PDA

View Full Version : The odd man out - Liberal Constitutionalists


Jofaba
April 6, 2009, 08:12 PM
Even Google seems to have a problem with me (laughter/applause/cricket silence). Type "Liberal Constitutionalist" into Google search, and it asks if you really meant "Liberal Institutionalists". No, that's not what I meant.

Here's my question, why does it seem almost exclusively black and white? Mind, I know that a lot of you reading this will take offense if I do not say as such; I am talking about the talking heads on tv, and stereotypical responses to news stories and general public discussions, on and offline. That said:

When it comes to gun control debate, why does it seem to boil down to Republican party-liners being the gun advocates, and Democrat party-liners toting the anti-gun stance? I searched online all weekend to find the middle and came up with very little. I found an interesting podcast that had an entire hour long show dedicated to discussing the liberal gun owner and they certainly weren't talking about me. They were talking about Democrats who finally shot a gun,enjoyed it, and that's where the connection ended for those liberals.

Is there something wrong with defending the second amendment while calling for nationalized health care? Is there something wrong with arguing against the assault weapon ban, while simultaneously supporting the legalization of marijuana, and the decriminalization of all other drugs? Is it really that crazy for a non-smoker who HATES the smell of cigarettes finding it absurd to ban cigarettes from bars, and feels that the continuing increase of taxes is criminal? Is it really that disturbing that an atheist thinks that Christians should be allowed to have nativity sets, that if city hall wants to put the ten commandments on the front lawn then let them, that freedom of religious expression does not equal state sponsored religion? Is it impossible to legalize gay marriage and let the churches decide if they accept the unions? Can a man not stand up and say that, as a man, he does not have the right to even enter the abortion debate because, just as a white man cannot comprehend the racism a black man feels, a man cannot comprehend the concept of growing a human inside of their own body? Can you support the troops, but not the war?

I put in the New Member thread post that I was not a one issue voter. Yet I have (in my life, not just here) met exactly one other person who voted for Obama and wants to protect the 2nd Amendment. I'm not looking for validation, I am not looking for agreement. I am making this thread to ask any of you that these questions may apply to (to which your answers were"no"), why?

Why can't there, and isn't there, an allowance of deviating and conflicting beliefs and ideals? Do you think me naive? Are there atheist Republicans? Are there Constitutionalist Democrats? Are there libertarians who support nationalized health care?

I don't fail to fit into a niche because it's cool. It's not, let me tell you; it's simply frustrating. When you can't find an ally anywhere, you're not cool. You're alone. I fail to fit into a niche because none of them entirely make sense to me, and I feel that in order to enter a niche you need to adhere to the code. None of the codes seem to make sense though. They're all about 50/50.

So, in closing, is there any room for the odd man out? Is an oxymoron like a liberal constitutionalist acceptable? Do any of you differ from your party in any fashion, and are you vocal about it, and does it make you uncomfortable or angry that you have to defend your position?

Also, I am curious if anyone voted for Obama. I give him a 50% rating right now. I voted for him thinking that he would do us good. I'd have given him a 40% before his G20 and Europe trip. I'm not looking to find anyone in love with Obama, obviously we all fear for our gun rights; I am just trying to see if 1, anyone will admit to it, and 2, if you regret it. (I don't, I think if we're loud enough we can change his mind).

Lastly, I truly hope that no staff member or anyone here feels that this is a trolling thread. It is absolutely an honest set of questions which I hope will spur debate and while I am new, check my postings thus far. I am a dedicated conversationalist and, staff willing, will be here for quite some time.

I thank you all in advance for your comments, criticism, and the intellectual debate which is sure to follow.

- Joshua

B. Lahey
April 6, 2009, 08:24 PM
There are quite a few of your sort around this forum. Welcome, you came to the right place.

I don't agree with you about everything, but on most of those issues you mentioned we are on the same page. It's tough to find a friendly crowd when you are conservative and liberal at the same time, isn't it?:)

Radical moderates unite! (all half dozen of us)

jamullinstx
April 6, 2009, 10:14 PM
What you are describing are largely Libertarian views, with the exception of the national health care issue. I am hard core Libertarian, holding the view that the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government a very limited set of responsibilities and all others are reserved to the states:

Postal service
Judicial system
Military
Treasury
Elections
Foreign relations (treaties, etc.)
Patent office
Manage DC

etc. You get the idea. The list is short!

I am a pragmatist, however. We do a very poor job of operating an efficient health care system in this country. I'm open to a good suggestion for a better system. I just don't think allowing the government to run it is a good idea.

RedneckFur
April 6, 2009, 10:15 PM
My views arent all that different from yours. I'm more Liberterian than liberal, but my social views are very liberal, and are similar to those that you state.

Me, I didnt vote for Obama or McCain. both seemd to be very bad choices to me. I wrote in Ron Paul. Some call it a waste, I call it a protest vote. Obama, is living up to my expectations. I epected Bush III, and in my openion, thats what we got.

Debating politics here is generally not allowed, so i'm not going to debate anyone here, in public, but I'm willing to discus anything through Email or Private Message.

protectedbyglock
April 6, 2009, 10:38 PM
I agree with you, OP, on many of your views and like jamullinstx said, you are not alone.
There are many like-minded people out here that don't believe in the whole Dem/Rep hard line BS. It's like you have to pick a side or you won't get anything.
I blame the media.

