I want ARNOLD to run
or MR T

It was not the White House that was shut down but the whole federal government. The Republicans could have succeeded, but Gingrich and Dole prevented that from happening. 

Mark Hoppus

Wow, a lot has happened since I last posted... I don't think I want to play catchup now. Also, the Conservative vs Liberal threads are starting to get boring.

But, I do have an interesting question for each of you, that is only semi-related to this thread. We have each obviously misinterpreted one another's beliefs. So my questions for each of you is, what do you believe overall in each category? There is no wrong answer, I'm just curious. I have far left liberal friends, and far right conservative ones. I don't have to agree with someone's political beliefs to respect them.

In other words, let's not critique each others beliefs and debate them, let's just learn something about one another.

I suppose I will start.

Fiscal - Far Right. I'm for smaller government, low taxes, and people relying on themselves to survive and not expecting the government to bail them out of problems (little welfare).

Abortion - Very Conservative. I believe the fetus is a person and should receive the same rights as another human being.

Gay rights - Slightly lean Liberal. I have two gay cousins and one of the best friends I have ever had in my life is gay as well, and I believe that all men are created equal under God. And whether or not their actions are moral is none of my business and is between themselves and their Maker. In other words, I'm not really an activist for either position. I think people should just worry about themselves and not concern themselves with other people's sexual orientation.. just as I don't want people worrying about me being a heterosexual male. It's my business.

Civil Rights - Moderate. I'm actually a minority myself, and on top of that, half of my family is from Mexico. So equal rights for all is important to me. But, I don't think the government should make racism illegal as long as it stays in the verbal sense. In other words, if someone doesn't like me because of my race, it doesn't really bother me. I don't think you have to be a minority to be the victim of a hate crime, so I think the definition is too vague to enforce as a law. BUT, if someone's racism spills over from verbal racism to actions (such as firing someone because they are of another race) then it's no longer simply an opinion, but active racism, the government needs to step in and help that person. I just don't think that by classifying something as a "hate crime", it makes a crime worse. In other words, if a man kills his neighbor on the left because paints his house an ugly color, is it worse than the fact that he killed his neighbor on the right for being a Mexican-American? No. They are both murders, and at the end of the day, despite his reasoning, both neighbors are still dead. I hope that makes sense.

Religion - Moderate. I absolutely, positively want the government to keep out of religion in every aspect. The reason I say this is because although I myself am supportive of Judeo-Christian values, and it happens to be the norm today, 50-years from now we could be a Buddhist nation (or any other religion for that matter) and I wouldn't want that other religious doctrine to be shoved down my throat if I were in the religious minority. I think the role of government is simply to keep out of religion period, and make sure that each of our rights, regardless of religious affiliation (or lack thereof) be upheld.

Military - Very Conservative. I believe in using our military power for the good of mankind by spreading freedom to those who are oppressed. And more importantly, I believe the military should be used to protect our sovereignty and national interests regardless of where that enemy may lie... half way around the world or right next door. I believe we have a moral obligation to protect the innocent and defenseless regardless of where that person is.

Overall, I see myself as a fiscal & military conservative and a social moderate-liberal.

Okay, that's a basic overview of how I see things. What are yours? I promise I won't critique any of your beliefs, I'm just curious to learn more about the people I talk to everyday in this forum... and like I said, my friends in real life are on all spectrums of the political rainbow, and it's never bothered me before. So let's learn about one another.

I don't feel like writing a whole lot right now, so to answer Comrade Tovya, I'll post this from The World's Smallest Political Quiz:

The red dot is where I stand.

Nope, you're wrong.  I've had this exact same discussion before and I think it was with you. 

(Two minutes later)

OK, well, not the same discussion, but the post I made then is pretty much exactly on topic for this discussion as well. 

"Actually, the Democratic congress was not replaced until 1994.  This is largely because of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (AKA Deficit Reduction Act) which is credited with balancing the budget.  It raised taxes and cut spending.  Every single Republican in Congress (House and Senate) voted against the bill.  Republicans were able, IIRC, to hammer Democrats for raising taxes and swept into control of both House and Senate in 1994."

For clarity, I meant the 1994 elections, of course.  Democrats controlled the House and Senate up until January 1995. 

And I don't understand how "a bigger percentage" would be different from "a bigger amount compared to other places".  A bigger per capita amount would make a difference.  Is this what you mean?  If not, what do you mean?

