Poll: Where do you disagree with your party and agree with another

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: brencat
Republican

Four significant disagreements with my party:

-- Our party's blind opposition to abortion without common sense exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. Just effing stupid and perpetual political suicide.

-- The inability to allow medicare to negotiate for prescription drug discounts. Again, effing stupid. Also some other miscellaneous healthcare cost reduction measures we could be doing that we're not doing really bother me.

-- Not controlling the border nor cracking down hard enough on employers that hire illegals. Process has been way too slow and not vigorous enough (actually, this is a complaint I have about both parties).

-- Undisciplined spending and borrowing by Bush and Reagan before him.

Other than that, I am a free-market, low tax/regulation, pro-gun, on your own, personal responsibility type that largely agrees with the other aspects of the party platform.

Good Summary. Agree with all points here. Goes back to my point of trying to lower COSTS of medical items, be it medicare/medicaid whatever.... before you start talking about spending new money.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: brencat

-- Our party's blind opposition to abortion without common sense exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. Just effing stupid and perpetual political suicide.

How do those exceptions make logical sense? If you believe abortion is wrong, the methodology of the conception is irrelevant. If you believe there's nothing wrong with abortion, then the exceptions are irrelevant; abortion should be legal regardless of the circumstances.

As for the health of the mother smoke-screen, killing the fetus isn't the answer - removing the child to be allowed to live outside the womb is. Near fatal-complications arose in my wife's last pregnancy - it literally came down to the baby being removed THAT day, or she would suffer cerebral bleeding and likely die - but both mother and child were saved easily enough, thanks to the wonders of modern medicine. Today, four years later, you could see them both and not even realize the circumstances of the birth.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: brencat

-- Our party's blind opposition to abortion without common sense exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. Just effing stupid and perpetual political suicide.

How do those exceptions make logical sense? If you believe abortion is wrong, the methodology of the conception is irrelevant. If you believe there's nothing wrong with abortion, then the exceptions are irrelevant; abortion should be legal regardless of the circumstances.

As for the health of the mother smoke-screen, killing the fetus isn't the answer - removing the child to be allowed to live outside the womb is. Near fatal-complications arose in my wife's last pregnancy - it literally came down to the baby being removed THAT day, or she would suffer cerebral bleeding and likely die - but both mother and child were saved easily enough, thanks to the wonders of modern medicine. Today, four years later, you could see them both and not even realize the circumstances of the birth.

I'm pretty sure there are a significant number of cases in which the fetus endangers the life of the mother when it is nonviable. That is what people are generally talking about in relation to this.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I'm also not totally opposed to the death penalty, I just think it should be reserved for cases where there is absolutely irrefutable evidence against the killer, such as DNA evidence.

Even DNA evidence can be called into question, because it's ultimately tested and interpreted by humans. Example Ultimately, I oppose capital punishment on moral grounds - the state should not be in the business of killing people, unless it's absolutely necessary and no other option exists (justified war in self-defense of the state). Capital punishment is barbaric and accomplishs nothing.

So how about this scenario:

A call to the police about a brutal rape and stabbing, when police show up they find a man with the mutilated bodies. He admits to attacking them, tells in graphic detail about what he made them do. There's ample DNA evidence. One of the victims pulls through and identifies the man, confirming everything that he confessed. He has a criminal history, though nothing quite this bad. He has a history of mental illness, and consistently goes off his meds.

Not too much chance that he isn't absolutely guilty is there?

I understand your feeling about the state killing people...however no one else can do it without facing charges. Right now things aren't good. If you kill him it costs more than imprisoning him for life, would take decades and a huge portion of judicial time. This is obviously not good. However, in cases such as this his execution could very easily be carried out for $.50 in 72 hours. I'd be happy to take him out back and put 2 in his pan if no one else has the balls, just sign a waiver and let me at him.

Imprisoning him for life is no better. It's at LEAST as easy to question the cruelty of imprisonment versus execution. It's incredibly expensive. It leaves the friends/family of the victim wanting. It takes space, time, and so on. Most importantly, people consistently manage to get released, even after such brutal crimes. That means that there's a very real chance that by NOT killing him, he will get out and do it again (since we know that an overwhelming number of criminals do commit crimes again).

So, what's the answer? To keep people safe you MUST ensure that criminals are never able to do those terrible things again. It's wrong to force others to pay for those people. It's wrong to deny justice to those directly impacted by their actions. What's the answer?