It's much like kurt vonnegut once said:
"Even crazier than golf, though, is modern American politics, where, thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative."
"If you want to take my guns away from me, and you’re all for murdering fetuses, and love it when homosexuals marry each other, and want to give them kitchen appliances at their showers, and you’re for the poor, you’re a liberal. If you are against those perversions and for the rich, you’re a conservative. What could be simpler?"

I don't agree with Vonnegut sometimes, but I can see his point in almost everything.

bob.a
April 6, 2009, 11:30 PM
Holding many Libertarian views myself, I find myself totally unrepresented by either party. Sadly, the few Libertarian candidates that pop up seem to either have tinfoil hats firmly in place, or else are so depicted by the media.

It would be interesting to have available national media without bias. It is troubling, to say the least, to find so much in the way of half truth to total lies being spoonfed to the American public. And with the coming demise of print news, it can only get worse, as everyone becomes trained to think in ten-second sound bites. Our elected representatives and their appointees lie to our faces, and no one holds their feet to the fire; the media are only interested in attention-grabbing scare tactics, and reasoned analysis is out of fashion.

Can it be true that we get the government we deserve?

I don't feel I'm adding much to the discussion, but at least it's an outlet for some frustration. Good to know I'm not alone in the wilderness.

COYOTE JLR
April 7, 2009, 12:02 AM
I am really glad to see this thread. I agree with the O.P. I don't really fit into a black and white category. I have friends and family on both sides and I get so much crap from all of them.

My republican friends say that I'm a long haired hippie adding to the degeneration of society and its morals. And my liberal friends say that I'm a long haired, redneck beast, hell bent on destroying nature, and gunning down a gay bar.

And ya know what? They're all wrong. I voted for Obama because I thought that out of the choices we were presented with he was the lesser of two evils. I have never felt truly represented though. Not by any means. And no. I don't regret voting for him. I'm a patient person and will wait to pass judgment. We are in a crisis that is spinning beyond anyone's control. Getting things back into a semblance of order will take years. I will never claim to know the proper way to fix things. There are many men out there more intelligent than I am, who have spent their lives studying economics and those buggers can't agree on a damn thing. What am I going to do? I voted for what to me made sense and what I thought was more morally acceptable. Compromises had to be made, but that's life.

I'm very glad to find that there are other people on this forum who don't fit in either. :)

jamullinstx
April 7, 2009, 01:34 AM
As I said, I'm hard-core Libertarian, but a bit pragmatical. What bothers me about the Libertarian party is that they think that the most important issue is legalization of hemp. It makes my vote pretty irrelevant, because I can't find a Constitutional clause that protects hemp harvest, smoking, etc. I don't think the government should regulate it, mind you, but I don't think it is the most important issue. I think the most important issues are the Bill of Rights issues, especially the 2nd Amendment, but all the others, too. I don't understand when politicians and justices lost the ability to read obvious text.

So, the laughing part was with respect to thinking hemp legalization was the most important issue. Sorry for getting you to read this with a duplicitous headline.

And, my longtime "sound bite" is, "I want a government that stays out of my bedroom and my pocketbook." There is you're laughing point.

Jofaba
April 7, 2009, 06:15 AM
These responses made my morning. I'm glad that I didn't upset anyone, and am surprised at all the positive feedback. This forum seems to really have a community spirit that's open. When I go to gun shows or when I took my gun class, and even when I go to the Kittery Trading Post, I keep politics dialed down to zero because there is a tenseness in the air, grumblings over Obama, and it almost feels like a dangerous prospect to stir the pot.

Debating politics here is generally not allowed, so i'm not going to debate anyone here, in public, but I'm willing to discus anything through Email or Private Message.

I hope that I did not break any rules; it was not my intention to cause a ruckus. I can see the merit behind that kind of rule because of basically what I described above, and although this thread wasn't meant to cause debate, I am happy that so far it hasn't.

Thanks again for the responses.

LaBulldog
April 7, 2009, 08:34 AM
I am really glad to see this thread. I agree with the O.P. I don't really fit into a black and white category. I have friends and family on both sides and I get so much crap from all of them.

My republican friends say that I'm a long haired hippie adding to the degeneration of society and its morals. And my liberal friends say that I'm a long haired, redneck beast, hell bent on destroying nature, and gunning down a gay bar.

And ya know what? They're all wrong. I voted for Obama because I thought that out of the choices we were presented with he was the lesser of two evils. I have never felt truly represented though. Not by any means. And no. I don't regret voting for him. I'm a patient person and will wait to pass judgment. We are in a crisis that is spinning beyond anyone's control. Getting things back into a semblance of order will take years. I will never claim to know the proper way to fix things. There are many men out there more intelligent than I am, who have spent their lives studying economics and those buggers can't agree on a damn thing. What am I going to do? I voted for what to me made sense and what I thought was more morally acceptable. Compromises had to be made, but that's life.

I'm very glad to find that there are other people on this forum who don't fit in either.

+1 I could not have said it any better.

I voted for Obama also. It had nothing to do with guns, pro or con, it had to do with the Constitution especially the Bill of Rights, all of them, not just the 2nd Amendment. Am I 100% please with everything he's done so far? No. Will I agree with everything he will do? Of course not. I will support his efforts to make this country better for ALL of us.

Enoy21
April 7, 2009, 08:44 AM
I don't know that it's as rare as you believe my friend....

