Political leanings

Army5339,

I totally understand your point of view and I used to proudly proclaim the same stance on almost all of your subject material. My views have changed simply because I have learned more about social systems, cause and effect, and while agree with the logic behind it, the solutions are not so simple. I hate the fact I have to shoulder the burden for pollution cleanup or subsidize a corporations environmentally degredational habits with my tax dollars (in any form) while they continue to boast record profits. Or pay for the medical expenses of an individual who choose to smoke ciggarettes or eat too much damn unhealthy food. Why does this happen? It's called a governments lax policy enforcement, and an uninformed or uncaring citizen base. Neither of these are excuseable IMO. Now, if we had a capitialist system void of greed and corruption we wouldn't need the government to regulate or flat out deny certain policies but since greed and capitalism are inseperable at this point, strong government policy making and enforcement are critical to our nation. Now if we can someone get the CEOs out of government positions we might have a chance to do something good. Until that time our nation is run by corporations. Don't believe it? Look up each major player and see where they worked prior to their new position then watch where they go when they leave office.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 30 2007, 06:39 PM) [snapback]452386[/snapback]</div>

The flaw in the conservative Libertarian philosphy is that they want no government regulation for corporations.No environmental or monopoly restrictions ,No labor laws,no consumer protection.They want freedom for corporations to rape the consumer ,dreaming that the free market will somehow reign in their irresponsibility. It would only amount to rule by corporation.
Thats why I call them Fascists who smoke pot.Which doesnt fit on the chart.
BTW I forgot the numbers ,but Im right on top of Nelson Mandela .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ May 30 2007, 09:16 PM) [snapback]452453[/snapback]</div>

No, there should be laws on corporations. What I don't think is wrong is a company making profit. What I don't think is wrong is a company determining how much a position is worth, or being able to fire people if they are no longer needed. I also believe in paying the true cost of an item. Subsidized products are not cheaper, the cost is just moved to other product or people. I want to end agricultural welfare. People should pay the true cost for food items. If a farm is growing something that doesn't sell at true cost, so sad. The price of gasoline should be as high as people are willing to pay. When I sell my old car, I am going to charge as much for it as I can get. It doesn't make me wrong, nor am I screwing anybody over.

I would really appreciate it if you don't call me a fascist because my ideas are different than yours.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 30 2007, 07:39 PM) [snapback]452386[/snapback]</div>

And given to whom?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ May 30 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]452502[/snapback]</div>

and who is going to pay to raise them? I don't think there are a lot of people in this country willing to raise (and support) children who are not born into the family or extended family, but I salute the people who DO that. I know in my grandparents' day in the early part of the 20th century, it was relatively common for one family to assume responsibility for another family's children when there were money issues, but now most people assume 'oh, the foster-care system will take care of them!'.

 

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.62

Favorite questions

A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.

No way - no more freaks please.

People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.

No - they should not.

The rich are too highly taxed.

They are - 1% of the population pays for 80% of the taxes - so the crack whore on welfare gets my hard earned tax dollars - great.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.

This is called socalism - and it doesn't work... at all.

 

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

Lump me in with the majority so far...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 30 2007, 09:51 PM) [snapback]452491[/snapback]</div>

I wasnt necessarily referring to you personally.With your viewpoint you are not an example of a extreme conservative Libertarian.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ May 30 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]452502[/snapback]</div>

My first guess would be a family who wants to adopt them and can afford it. There are plenty of people who want to adopt and have to wait, or decide to adopt some Chinese baby to get around the wait.

If someone desires to die of starvation because they don't want to work, that is their choice. They are not allowed to starve a child because of their laziness. If someone is making $11/hour and has 10 kids, why should they be allowed to keep them? They aren't paying for them, and are fully expecting someone else to cover their slack. It would be like them buying an SUV, and demanding that other people pay the car payment and gas bill. The SUV would get repo'd. Kids get taken from their parents all the time for stuff like a filthy house, not enough food, etc.