Fiscal - Centrist. I think people blow out of proportion the "big government" issue.  If you look at the numbers, a lot of the programs that conservatives act like are ballooning the budget are actually not that expensive.  I am for higher taxes during good times, lower taxes during bad times.  This is one Keynsian ideal that is still pretty effective, since it helps solve deficit problems and helps prevent the ridiculous highs of the market that lead to crashes (like the DotCom bubble, crash before Depression, sub-prime mortgage policy).  I am all pragmatism in terms of economic theory, and don't rely on any one theory like Keynsian economics, Friedman style conservative economics, or supply side economics.  I think all have useful ideas, and there is a situation in which each of those policies has effective solutions to solving economic problems (or avoiding creating new ones).  I like supply side economics the least out of those three though.

I am completely against ballooning the national debt.  I think it is irresponsible, reckless, and that it will cause long term problems for the economy.

On monetary policy, inflation is the number one enemy.  The Fed has irresponsibly kept interest rates lower than they should be and has meddled too much in the markets.  Welfare problems are also blown out of proportion (cost a fraction of what one year in Iraq does), though I am all for independent review of government programs to determine where waste and inefficiency is occuring.

In terms of my attitude towards markets, I think that the market formula itself can solve a lot of problems.  But I also think way too many people think markets can solve any problem or that markets can do no wrong.  Market failures and externalities are an economic reality that are too often ignored.  I am for smart regulation of industry to prevent the excessive market highs (like the one we just went through) and to prevent unnecessary externalities without imposing costs on the industries that create them.

Abortion - Fairly Liberal.  I'm not necessarily for or against late term abortions and am alright with a few restrictions on abortion.  But I think some restrictions are failed attempts at legislating morality, with no rational or scientific basis.  For instance, allowing doctors to not have to perform abortions because it is against their religion (don't work at a place that gives abortions if this is the case!), or requiring a government mandated moralistic warning to be read before an abortion is given (yes, some states require this). 

Gay rights - Very liberal.  There is no rational basis for treating gay people differently.  And even a lot of the religious arguments are patently untrue.  For instance, the myth that marriage is a religious institution (which is sort of true, but that is not how the government treats it) or that Judeo-Christians invented marriage (completely untrue).

Civil Rights - Very liberal.  I am pretty uncompromising in terms of protecting civil rights.  There still is a lot of racism in this country, but the biggest thing that is ignored is how much sexism is permitted in this country.  I am against government surveillance without oversight by the judiciary system.  Otherwise it just opens up the system to abuse.  I feel the same way about enemy combatants.  No judicial oversight on how the Bush Administration has handled detainees has moved this country in the direction of fascism.  Its completely unacceptable, and I am proud that the Supreme Court has intervened.

Religion - Liberal. I am a Christian myself, but I am about as for separation of church and state as a person can be.  Even if we are a nation of largely Christians, that doesn't mean our government should be involved with religion.  I would probably even be for forcing churches to pay taxes.  I absolutely detest the Religious Right (not Christians, the Religious Right, they are different).  They are essentially the American Taliban who would move our country backwards in terms of social progress if we let them.

Military - Liberal. I think the military is one of the most wasteful and expensive parts of the government.  I am all for military research, but far too much deference is given to what the military and private military contractors want, and it ends up costing the taxpayers a lot of money.  War is an absolute last resort in my eyes.  I don't think troops should be treated like they are special either.  I do respect what they do (hell, I was helping send out care packages to the troops a few days ago), but I don't give people some kind of free pass because they are in the military.

There are definitely people who are more liberal than me out there, but in terms of everything except the economy I am about as liberal as they come.

I like this test.  Although it is biased, the bias is fairly obvious and easily accounted for.  On the other hand, its overly simplistic nature seriously limits its value. 

Well I don't really like political terminology anyway. I think that because I keep out of a gay individual's personal business (because it doesn't concern me in any way) that makes me even more conservative... I believe in conserving the individuals rights to do what they want to themselves without recourse as long as their action doesn't negatively affect another human being.

Kind of like with smoking, I don't care if people smoke as long as, in the event they get cancer, they don't expect a taxpayer handout for medical treatment. If they do, then I am totally against it. I don't think it's my responsibility to bail people out of their self-created problems. But if they say, "hey, I got cancer, my bad... I'll deal with it myself because I created the problem by smoking", they can smoke 10 packs a day for all I care.

Therefore, most of my social political stances tend to fall that direction. I don't care what a people do to themselves, as long as what they are doing doesn't directly affect someone else.

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 10%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.

That is my score and I am proud of it!!!