I personally consider myself Republican conservative.... He is a democratic conservative.

We have very similar views on many things , but several differences....

Neither of us let our vote decide on the party lines... We look at and listen to the officials plans , goals and views ... the one that lines up most with our beliefs and our hopes for the future of this country gets the vote.


He voted Obama , I voted McCain. We are in constant political debates about the economy , and foreign policy ( most recently the economy and the bailouts ). Which BOTH of us disagree with and think it's a foolish move, just for different reasons.

But we both agree that both sides of the fence seem so politically driven and blinded by the party lines that we want to create what we call the "Common F-n sense party" . Because some things are just common sense to any real thinking person that it blows my mind how they contort and change things and seem to have no clue whatsoever.



Personally for me , I never really knew which line I was on because I often found myself middle line. This past election I have found myself ( for the first time in 30 yrs ) really studying the parties and the views and REALLY getting into the politics side of things and found myself to fall way more in line with the republican party..... as I am considered "overly" conservative by most of my friends and family.




In addition to this , a local politician "Mark Warner" is a democrat but is pro Gun and Pro huntsman (sportsman).


Personally I feel that Rifles , shotguns and general hunting will be the very last of the 2nd amendment right to be taken away. No where in the second amendment does it say the "type of arms". So I fear that they will continue to widdle away any type of gun, First assault , then Semi Auto handguns , then all handguns etc ....

until it's nothing left but a shotgun for hunting.

zukiphile
April 7, 2009, 09:15 AM
You seem to be posing two different questions.

1. Can an individual see prudence is departing from the principles on which he structures most of his political conclusions? Certainly.

2. Is he demonstrating consistency or application of princple in doing that? Not necessarily.

Is there something wrong with defending the second amendment while calling for nationalized health care?

One implies a vision of limited government, while the other doesn't.

Are there libertarians who support nationalized health care?


If they believed the state should be the sole provider of health care services, in what respect could they be libertarians?

Is it really that crazy for a non-smoker who HATES the smell of cigarettes finding it absurd to ban cigarettes from bars, and feels that the continuing increase of taxes is criminal? Is it really that disturbing that an atheist thinks that Christians should be allowed to have nativity sets, that if city hall wants to put the ten commandments on the front lawn then let them, that freedom of religious expression does not equal state sponsored religion? Is it impossible to legalize gay marriage and let the churches decide if they accept the unions? Can a man not stand up and say that, as a man, he does not have the right to even enter the abortion debate because, just as a white man cannot comprehend the racism a black man feels, a man cannot comprehend the concept of growing a human inside of their own body? Can you support the troops, but not the war?


While not commenting on the logic of some of those statements, I will note that being a minority view within a larger political movement, such as an atheist who supports nativity scenes and ten commandment displays, will necessarily be less likely to have his position fully represented in public debate. Public discourse takes on a pro and contra structure in which advocates generally set forth their most coherent and persuasive position.

a7mmnut
April 7, 2009, 09:28 AM
I don't believe most people ever deserted one particular party--the parties have deserted us. What was once a blue collar/white collar party division has now become both major parties interested in getting volumes of votes in return for caring for the masses of voters. "National" equals "social" in my book. People too lazy to work now have more benefits than I do. If you don't have enough money to have a baby, just don't get married, and the federal funds will take care of the rest. Total control of and for "the people" is also what it's obviously about.

We now line up for a rural/municipal needs forum for each party during the election. Subdivisional battlegrounds are now considered quite important, as we've just seen last fall. What didn't use to be considered by one party is now stolen in idealogical form and presented as their original cure for the ailing. It's called "morally corrupt", and it's everywhere. I won't even mention the true defining impact of racial lines. What has traditionally been considered as very important to most Americans is now questionable, or at best, varying shades of gray. The blood and sacrifices of millions of our ancestors mean nothing. Our parents should have done better, and we know it.

For me, I'm just a stupid, undereducated farm boy that lost the farm. I voted for the party that stuck the closest to my family's heritage and moral character on a number of issues: healthcare, conservation, 2nd Ammendment Rights, Right To Life issues, military and foreign affairs issues, the "world" economy as it effects us, future business management, etc. These issues are obviously only minor inconveniences today, and were poorly referenced to during the entire election. All I heard was how each candidate promised to help some other group. All I wanted was the freedom to help myself and to help my family. Some of my family members and close friends still insist on voting with a party they registered for some 45-50 years ago. All I can say is, "Just look around--it no longer exists."

So please, if you can't help me save what I can, you damn sure better not try to take away what little I have left.

-7-

vranasaurus
April 7, 2009, 09:39 AM
I am a libertarian. I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

I don't like the government telling people what to do. Whether it's in their bedroom or in their wallet.

If someone wants to smoke pot, I say why not. Even though I won't partake, and I would encourage others not too.

Do I think abortion is wrong, yes. Do I think the governemnt should ban it, no. Do I think homosexualaity runs contrary to nature, yes. But do I think the government should prevent homsexuals from having some kind of union, no. The issue just doesn't affect me. These two issues affect so few people yet get so many fired up. Does it really F'n matter?

I don't like vast social safety nets because they don't motivate people to strive for success and they are ripe for abuse.

