How do I determine if I am "left wing" or "right wing" if I am independent.

[Fern]

1) Some of your positions are better represented by the Repub patry, others by the Dems. I think the vast majoirty of Americans (who are rabid partisan hacks) are in the same situation, we like some of the one party's policies, and some of the other paries policies. What to do? Prioritize the policies most important to you, or keep a scorecard and see which party agrees with you on more of your issues (I don't see immigartion in your list, something important to me.)

2) See below coments, the devil is in the details.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I am a registered independent and vote for whatever candidate is the better of the group.

Here are my political views-

I want a small government that doesn't meddle with peoples' lives and is fiscally responsible. I want a government that pays for its expenditures and lowers the deficit.

Not meddling with people's lives? Yet, you want to stop women from having abortions after the first few weeks (or medical risk to the mother), how is that not meddling with "other poeples' lives?

You want to increase the minimum wage. As a small employer who are you to tell us what we should pay people? Are you not meddling with other peoples' lives?

You don't want things like the 10 commandments in government buildings etc. What if other people do? Are you enforcing you views upon them?

I believe that if a woman wants an abortion within the first few weeks of pregnancy, the "baby" is an empty vessel that is brainless and therefore is fine. I also believe that if the woman becomes at risk that there it is reasonable to abort.

Personally. I'm pro-adoption. I don't think it's practical at this time to make abortion illegal. I do think it's practical to make adoption more feasible. Personaly, I prefer to err on the side of caution. I do not science is able to make a determination as to "when" exactly the fetus is a person or not. I belive SCOTUS came down on the wrong side of the science/debate; tyhat it should have been left up to the states thenselves.

But as to details - Who should pay for the abortion? Us, and I mean the government/taxpayers? If so, are you not in essense making pro-choice people pay for something they oppose?

I believe in theory that there should be a death penalty, and eye for an eye even. However, with the bureaucracy and imperfect system we have, it is unreasonable to do so. Especially with the costs involved.

Those who oppose the death penalty no matter what are the ones who make it so expensive to pursue. You have conceded defeat because the courts (i.e., lawyers who profit) allow endless litigation etc.

But if no death penalty - another detail - how do you feel about parole for these criminals? We all know of cases where they are released only to kill/rape again. What say you about those who are fervent rehabilitionists? What if they drag a "life senatnce" with endless & expensive appeals? Do you capitulate again due to the costs?

I believe that religion should be kept out of politics and that it should be kept off of public government buildings.

Will you make illegal for a politition to receive or answer questions about his/her personal beliefs? If that is important to soem citizens are you know imposing your will upon them?

What exactly do you mean about keeping religion out of politics? I am unaware of any law passed by Congress that says you must attend church or tithe. I am unaware of any law that says we can't work on Sundays (or Saturdays etc, whichever day the Sabbath is based on the various religions), or eat "unclean meat" or stone a prostitute, etc. I am unaware that we are forbidden to covet our neighbors @ss. Coveting thy neighbors crap is what America is all about - at least since Madison Ave became so powerfrul. Gotta "keep with the Joneses" is pervausive IMHO.

I do not care if gay couples have civil unions or marriages. I am not gay so it doesn't affect me.

Do you think we should all pay for the "stay-at-home" partner's health care by requiring employers to treat them the same as a married couple (the rules of which are rooted in the tradition of protecting a stay-at-home mother from the catostophic consequences of the male breadwinner's untimely demise)?

Should gay couples recieve the same exemption from inheretence taxes as straight couples?

Are you in anyway forcing others to subsidize something against their will?

I believe that everyone should be taxed equally and that there should not be higher income tax brackets.

If you can get everyone to agree to a definition of "equal" you achieve god-like status IMHO. The tough detail to sort out and resolve.

I believe that if any congressman, president, or any of his administration is caught lieing, they should be fired and tried for treason. I think any corruption charges should lead to treason charges.

I think you cheapen the meaning of treason, but I have no problem in general with puishing lying or corruption. But here again, "lying" in these days seems a matter of perspective (or political party) in most cases these days.

I believe that social security should be immediately dismantled. The people that miss out(me included) should simply consider everything paid into it as a tax, which is essentially all it is now.

I seems you're droping the entire social net supplied by SS. How you gonna handle people ariving at a hospital who don't have medical insurance, or a (as typicl) big co-pay ot low cap? Are you gonna hospitals to turn away people who can't prove "ability to pay"?