I see no flaws with imprisoning the worst offenders for life, without parole. If someone has demonstrated they are unfit to live in normal society, society has a right to defend itself by removing the criminal from society, until he/she dies, if necessary. And by no parole, I mean NO PAROLE.

And it's not that I think capital punishment is cruel - it can be conducted in a very humane manner - I think it's wrong, which is different. I could kill you in a very humane manner; perhaps very quickly, in your sleep, with no pain whatsoever. You wouldn't suffer (except for being dead), and if you didn't even know it was coming, you wouldn't even suffer mental anquish. But that action would still be wrong.

How do you balance the need to keep people safe against the enormous cost in space, time, and money? What I'm saying is, the people have a right to be safe, but do they have a REQUIREMENT to give up their land, and their money, in order to care for people who act against them? Let's say I'm Joe Blow and I say "No, I will not give you money to support that person, but I will give you the money needed to kill them, or just do it myself." While I understand you don't want the government to kill citizens, how can you justify the government having the authority to force people to pay for the incarceration of persons who, arguably, should not even be allowed to live?

Obviously you think they should be allowed to live, but I don't. Neither of us is 'in charge', so how do we find a compromise? Should people who believe in capital punishment be excused from taxation going to incarceration? Is it necessary to actually split, and form separate societies only because of this one disagreement?

I'm not trying to be an ass, it's something I've struggled with for a long time and I'm always watching for potential solutions.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
How do you balance the need to keep people safe against the enormous cost in space, time, and money? What I'm saying is, the people have a right to be safe, but do they have a REQUIREMENT to give up their land, and their money, in order to care for people who act against them? Let's say I'm Joe Blow and I say "No, I will not give you money to support that person, but I will give you the money needed to kill them, or just do it myself." While I understand you don't want the government to kill citizens, how can you justify the government having the authority to force people to pay for the incarceration of persons who, arguably, should not even be allowed to live?

Obviously you think they should be allowed to live, but I don't. Neither of us is 'in charge', so how do we find a compromise? Should people who believe in capital punishment be excused from taxation going to incarceration? Is it necessary to actually split, and form separate societies only because of this one disagreement?

I'm not trying to be an ass, it's something I've struggled with for a long time and I'm always watching for potential solutions.

In the grand scheme of things, the cost to house prisoners isn't much of a burden on each of us, and we all gladly pay it to keep our streets safe. Besides, in my view, much of the costs of imprisonment should be borne by prisoners themselves - if you have the financial means, you should be forced to pay back the cost to the state of your sentence, and if you don't have the means, you should have to work while in prison. If I have to work for my food/shelter/clothing here on the outside, and I have commited no crime, it's hardly cruel to expect prisoners to do the same.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: retrospooty
I am a democrat. I disagree with the dems stance on...

1. Drilling for Oil - just do it now as a bridge to get us over the next decade until the next thing becomes a viable alternative (as long as we are heavily investing in the next thing)
2. Welfare (if you are able you should work - cant find job? Do govt work for your welfare check).
3. Nancy Pelosi - WTF?

Are you sure you are a democrat?

Lets see...

Drilling for oil - No
Welfare - No
Pelosi - No
War -Yes
Finance regulations -Yes
Gay marriage - Yes
National healthcare - Yes
Tax plan - Yes

Oh crap... You might be right, I might be an independant!!! Or, your preception of liberal needs adjusting.

Pelosi is to Liberal as Rev. Jerry Falwell is to Conservative. Extreme, not the norm. Also, both of thier issue stances aside, both personally repulsive.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
What is your party affiliation?

Republican

One issue where you disagree with your party.

Religious reasons for any laws.

One issue where you agree with another party.

Dems: Pro Choice.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: brencat

-- Our party's blind opposition to abortion without common sense exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. Just effing stupid and perpetual political suicide.

How do those exceptions make logical sense? If you believe abortion is wrong, the methodology of the conception is irrelevant. If you believe there's nothing wrong with abortion, then the exceptions are irrelevant; abortion should be legal regardless of the circumstances.

As for the health of the mother smoke-screen, killing the fetus isn't the answer - removing the child to be allowed to live outside the womb is. Near fatal-complications arose in my wife's last pregnancy - it literally came down to the baby being removed THAT day, or she would suffer cerebral bleeding and likely die - but both mother and child were saved easily enough, thanks to the wonders of modern medicine. Today, four years later, you could see them both and not even realize the circumstances of the birth.

How does offering logic with no exceptions make logical sense ?