I don't want government health care because IMO it will be run poorly just like almost every other government program. If the figure of roughly 50 million is an accurate count of people that don't have health care that means 85% of this country does. There is only a finite amount of capacity in the system. Adding 50 million people to a system that can't handle it will lead to rationing of care and a lower standard of care for those of us who currently have health care but are not wealthy. Call me heartless if you want but that is just the way it is.

The wealthy do not offend me as long as they play by the rules. They pay the vast majority of taxes in this country and that doesn't offend me.

I believe there are limited circumstances in which the government is a necessary part of solving the problem. For major emergencies it may be necessary, only because no one else can, but as we saw with Katrina or the financial crisis the government doesn't even do those things particularly well.

The problem is that when forming parties those one issue voters tend to adopt the stances of others members of their party.

Think about death penalty vs. abortion. Republicans generally support the death penalty but oppose abortion because life is sacred. Democrats tend to support abortion but oppose the death penalty because it's unfair and innocent people might get put to death. My questions are if life is so sacred how is the deaht penalty OK and If your afraid innocent people will die how can you support abortion.

Now the issue of gun control confounds me. How is it that gun rights supporters can't convince inner city minorities, who vote 90% for gun control proponents, that gun control is bad for them? To me it's that they have always supported democrats for other reasons and those democrats they supported always opposed gun rights. Gun rights activists need to take a page from the school voucher proponents play book. While elected democrats oppose school vouchers, mostly because of the teachers union, many of their inner city constituents support them. This is because they have seen the advantages.

ilbob
April 7, 2009, 10:55 AM
Is there something wrong with defending the second amendment while calling for nationalized health care?
yes. The constitution is very clear that there is some right to keep and bear arms. it is also very clear that the federal government has no authority to run the health care system, and is actually specifically forbidden from doing so.

Is there something wrong with arguing against the assault weapon ban, while simultaneously supporting the legalization of marijuana, and the decriminalization of all other drugs?
Both are unconstitutional.

Is it really that crazy for a non-smoker who HATES the smell of cigarettes finding it absurd to ban cigarettes from bars, and feels that the continuing increase of taxes is criminal?if you don't like the smell, go elsewhere. let the business owner know why you left. if enough people truely cared, there would be plenty of smoke free places. the fact is that the average person just does not care.

Is it really that disturbing that an atheist thinks that Christians should be allowed to have nativity sets, that if city hall wants to put the ten commandments on the front lawn then let them, that freedom of religious expression does not equal state sponsored religion? Few people would argue that display of religious symbols is the same thing as the sponsoring of state religion. In fact, the constitution does not, nor has it ever banned a state from establishing a religion. it only bans congress from doing so.

Is it impossible to legalize gay marriage and let the churches decide if they accept the unions? marriage is what it is. a union between an man and a woman. You can call it gay marriage, just as you can call an apple a banana, but it does not make the apple a banana.

Can a man not stand up and say that, as a man, he does not have the right to even enter the abortion debate because, just as a white man cannot comprehend the racism a black man feels, a man cannot comprehend the concept of growing a human inside of their own body?
BS. racism works both ways. if women want to have complete control over whether they bring a fetus to term, they need to give up all rights to government mandated child support.

Can you support the troops, but not the war?in practice it does not work out that way.

johnwilliamson062
April 7, 2009, 10:55 AM
I'm hard-core Libertarian, but a bit pragmatical. What bothers me about the Libertarian party is that they think that the most important issue is legalization of hemp

I am pretty Libertarian.
I have never smoked pot or partaken in any other illegal "recreational drugs."
Every couple of years I paint something without proper ventilation without thinking and that is enough of a drug experience for me.

That doesn't change the fact that the war on drugs has been a huge drag on our economy and has done nothing but provide a great funding source for criminals.

That being said I do not think this is the driving issue in the Ohio LP. In Ohio there seems to be much more focus on gun control. Almost every Libertarian involved in the party has their CCW and a few open carry just to make the point. I am not sure this is all that much better than focusing on the drug issue.

Many Libertarians do not like drug use, abortion, gay marriage, or a number of other things. The things I listed are things I personally do not support. That does not mean I believe the government should be involved in its regulation. That is the huge difference between the Libertarian party and the others. You can believe whatever you want and still be a Libertarian. You just have to agree that it is not the governments role to bend people to your will.

Jekyll
April 7, 2009, 11:03 AM
Your 1st example tells me that you might not be the "constitutionalist" you think you are.

Is there something wrong with defending the second amendment while calling for nationalized health care?

There is nothing in the Constitution that supports the assumption of health care by the federal government. The only part of the Constitution that applies is the 10th Amendment: (to paraphrase) that not enumerated resides with the States and the people.

Liking guns and supporting the 2nd Amendment doesn't make you a constitutionalist rather, it makes you a shooter. The Constitution isn't a buffet line where you take a bit of this and some of that. It is a contract between the federal government, the States and the People. All paragraphs and ammendments are equally important.

pendennis
April 7, 2009, 11:04 AM
Even Google seems to have a problem with me...
Here's my question, why does it seem almost exclusively black and white? Mind, I know that a lot of you reading this will take offense if I do not say as such; I am talking about the talking heads on tv, and stereotypical responses to news stories and general public discussions, on and offline. That said:

When it comes to gun control debate, why does it seem to boil down to Republican party-liners being the gun advocates, and Democrat party-liners toting the anti-gun stance? I searched online all weekend to find the middle and came up with very little. I found an interesting podcast that had an entire hour long show dedicated to discussing the liberal gun owner and they certainly weren't talking about me. They were talking about Democrats who finally shot a gun,enjoyed it, and that's where the connection ended for those liberals.