What do you propose doing about the elderly with insuffficient pensions?

Welfare should be eliminated and anyone unable to take care of their children should have their children removed from their care.

I think healthcare in this country needs to be revamped to fix the following problems- 1. Children whose parents cannot afford health insurance for them should be covered because it is not the child's fault that their parents are deadbeats. 2. People with many problems, called "pre-existing conditions" should not be denied coverage or be asked for exorbitant rates.

I think the AMT needs to be dealt with.

I think that the minimum wage should rise. It rose from mere pennies in the 70s to the 90s and then stopped... Why? Plenty of cashiers are older people.

I don't really care about guns. I think more care should be taken when giving out a gun, but I don't see how much can be done. It is fine the way it is. I will say though that the 2nd amendment was created before times of police/alarm systems/cell phones/ etc. I think it is more necessary in some places(rural) than others(cities).

Add some more issues that I could give my views of and then determine if I am "liberal" or "conservative."

Had to leave prematurely, didn't get to finish. Sorry about typo's etc.

Fern

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Fern
1) Some of your positions are better represented by the Repub patry, others by the Dems. I think the vast majoirty of Americans (who are rabid partisan hacks) are in the same situation, we like some of the one party's policies, and some of the other paries policies. What to do? Prioritize the policies most important to you, or keep a scorecard and see which party agrees with you on more of your issues (I don't see immigartion in your list, something important to me.)

2) See below coments, the devil is in the details.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I am a registered independent and vote for whatever candidate is the better of the group.

Here are my political views-

I want a small government that doesn't meddle with peoples' lives and is fiscally responsible. I want a government that pays for its expenditures and lowers the deficit.

Not meddling with people's lives? Yet, you want to stop women from having abortions after the first few weeks (or medical risk to the mother), how is that not meddling with "other poeples' lives?

You want to increase the minimum wage. As a small employer who are you to tell us what we should pay people? Are you not meddling with other peoples' lives?

You don't want things like the 10 commandments in government buildings etc. What if other people do? Are you enforcing you views upon them?

I believe that if a woman wants an abortion within the first few weeks of pregnancy, the "baby" is an empty vessel that is brainless and therefore is fine. I also believe that if the woman becomes at risk that there it is reasonable to abort.

Personally. I'm pro-adoption. I don't think it's practical at this time to make abortion illegal. I do think it's practical to make adoption more feasible. Personaly, I prefer to err on the side of caution. I do not science is able to make a determination as to "when" exactly the fetus is a person or not. I belive SCOTUS came down on the wrong side of the science/debate; tyhat it should have been left up to the states thenselves.

But as to details - Who should pay for the abortion? Us, and I mean the government/taxpayers? If so, are you not in essense making pro-choice people pay for something they oppose?

I believe in theory that there should be a death penalty, and eye for an eye even. However, with the bureaucracy and imperfect system we have, it is unreasonable to do so. Especially with the costs involved.

Those who oppose the death penalty no matter what are the ones who make it so expensive to pursue. You have conceded defeat because the courts (i.e., lawyers who profit) allow endless litigation etc.

But if no death penalty - another detail - how do you feel about parole for these criminals? We all know of cases where they are released only to kill/rape again. What say you about those who are fervent rehabilitionists? What if they drag a "life senatnce" with endless & expensive appeals? Do you capitulate again due to the costs?

I believe that religion should be kept out of politics and that it should be kept off of public government buildings.

Will you make illegal for a politition to receive or answer questions about his/her personal beliefs? If that is important to soem citizens are you know imposing your will upon them?

What exactly do you mean about keeping religion out of politics? I am unaware of any law passed by Congress that says you must attend church or tithe. I am unaware of any law that says we can't work on Sundays (or Saturdays etc, whichever day the Sabbath is based on the various religions), or eat "unclean meat" or stone a prostitute, etc. I am unaware that we are forbidden to covet our neighbors @ss. Coveting thy neighbors crap is what America is all about - at least since Madison Ave became so powerfrul. Gotta "keep with the Joneses" is pervausive IMHO.

I do not care if gay couples have civil unions or marriages. I am not gay so it doesn't affect me.

Do you think we should all pay for the "stay-at-home" partner's health care by requiring employers to treat them the same as a married couple (the rules of which are rooted in the tradition of protecting a stay-at-home mother from the catostophic consequences of the male breadwinner's untimely demise)?