 

Economic Left/Right: -7.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.54

I'm glad to see that most of the folks here are in the same neighborhood as Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, and not Hitler's.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 30 2007, 08:21 PM) [snapback]452416[/snapback]</div>

I honestly believe that hard work ethic is being eroded from American society. People are beginning to feel they are entitled to free stuff, wither it is a free car, free rent, free food, free college, free promotions, etc. I have no sympathy for those who refuse to put a little effort into bettering themselves.

I never said that people who honestly need help shouldn't get help. Some people really do need some help. Permanent help isn't the answer. A simple handout of money isn't the answer.

We have lots of homeless people around where I live. They panhandle out by the highway. They refuse to work. It has been offered to them, and they would rather beg. But they also expect a handout of food when the panhandling doesn't work out. Nobody should support that. This isn't the guy who lost his job. This guy refuses to get a job. Period.

I have a cousin-in-law who refuses to get a job for less than $25/hour. She thinks serving tables and what not are beneath her. She barely graduated high school. So she doesn't work, saying that unless she is getting paid $25/hour or more, she is wasting her time. Quite frankly, I think she should be cut off from unemployment. She is jobless by choice.

I, along with a good segment of the population, are not willing to pay for someone to prance about life trying to experience life, loaf around on the couch watching tv, or getting over some personal trauma that many other people experience and work their way through it.

Responsibility and self-reliance need to be reintroduced to American society.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 30 2007, 11:44 PM) [snapback]452528[/snapback]</div>

They typically want to adopt infants - their "adoptability" (I believe I just made up a new word) is inversely proportional to their age, so I think you're being a tad idealistic in assuming there are families out there waiting to adopt a child past a certain age. Your own example of the woman with 10 kids - the oldest is basically9 or 10 years old by definition; not a lot of families looking to adopt 10 year olds...

Speaking of getting around the wait and the expense of adoption - why so expensive and why so long a process? To make sure the parents are worthy and won't just abuse the child? How come we don't do this same screening process for people having their own children? Are they not as likely (possibly more so) to be guilty of what we're screening potential adoptive families of?

 

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.74

Hmmmmm :huh: :mellow:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ May 31 2007, 12:27 PM) [snapback]452609[/snapback]</div>

Come over to the Dark Side, hycamguy! You're so close.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 30 2007, 07:51 PM) [snapback]452491[/snapback]</div>

Good deal. That sounds much more reasonable!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ May 30 2007, 08:26 PM) [snapback]452510[/snapback]</div>

Neither is capitalism or democracy at this point. lol Does it mean that it would never work or has it just been incorrectly implemented?

 

Well we all knew this would devolve into bickering. Yeah Fred's!
Army dude, I like alot of your stances.
I do want the government to interfere in transportation choices though. The individual is not capable of thinking of national security before personal security on this issue and so collectively, we all just keep on suckling at the Arab teet. We need to collectively find a way to push ourselves and our transportation infrastructure into the post oil era, BEFORE we run out of the oil (and time) that we need to actually make the change.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 30 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]452316[/snapback]</div>

The President can't pass laws, Congress does that.


As of this moment there are 14 entries in the lower left quadrant, many of them way lower left. There are 8 entries in the other quadrants. I think that shows the tilt of the board, but it is a very small sample.

 

Hmmm. I guess I have to tell you my numbers if I want to be on that graph:

Economic -5.34 Social: -5.73

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ May 31 2007, 12:45 PM) [snapback]452753[/snapback]</div>

That to me is a false arguement. The president essentially chooses who to put into what government positions when he gains office. So while he may not pass or banish laws he does have a direct hand in it. We see this happen all the time in the environmental field. A president comes into office and a bunch of new beneficial environmental laws are put into place. Bush Jr. comes into office and the environmental laws get banished outright or erroded away so they have no teeth. There is absolutely no argueing this process.

 

"I think that shows the tilt of the board"
Wasn't that a foregone conclusion?