The gun debate is not a Republican v. Democrat issue. It's a conservative(modern) v. liberal (modern) debate. I'll use these terms in lieu of the classical liberal (Jeffersonian).

Is there something wrong with defending the second amendment while calling for nationalized health care? Is there something wrong with arguing against the assault weapon ban, while simultaneously supporting the legalization of marijuana, and the decriminalization of all other drugs? Is it really that crazy for a non-smoker who HATES the smell of cigarettes finding it absurd to ban cigarettes from bars, and feels that the continuing increase of taxes is criminal? Is it really that disturbing that an atheist thinks that Christians should be allowed to have nativity sets, that if city hall wants to put the ten commandments on the front lawn then let them, that freedom of religious expression does not equal state sponsored religion? Is it impossible to legalize gay marriage and let the churches decide if they accept the unions? Can a man not stand up and say that, as a man, he does not have the right to even enter the abortion debate because, just as a white man cannot comprehend the racism a black man feels, a man cannot comprehend the concept of growing a human inside of their own body? Can you support the troops, but not the war?

You can't support nationalized (socialist/collectivist) health care if you believe in individual liberty. Social programs only spread misery, not enhance wealth for the poor or ill.

Conservatives have no issue with the legalization of marijuana, or most any other drug. However, conservatives know that legalization of drugs leads to dependency by users on those who don't do drugs. Drug users always end up putting a strain on the rest of society, because of their addictions. The addictions eventually cause the user to be a total burden on society. Practicing your freedom can't put cost or limits on others' freedom.

Conservatives view overt homosexuality as immoral, just as they view overt heterosexuality as immoral. Practice sexual preferences in the bedroom, not the public square. If two homosexuals want to enter into a contract for support and living purposes, then hire a lawyer, write a contract, sign it, and abide by its terms. Marriage has historically been the joining of man and woman for the purposes of procreation, not the disbursement of government-or private sector-paid benefits.

Abortion is a moral, not political issue. Conservatives seek to protect the weakest in our society. An unborn baby is the weakest, and has no vote in his/her further life. Abortion is a unilateral decision by the female. Excercise of one's rights can't impinge on those of another

Racism is immoral, whether black-on-white, white-on-black, etc. Since the majority of those on earth are Asian, does that not mean that Asians will be racist towards whites, but not vice versa?

The United States military, by law, has a unified command structure, from the lowest private/sailor/marine/airman, on up to the Commander-in-Chief. You can't support the private, and not support the CIC.

I put in the New Member thread post that I was not a one issue voter. Yet I have (in my life, not just here) met exactly one other person who voted for Obama and wants to protect the 2nd Amendment. I'm not looking for validation, I am not looking for agreement. I am making this thread to ask any of you that these questions may apply to (to which your answers were"no"), why?

Why can't there, and isn't there, an allowance of deviating and conflicting beliefs and ideals? Do you think me naive? Are there atheist Republicans? Are there Constitutionalist Democrats? Are there libertarians who support nationalized health care?

Yes, you show some naivete in your logic. The modern liberal is not interested in living his life for his own good. He is interested in having everyone dependent on a "nanny government", because he doesn't believe that people can be prosperous without government control.

There are atheists of all political persuasions. Atheism is not the question. The question is a matter of morality v. immorality. Religion and morality don't always share the same path. For more on this, study the Reformation and the Inquisition.

No, we can't all just "get along". I refuse to compromise my beliefs for someone who wants to enslave me.

No, Libertarians do not support socialized health care.

I don't fail to fit into a niche because it's cool. It's not, let me tell you; it's simply frustrating. When you can't find an ally anywhere, you're not cool. You're alone. I fail to fit into a niche because none of them entirely make sense to me, and I feel that in order to enter a niche you need to adhere to the code. None of the codes seem to make sense though. They're all about 50/50.

You can't get everyone to like you. You must take a stand, ignore those who don't like you because of it, and ally yourself only with those who believe as you do. Standing in the middle of the road only gets you killed. There are no degrees of conservatism. You are conservative, or you are liberal.

So, in closing, is there any room for the odd man out? Is an oxymoron like a liberal constitutionalist acceptable? Do any of you differ from your party in any fashion, and are you vocal about it, and does it make you uncomfortable or angry that you have to defend your position?

No. The "odd man out" is a cop-out. The difference in conservatives and liberals is not one of politics. It's one of morality. Quite simply, those who are liberal are immoral, because they seek to enslave the individual, and use the power of immoral government to put power in the liberal's hands.

Also, I am curious if anyone voted for Obama. I give him a 50% rating right now. I voted for him thinking that he would do us good. I'd have given him a 40% before his G20 and Europe trip. I'm not looking to find anyone in love with Obama, obviously we all fear for our gun rights; I am just trying to see if 1, anyone will admit to it, and 2, if you regret it. (I don't, I think if we're loud enough we can change his mind).