Should gay couples recieve the same exemption from inheretence taxes as straight couples?

Are you in anyway forcing others to subsidize something against their will?

I believe that everyone should be taxed equally and that there should not be higher income tax brackets.

If you can get everyone to agree to a definition of "equal" you achieve god-like status IMHO. The tough detail to sort out and resolve.

I believe that if any congressman, president, or any of his administration is caught lieing, they should be fired and tried for treason. I think any corruption charges should lead to treason charges.

I think you cheapen the meaning of treason, but I have no problem in general with puishing lying or corruption. But here again, "lying" in these days seems a matter of perspective (or political party) in most cases these days.

I believe that social security should be immediately dismantled. The people that miss out(me included) should simply consider everything paid into it as a tax, which is essentially all it is now.

I seems you're droping the entire social net supplied by SS. How you gonna handle people ariving at a hospital who don't have medical insurance, or a (as typicl) big co-pay ot low cap? Are you gonna hospitals to turn away people who can't prove "ability to pay"?

What do you propose doing about the elderly with insuffficient pensions?

Welfare should be eliminated and anyone unable to take care of their children should have their children removed from their care.

I think healthcare in this country needs to be revamped to fix the following problems- 1. Children whose parents cannot afford health insurance for them should be covered because it is not the child's fault that their parents are deadbeats. 2. People with many problems, called "pre-existing conditions" should not be denied coverage or be asked for exorbitant rates.

I think the AMT needs to be dealt with.

I think that the minimum wage should rise. It rose from mere pennies in the 70s to the 90s and then stopped... Why? Plenty of cashiers are older people.

I don't really care about guns. I think more care should be taken when giving out a gun, but I don't see how much can be done. It is fine the way it is. I will say though that the 2nd amendment was created before times of police/alarm systems/cell phones/ etc. I think it is more necessary in some places(rural) than others(cities).

Add some more issues that I could give my views of and then determine if I am "liberal" or "conservative."

Had to leave prematurely, didn't get to finish. Sorry about typo's etc.

Fern

There are a ton of mistakes, assumptions, and misinformation there. I'll respond later.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Fern
1) Some of your positions are better represented by the Repub patry, others by the Dems. I think the vast majoirty of Americans (who are rabid partisan hacks) are in the same situation, we like some of the one party's policies, and some of the other paries policies. What to do? Prioritize the policies most important to you, or keep a scorecard and see which party agrees with you on more of your issues (I don't see immigartion in your list, something important to me.)

2) See below coments, the devil is in the details.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I am a registered independent and vote for whatever candidate is the better of the group.

Here are my political views-

I want a small government that doesn't meddle with peoples' lives and is fiscally responsible. I want a government that pays for its expenditures and lowers the deficit.

Not meddling with people's lives? Yet, you want to stop women from having abortions after the first few weeks (or medical risk to the mother), how is that not meddling with "other poeples' lives?

I never said that I want to stop the other women. Quote me.

You want to increase the minimum wage. As a small employer who are you to tell us what we should pay people? Are you not meddling with other peoples' lives?

I want the government to be consistent.. they raised it up from $ .25 in the 70s... Additionally, meddling in social affairs is what I meant.. economically and environmentally I think sometimes it is important for the gov to meddle.

You don't want things like the 10 commandments in government buildings etc. What if other people do? Are you enforcing you views upon them?

If they want religious symbols, that is fine, but they need a symbol from EVERY religion.. fairness and equality is the key. Additionally, if I wanted to enforce MY views, there would be writings reflecting my views, not a lack of any religious symbols. Good try though.

I believe that if a woman wants an abortion within the first few weeks of pregnancy, the "baby" is an empty vessel that is brainless and therefore is fine. I also believe that if the woman becomes at risk that there it is reasonable to abort.

Personally. I'm pro-adoption. I don't think it's practical at this time to make abortion illegal. I do think it's practical to make adoption more feasible. Personaly, I prefer to err on the side of caution. I do not science is able to make a determination as to "when" exactly the fetus is a person or not. I belive SCOTUS came down on the wrong side of the science/debate; tyhat it should have been left up to the states thenselves.

But as to details - Who should pay for the abortion? Us, and I mean the government/taxpayers? If so, are you not in essense making pro-choice people pay for something they oppose?