Here is my view on how to settle the abortion issue.

Poll all women who have had an abortion. And ask them if that should still be a right of a woman given everything that goes with it. I love the fact when groups dictate the lives of others without having lived through the same thing themselves.

Ultimately its not in my power to decide what to do with your unborn baby. The repercussions of your actions are between the woman, the man, their family, and God. I personally would never chose to have an abortion (if I was a woman) and I would be against it if my wife wanted to have one.

The pro-lifers out there can be pro-lifers. I consider myself pro-life, but that is a decision I made for myself and I don't try to make it for others. The pro-choice people out there can be pro-choice. The deaths of their fetuses/babies is on THEIR conscience not mine and they are the ones that have to live with those facts.

1 more point. If people are so against abortions, lets try to minimize their occurance to begin with.... Things like contraception comes to mind, but no f-ing way we can teach about contraception in this country. That is messed up.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The pro-lifers out there can be pro-lifers. I consider myself pro-life, but that is a decision I made for myself and I don't try to make it for others. The pro-choice people out there can be pro-choice. The deaths of their fetuses/babies is on THEIR conscience not mine and they are the ones that have to live with those facts.

This.

One thing I hate is that the idea of being pro choice = pro abortion. That is by no means one and the same yet you hear McCain stating such things during the debates. It is outright insulting to anyone who believes that everyone should be able to make the choice for themselves including the choice to not have an abortion because you do not believe it is right.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
How do you balance the need to keep people safe against the enormous cost in space, time, and money? What I'm saying is, the people have a right to be safe, but do they have a REQUIREMENT to give up their land, and their money, in order to care for people who act against them? Let's say I'm Joe Blow and I say "No, I will not give you money to support that person, but I will give you the money needed to kill them, or just do it myself." While I understand you don't want the government to kill citizens, how can you justify the government having the authority to force people to pay for the incarceration of persons who, arguably, should not even be allowed to live?

Obviously you think they should be allowed to live, but I don't. Neither of us is 'in charge', so how do we find a compromise? Should people who believe in capital punishment be excused from taxation going to incarceration? Is it necessary to actually split, and form separate societies only because of this one disagreement?

I'm not trying to be an ass, it's something I've struggled with for a long time and I'm always watching for potential solutions.

In the grand scheme of things, the cost to house prisoners isn't much of a burden on each of us, and we all gladly pay it to keep our streets safe. Besides, in my view, much of the costs of imprisonment should be borne by prisoners themselves - if you have the financial means, you should be forced to pay back the cost to the state of your sentence, and if you don't have the means, you should have to work while in prison. If I have to work for my food/shelter/clothing here on the outside, and I have commited no crime, it's hardly cruel to expect prisoners to do the same.

The cost to house 1 prisoner isn't much, but multiplied over the millions it increases...especially once we fix the system so that the truly dangerous ones don't get back out to reoffend. Now we're talking about an enormous number and therefore a much higher cost.

And if the prisoner refuses to work? Or fails to work to an acceptable level? How can you force someone to work? If you're unwilling to sentence to death, then are you unwilling to allow death thru inaction? Meaning if they don't work, they don't eat, and they die, isn't that the same (only more costly and less humane) than just killing them? And if you don't punish them or allow them to die, why would ANYONE work?

If Tom the rapist has a wife and family that are not aware of his actions, can you take the house that they live in to pay for his crime? Doesn't that punish the innocent? If you can't take it, then how will they contribute their cost? Moreover, crime is almost entirely a low SES thing...meaning that most of those incarcerated have absolutely NO money to pay into the system, even if they don't have dependents (which a majority actually do).

 

[JS80]

GOP
Agree: Smaller govt fiscal conservative
Disagree: Big govt fiscal liberal

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: brencat

-- Our party's blind opposition to abortion without common sense exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. Just effing stupid and perpetual political suicide.

How do those exceptions make logical sense? If you believe abortion is wrong, the methodology of the conception is irrelevant. If you believe there's nothing wrong with abortion, then the exceptions are irrelevant; abortion should be legal regardless of the circumstances.

As for the health of the mother smoke-screen, killing the fetus isn't the answer - removing the child to be allowed to live outside the womb is. Near fatal-complications arose in my wife's last pregnancy - it literally came down to the baby being removed THAT day, or she would suffer cerebral bleeding and likely die - but both mother and child were saved easily enough, thanks to the wonders of modern medicine. Today, four years later, you could see them both and not even realize the circumstances of the birth.