Obama is an immoral socialist. His statements about the United States being "arrogant" are the ulitmate in pandering to a group of nations in Europe who have warred with each other nearly constantly since the founding of western civilization in ancient Greece. The Europeans, including the British, are basket cases because of their socialistic governments. Yet they are unremittent in their criticism of the only country in the world which exports freedom.

vranasaurus
April 7, 2009, 11:06 AM
Many Libertarians do not like drug use, abortion, gay marriage, or a number of other things. The things I listed are things I personally do not support. That does not mean I believe the government should be involved in its regulation. That is the huge difference between the Libertarian party and the others. You can believe whatever you want and still be a Libertarian. You just have to agree that it is not the governments role to bend people to your will.

As a libertarian I don't have to like what you do but as long as it doesn't affect someone else then you are free to do it.

Brian Pfleuger
April 7, 2009, 11:08 AM
Here's my question, why does it seem almost exclusively black and white?

Because the constitution does not directly support the majority of the liberal agenda.

bob.a
April 7, 2009, 11:37 AM
An interesting take on the gay marriage issue: the govt seems to have incorporated legal protections into the marriage act, which I suspect informs the drive for gays to marry. Is this itself a violation of separation of church and state?

Regarding pot, and other victimless crimes: why should my tax dollars be spent chasing and incarcerating people who are arguably doing no harm to anyone except themselves? It seems to me that the act of making this sort of thing illegal plays into the hands of the criminal classes, as well as promoting a huge transfer of wealth to parts of the third world, and to groups therein, whom I'd rather not support.

Way too much government, with no easy way to undo all the bureaucracy.

mskdgunman
April 7, 2009, 12:17 PM
I knew I liked this place for a reason. I've always told people that I hold many conservative views while on many other subjects, I'm surprisingly liberal. I feel that anyone who votes or believes things strictly by party affialiation (whatever party that may be) is a sheep simply following the herd with no independent thoughts or ideas.

To blindly say that you agree with all repbulican/democratic party ideas or proposals is silly in the extreme because both parties can come up with some incredibly stupid stuff. It would be nice if a viable third party would form as a hoome for the rest of us non conformists who can't seem to cram ourselves into the whole republican/democrat/conservative/liberal box...I am all of the above and consider myself an American above all else. Where do we fit in?

I think that if the truth were to be known, the majority of Americans fall into this catagory of being someplace in the middle of the road but have become complacent and feel that to speak out against the two parties is useless. It's like I can't be in favor of the death penelty and support conservation and green energy at the same time or favor pro choice while also believing in harsh immigration reforms and an effective socialized medical program for all naturalized citizens...I'm not a one sided individual and anyone who is truely being honest with themselves will admit that about themselves. To say otherwise is simply deceiving ones self and moving with the herd to the edge of the cliff.

johnwilliamson062
April 7, 2009, 12:31 PM
Buddy you are on the same boat as the rest of us.

Marriage has historically been the joining of man and woman for the purposes of procreation
Traditionally, but as others have pointed out, no longer in the US legal environment and to a large extent not culturally either. I would love to see the US government stop using the word marriage and switch to Civil Union for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The church is where you get married and in the courtroom you can enter into an entirely different and unrelated legal contract with another person. I believe many churches would be better able to provide and help people get through marriages if they were independent of the legal civil unions.

I know a lot of people who smoke pot. I am sure most of you do or have in the past. People you work with or are in organizations with. Their smoking of pot does not negatively affect me beyond their driving while high if they do it. I have never had someone threaten me when high or try to pick a fight with me. I certainly can not say the same about drunk people. Where I am negatively affected is the crime related to the criminal organizations and the artificially inflated drug prices in the US. How often do you hear of an individual stealing to buy a pack of cigarettes or a case of beer? It happens, but not often. My impression is Marijuana and several other common drugs border on being weeds and are very easy to grow in many climates. I think the price would drop significantly.
And what happens if we give people the chance to shoot heroin for $10-15 a day? Well most druggies will take their normal budget and go on a bender. Most won't survive. Did I do something wrong when I gave them the CHOICE to OD? Absolutely not. Probably open up a lot of space in the prison system long term. It is not my personal responsibility, nor the responsibility of the government to protect people from themself.

On abortion. Whether it is moral or immoral the US government has no responsibility protecting non-citizens and non-residents from being killed. Will people who have abortions go to hell? If there is one, and as an atheist I do not believe there is, I can't imagine what could send you there if killing your own child out of convenience does not. What the US gov't should do is separate the statistics of natural abortions(miscarriages) and "abortions." This statistical blurr makes it hard to see what the long term effects of abortions are on the mother, and that makes it hard to dissuade a mother considering the procedure. If the religious right would switch gears and get that done first it would make the latter steps easier.

Sometimes the government should not be involved, even if there is a moral or ethical quandary.

Brian Pfleuger
April 7, 2009, 12:39 PM
I'd suggest getting this one onto firearms, one way or another.....

or at least something besides gay marriage.

JuanCarlos
April 7, 2009, 01:45 PM
I don't think this thread is long for this world anyway, peetza. It's largely off-topic to begin with, and bound to remain so.

Jofaba, you aren't alone. There are pro-gun folks of all stripes out there, and even a few (like myself) in here. I fall almost entirely in the Democratic camp except for gun issues...I won't pretend to be a libertarian, or classical liberal, or fiscal conservative but social liberal or anything but a gun-totin' somewhat moderate liberal.

The reason you'll often find it boil down to Republican versus Democrat is because, at the end of the day, our government is driven by a two-party system. Regardless of where you fall on a large spectrum of issues, eventually you have to go participate in an election with only two candidates that have any real chance of winning. That's not changing absent some serious changes to the electoral process.

