, for that matter, someone who thinks it should be legal for everyone before some point, and illegal for everyone after that point?
Ya got an option for “Bored to indifference about the whole thing”?
Yep. Don’t take the poll seriously. Worked for me!
Then make up your own wording
- legal for everyone
- legal for a few (left-)handed Ukrainian immigrants, the cross-eyed), illegal for most
- legal for some, illegal for others
- Illegal for everyone
- same as 4, death penalty for abortion providers
or whatever. This is why I’m asking people to make up their own spectrum and choose a place on it, instead of mandating the wording. I’m only providing it for people who insist “it’s imposssssssible.”
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.