How does offering logic with no exceptions make logical sense ?

Here is my view on how to settle the abortion issue.

Poll all women who have had an abortion. And ask them if that should still be a right of a woman given everything that goes with it. I love the fact when groups dictate the lives of others without having lived through the same thing themselves.

Ultimately its not in my power to decide what to do with your unborn baby. The repercussions of your actions are between the woman, the man, their family, and God. I personally would never chose to have an abortion (if I was a woman) and I would be against it if my wife wanted to have one.

The pro-lifers out there can be pro-lifers. I consider myself pro-life, but that is a decision I made for myself and I don't try to make it for others. The pro-choice people out there can be pro-choice. The deaths of their fetuses/babies is on THEIR conscience not mine and they are the ones that have to live with those facts.

1 more point. If people are so against abortions, lets try to minimize their occurance to begin with.... Things like contraception comes to mind, but no f-ing way we can teach about contraception in this country. That is messed up.

Just curious, why do you consider yourself pro-life?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The cost to house 1 prisoner isn't much, but multiplied over the millions it increases...especially once we fix the system so that the truly dangerous ones don't get back out to reoffend. Now we're talking about an enormous number and therefore a much higher cost.

It's no worse than legal costs we currently spend putting a person to death.

And if the prisoner refuses to work? Or fails to work to an acceptable level? How can you force someone to work?

You really can't, but then, you can't force me to feed you, either. The grocer won't give me a thing for free right now, and I'm not even a felon. If I want food from the grocer, I have to give him money I've gotten from going to work. No work, no food.

If you're unwilling to sentence to death, then are you unwilling to allow death thru inaction? Meaning if they don't work, they don't eat, and they die, isn't that the same (only more costly and less humane) than just killing them? And if you don't punish them or allow them to die, why would ANYONE work?

Allowing someone to die through inaction is different from actually killing them. If I say I'm going to kill myself, and you don't even try to stop me, are you morally responsible? I'd say no, you're not. But if you actually killed me, then obviously, you're responsible.

If Tom the rapist has a wife and family that are not aware of his actions, can you take the house that they live in to pay for his crime? Doesn't that punish the innocent? If you can't take it, then how will they contribute their cost? Moreover, crime is almost entirely a low SES thing...meaning that most of those incarcerated have absolutely NO money to pay into the system, even if they don't have dependents (which a majority actually do).

Obviously, that would have to be worked out on a case by case basis, the same as is already being done when judgments are enforced every day. Not everyone has the means to pay for their incarcaration, but those who do, should.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The cost to house 1 prisoner isn't much, but multiplied over the millions it increases...especially once we fix the system so that the truly dangerous ones don't get back out to reoffend. Now we're talking about an enormous number and therefore a much higher cost.

It's no worse than legal costs we currently spend putting a person to death.

And if the prisoner refuses to work? Or fails to work to an acceptable level? How can you force someone to work?

You really can't, but then, you can't force me to feed you, either. The grocer won't give me a thing for free right now, and I'm not even a felon. If I want food from the grocer, I have to give him money I've gotten from going to work. No work, no food.

If you're unwilling to sentence to death, then are you unwilling to allow death thru inaction? Meaning if they don't work, they don't eat, and they die, isn't that the same (only more costly and less humane) than just killing them? And if you don't punish them or allow them to die, why would ANYONE work?

Allowing someone to die through inaction is different from actually killing them. If I say I'm going to kill myself, and you don't even try to stop me, are you morally responsible? I'd say no, you're not. But if you actually killed me, then obviously, you're responsible.

If Tom the rapist has a wife and family that are not aware of his actions, can you take the house that they live in to pay for his crime? Doesn't that punish the innocent? If you can't take it, then how will they contribute their cost? Moreover, crime is almost entirely a low SES thing...meaning that most of those incarcerated have absolutely NO money to pay into the system, even if they don't have dependents (which a majority actually do).

Obviously, that would have to be worked out on a case by case basis, the same as is already being done when judgments are enforced every day. Not everyone has the means to pay for their incarcaration, but those who do, should.

Right, but as I said that's an imaginary, created cost, not a true cost. The cost of housing a prisoner is real and nearly absolute...it costs for land, building, utilities, guards, food, etc. The cost to execute is REALLY just the cost of a couple bullets...everything else is bullshit.

I'd be ok with that system...work or die...but that's because I want them to die anyway. There'd be a HUGE outcry against it. Of course there would be to increased capital punishment too, so no big deal there.