"I do not science is able to make a determination as to "when" exactly the fetus is a person or not. "
They can get a good estimate on brain activity I believe.

I did not suggest a policy, just a personal belief, so the details don;'t really matter to me.


I believe in theory that there should be a death penalty, and eye for an eye even. However, with the bureaucracy and imperfect system we have, it is unreasonable to do so. Especially with the costs involved.

Those who oppose the death penalty no matter what are the ones who make it so expensive to pursue. You have conceded defeat because the courts (i.e., lawyers who profit) allow endless litigation etc.

But if no death penalty - another detail - how do you feel about parole for these criminals? We all know of cases where they are released only to kill/rape again. What say you about those who are fervent rehabilitionists? What if they drag a "life senatnce" with endless & expensive appeals? Do you capitulate again due to the costs?

Well, it needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis.. hence the sentencing phase. I don't believe "rehabilitation" works based on life experiences, but that is just imo.

I believe that religion should be kept out of politics and that it should be kept off of public government buildings.

Will you make illegal for a politition to receive or answer questions about his/her personal beliefs? If that is important to soem citizens are you know imposing your will upon them?

What exactly do you mean about keeping religion out of politics? I am unaware of any law passed by Congress that says you must attend church or tithe. I am unaware of any law that says we can't work on Sundays (or Saturdays etc, whichever day the Sabbath is based on the various religions), or eat "unclean meat" or stone a prostitute, etc. I am unaware that we are forbidden to covet our neighbors @ss. Coveting thy neighbors crap is what America is all about - at least since Madison Ave became so powerfrul. Gotta "keep with the Joneses" is pervausive IMHO.

This was just a personal and ideological opinion. It seems that unless you are christian and push that you are heavily religious(even if in fact you aren't-like I believe most are), you are at a huge disadvantage.

I do not care if gay couples have civil unions or marriages. I am not gay so it doesn't affect me.

Do you think we should all pay for the "stay-at-home" partner's health care by requiring employers to treat them the same as a married couple (the rules of which are rooted in the tradition of protecting a stay-at-home mother from the catostophic consequences of the male breadwinner's untimely demise)?

Should gay couples recieve the same exemption from inheretence taxes as straight couples?

Are you in anyway forcing others to subsidize something against their will?

My opinion is just that gay unions should have the exact same benefits that regular marriages do. Just ignore the sex.



I believe that everyone should be taxed equally and that there should not be higher income tax brackets.

If you can get everyone to agree to a definition of "equal" you achieve god-like status IMHO. The tough detail to sort out and resolve.

Meaning that there should be one tax rate for all incomes. 25%, 30%, 35%, or whatever.


I believe that if any congressman, president, or any of his administration is caught lieing, they should be fired and tried for treason. I think any corruption charges should lead to treason charges.

I think you cheapen the meaning of treason, but I have no problem in general with puishing lying or corruption. But here again, "lying" in these days seems a matter of perspective (or political party) in most cases these days.

Corruption charges in a federal government position pretty much amounts to treason, so just focus on that. People also need to be put under oath more and held to higher scruitny.


I believe that social security should be immediately dismantled. The people that miss out(me included) should simply consider everything paid into it as a tax, which is essentially all it is now.

I seems you're droping the entire social net supplied by SS. How you gonna handle people ariving at a hospital who don't have medical insurance, or a (as typicl) big co-pay ot low cap? Are you gonna hospitals to turn away people who can't prove "ability to pay"?

What do you propose doing about the elderly with insuffficient pensions?

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't healthcare separate from SS? It is every individuals' responsibility to save for pensions(except people with disabilities of course). It is not the governments' responsibility.

As for hospitals, if you have an emergency, hospitals have to take care of it I believe. That is a separate issue and should fall under healthcare, which is a very difficult situation. Our healthcare needs revamping, but that is another discussion.


Welfare should be eliminated and anyone unable to take care of their children should have their children removed from their care.

I think healthcare in this country needs to be revamped to fix the following problems- 1. Children whose parents cannot afford health insurance for them should be covered because it is not the child's fault that their parents are deadbeats. 2. People with many problems, called "pre-existing conditions" should not be denied coverage or be asked for exorbitant rates.

I think the AMT needs to be dealt with.