A (in my experience relatively small) minority of gun enthusiasts are going to fall into the quasi-liberal (in the modern sense) camp...and many will wind up either supporting Republicans anyway (for gun rights) or just keep quiet (for their own sanity). A larger minority will be libertarian-types, but it seems like many of them will still vote Republican because at the end of the day they're more concerned about gun rights and (slightly) more limited government than the principle of maintaining a bunch of rights they don't intend to exercise. The rest will just tend to be Republicans, largely because the parts of the country where firearms ownership and use are still common tend to also be largely Republican.

pendennis
April 7, 2009, 02:01 PM
I don't think this thread is long for this world anyway, peetza. It's largely off-topic to begin with, and bound to remain so.

One of the original questions were..
Is there something wrong with defending the second amendment while calling for nationalized health care?

Nationalized (socialistic) health care, is a direct refuting of individual rights. The original ten amendments to the constitution were all aimed at insuring retention of individual's and states' rights.

The most important of these is the Second Amendment. As an individual right, it's the one which provides a secure foundation for the others. It's very difficult to deny one's freedom of speech, or "the right of the people to be secure in their persons...", when authorities may face armed resistance.

JuanCarlos
April 7, 2009, 02:20 PM
Nationalized (socialistic) health care, is a direct refuting of individual rights. The original ten amendments to the constitution were all aimed at insuring retention of individual's and states' rights.

I fail to see how. I'd agree that it's certainly outside of the powers of the federal government as given in the Constitution, but I fail to see which individual right is infringed there. Obviously the rights enumerated in the Constitution aren't exhaustive (it explicitly says so) but I'm not really seeing any right to "lower taxes" nor a right to a "choice" of health care/insurance on the free market.

While I'm more than willing to entertain arguments as to the benefits of nationalized health care (I'm not particularly in favor of it, to be honest) I don't see where civil rights come into play. I'm seeing no fundamental difference between the government taking control of health care and funding it through taxes rather than leaving it to private providers and, I don't know, the government doing the same for police services or schools.

Of course, the latter are (largely) run at levels below the federal. But again, that's a separation of powers issue not an individual rights issue.

Enoy21
April 7, 2009, 02:29 PM
My guess is the Individual right is by taking my money (via taxes) in order to help and support those that have not worked as hard as myself in order to make sure we all have mediocre health care.

Benn that's just my interpretation of what he's saying.

Jekyll
April 7, 2009, 02:37 PM
When the government tells you what you can buy, and from whom, when, where and at what price, YOU LOSE YOUR LIBERTY.

Government healthcare will turn into cost-benefit-analysis based rationing of federal resources. Where do you find expansion or maintenance of individual liberty in that solution?

The federal system was set up to let Sovereign States maintain the choices and policies each desires. In this regard, the founding fathers established a process that allows you to FREELY emigrate to Massachusetts to obtain state-managed health care if you desire such or to emigrate to a state without state-managed health care. When the federal government mandates something, you loose the liberty to choose what you think is best for you while also being forced to pay for the imposed solution. Government health care is not free; the federal government does not add value or generate wealth. It simple and clearly redistributes resources. Federal healthcare only comes by forcibly taking money away from people in order to give services to others. TELL THOSE THAT HAVE THEIR MONEY TAKEN FROM THEM THAT THEY HAVEN'T LOST ANY LIBERTY!

JuanCarlos
April 7, 2009, 02:47 PM
My guess is the Individual right is by taking my money (via taxes) in order to help and support those that have not worked as hard as myself in order to make sure we all have mediocre health care.

Benn that's just my interpretation of what he's saying.

Would you say the same for schools? Because I can easily replace "health care" with "education" in your statement.

When the government tells you what you can buy, and from whom, when, where and at what price, YOU LOSE YOUR LIBERTY.

Government healthcare will turn into cost-benefit-anlysis based rationing of federal resources. Where do you find expansion or maintenance of individual liberty in that solution?

The federal system was set up to let Soveriegn States maintain the choices and policies each desires. In this regard, the founding fathers established a process that allows you to FREELY emmigrate to Massechusets to obtain state-managed helath care if you desire such or to emmegrate to a state without state-managed health care. When the federal governemnt mandates something, you loose the liberty to choose what you think is best for you while also being forced to pay for the imposed solution. Governemtn health care is not free, the federal governement does not add value or generate wealth. It simple and clearly redistributes resources. Federal helthcare only comes by forceably taking money away from people in order to give services to others. TELL THOSE THAT HAVE THEIR MONEY TAKEN FROM THEM THAT THEY HAVEN'T LOST ANY LIBERTY!

Again, everything you say would apply to public education as well...though I suppose it depends if any private health care alternatives remained (as some private schools do). Or most services the government provides (police, fire, etc.). I can't think of any state I can emigrate to where I won't be taxed for these things. And neither the Constitution nor the founding fathers seem to have any solution if, by some chance, all fifty states were to institute such a policy. Where would you easily emigrate to then?

So yeah, still not seeing an individual rights issue here. If your state can do it to you, and if all fifty states can do the same should they choose, it seems more like a separation of powers issue...which is to say that the problem is that the federal government is doing it, not that the government is doing it.

EDIT: Also the "tell those that have had their money taken" argument is a complete red herring.