I think that the minimum wage should rise. It rose from mere pennies in the 70s to the 90s and then stopped... Why? Plenty of cashiers are older people.

I don't really care about guns. I think more care should be taken when giving out a gun, but I don't see how much can be done. It is fine the way it is. I will say though that the 2nd amendment was created before times of police/alarm systems/cell phones/ etc. I think it is more necessary in some places(rural) than others(cities).

Add some more issues that I could give my views of and then determine if I am "liberal" or "conservative."

Had to leave prematurely, didn't get to finish. Sorry about typo's etc.

Fern

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Fox5
Your views don't really match either party well, you're really more libertarian than anything.

We could take a huge chunk of the center if we'd just form our own party to uphold our beliefs in smaller government.

Unfortunately, our current system of government isn't setup to easily allow more than its pseudo oligarchy, and most people view their choices as Repub, Dem, or no choice at all.

I really wonder how other countries successfully have more than 2 parties. How do they keep the partisan down in politics?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

There are a ton of mistakes, assumptions, and misinformation there. I'll respond later.

I'm not attacking your positions or beliefs. Mistakes, assumptions & misinformation? I can only read what you write. But I'm trying to point that they are not very "defined" IMHO and therefore raise many questions. I.e., if these were to be elevated to national discousre, many practical questions on implemtation and details would be asked.

Also, I think some of your point are inherently self contradictory.

Welfare should be eliminated and anyone unable to take care of their children should have their children removed from their care.

AND

I want a small government that doesn't meddle with peoples' lives.....

Having the government remove children from their family is one of the MOST intrusive, or "meddling" things possible IMHO.

I also don't think that will result in smaller government. Establishing a government branch to monitor people to see if they can "care" for their children would require quite a bit of buraucracy.

Who gets to decide if parents are adequately "caring" for their children? What are the parameters or rules for such a decision? Who gets to decide on them? Complicated stuff, likley a violation of constitutional rights as well.
-----------------------------------

You wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't healthcare separate from SS? It is every individuals' responsibility to save for pensions(except people with disabilities of course). It is not the governments' responsibility.

No. there are two components of SS: (1) old Age and Disability Insurance, and (2) medicare/medicaid.

We are losing about $2 Billion per year in medicaid to illegal immigrants alone (thus depleting SS funds). Hospitals cannot turn people away if they do not have insurance or otherwise can't pay.

In my area our hospitals have been struggle with this problem. They must treat the poor & the illegal etc, but can recover only some money through Medicaid. However, not long ago Medicaid reimbursements rates (the fee medicaid will pay for various health care treatments) were drasticaly reduced. Hospitals operate at a loss.

States conduct the medicaid program differently. While mandated by Congress, funding short falls are left to states to sort out or deal with. Where I'm at, the county pays. I.e., my real estate taxes go to pay for these peoples health care while I'm left to fend for myself.

SS and health care are very tightly intertwined.

In a way, we already have universal health care. Albeit, with a gap of uncovered people who are mostly self employed lower middle class. The "poor" are covered through (SS) Medicaid, the wealthier through insurance. A good chunk of the middle class is only partialy covered - they can face financial ruin as a result of co-pays and ceilings on coverage.

Fern

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Political Test - Give it a try

 

[imported_Equinox]

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to raise my hand and say "I'm a liberal". I vote for Republicans that are good for the job, and I still vote for Independents and Democrats that are right for the job. See, that's the deal it seems with Republicans. Unless you agree 100% with Bush and every BS nutjob in our current administration, believe that gay people are evil and abortions are wrong in all circumstances...well you must be a leftwing moonbat liberal. Didn't you know that Newt Gingrich says that "liberal" people like me that believe in the Constitution are the reason for the Virginia Tech massacre? Not the actual guy that did it, but "Liberals". If you don't like the government mandating everything from your bedroom to health, well, you are a liberal. If you question the billions of dollars that are missing, while our troops don't even have decent armor, you aren't supporting Bush and you are a traitor "liberal".

I've come to the conclusion that as much as I have despised the title of "Liberal" in the past, I'd rather be a "liberal" and vote with my conscience than be a Republican and vote exactly the way they say I should. So yeah, I'm a moonbat liberal. Funny thing is, the *decent* Republicans left these days, I'm pretty sure they will accept my vote anyway, even though I'm a dirty lowdown liberal.

PS. On that test I scored as a right-leaning Libertarian