EDIT: Lastly, having endured the Army healthcare system (no offense to any here who may have been a part of it...the issue was mostly systemic, not the individuals within it) I have very little desire to see what kind of nationalized healthcare system the federal government would foist upon us. But that's not the issue here.

Jekyll
April 7, 2009, 02:56 PM
I'm always amazed at the number of ignorant people that look to government as if it were some magical entity possessing a bottomless well from which to ladle money.

I want more, please. Let's give this away, etc. They seem to have no concept that the money is actually TAKEN from other people. Money is nothing more that the accepted liquid expression of our labors, our property and our liberty. Taking money through unfair, exorbitant taxes is nothing more than taking our labor, our property and our liberty. Government healthcare boils down to the ugly math of reducing the liberty of some with the misguided goal of increasing liberty for others. In the end, you can never increase liberty by redistribution because any government that takes liberty from some of its citizens can't pass on an equal level of liberty others. Some might think it to be a zero sum game but the very act of taking liberty is far more injurious to the governed than is the benefit gained by a few through new liberty. A government that capriciously takes liberty is dangerous to all. Tomorrow it may come for your liberty.

This brings this thread back to guns and the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is or only true protection from tyranny and ignorance.

Jekyll
April 7, 2009, 02:58 PM
Would you say the same for schools? Because I can easily replace "health care" with "education" in your statement.


Yes, without a doubt. Education should be a local issue and not a federal issue. Federal involvement takes liberty away form the Sovereign States and the People. It is not supported by the Constitution.

You have used a tactic many try because they don't understand our federated system. Those issues not otherwise enumerated reside with the States and People. Some states will want to have the best school system and others may decide to have something less. That is the right of each state. The electorate of each state gets to elect its leaders and determine their levels. A state that believes in providing a world-class school system for its citizens should not be forced to pay for the underfunding of another state. When states realize they loose business and revenue to states with better schools, they will change their system to compete.

JuanCarlos
April 7, 2009, 03:14 PM
Would you say the same for schools? Because I can easily replace "health care" with "education" in your statement.

Yes, without a doubt. Education should be a local issue and not a federal issue. Federal involvement takes liberty away form the Sovereign States and the People. It is not supported by the Constitution.

You have used a tactic many try because they don't understand our federated system. Those issues not otherwise enumerated reside with the States and People. Some states will want to have the best school system and others may decide to have something less. That is the right of each state. The electorate of each state gets to elect its leaders and determine their levels. A state that believes in providing a world-class school system for its citizens should not be forced to pay for the underfunding of another state. When states realize they loose business and revenue to states with better schools, they will change their system to compete.

Of course. Well, except for those states that economically can't.

I guess I just have a different definition of individual rights, at least in the context it was being used. Again, if my state can do it, and if all fifty states can do it, I don't see it as an infringement on my individual rights. For instance, no state can violate the Constitutional rights that have been incorporated. And I'd like to see a couple more (like the second amendment) fall under that umbrella.

The fact that your issue is with the federal government doing it, and not that it's being done to begin with, is why I say it's a separation of powers issue and not really much of a civil rights issue. Because every state, every last state, takes money from those that have more and gives it in some way or another to those that have less. But it's okay, because the state is doing it.

They seem to have no concept that the money is actually TAKEN from other people.

I pay taxes. In a couple short months I'll be paying even more (welcome to the top quintile!). Are there people who pay more than me? Sure. But I'll still be paying more in taxes than most.

Jekyll
April 7, 2009, 03:31 PM
My state has a constitution which is a contract between it and my fellow citizens. I don't expect the state to violate its constitution either. There are things that belong to the federal government, things that belong to the state governments and things that belong to the individual. The federal government doesn't need to worry too much about individuals taking from it. It has the power of the military, courts, police forces and the IRS. The people need to be alert to the government taking from us. We don't have the same power to enforce our individual rights.

Again, I say that federally mandated healthcare or education is a violation because it takes those issues that are rights reserved to the states and the people: the very definition of taking away liberty.

Jofaba
April 7, 2009, 05:16 PM
Another thing that I stated in the welcome thread is that while opinionated, I consider myself always learning and open to resculpting my opinions based on debate and education.

I can see what you're saying about nationalized health care. My biggest gripe is that every other industrialized nation has it, and even though the number the news is toting says 50 million Americans, there is a large chunk of those covered that get denied services, and in the end the pay-for model is just as corrupt and inept as how we can imagine a government run system would be.

I am open to "affordable health care" in a capitalist marketplace if it works. I would take that over nationalized, to be honest. If I get cancer and it doesn't put me $400,000 into debt, then we're onto something.

True, lets bring this back around to subject though.

The purpose of this drunken rant from last night was to ask why it seems that it's almost looked down upon to pick what you believe is right, and find yourself skittled out 50/50 between both parties,or even a few sideliners that aren't covered by either.

I feel that McCain is a very honorable man, and I believe that he deserved the presidency at one point in his life, and it's a shame that that time passed him by in the past. I don't think that he was the right man to cover all our bases at this time, but I voted with my breath held because I knew that there was a chance that this would severely affect my life and our country in one of our most important rights. I decided that there was a lot at stake across all the issues, and I hoped that we could change his mind on this one aspect, one of the only that I disagreed with him on.

I am new to guns, true, and I am new to caring about the 2nd amendment as much as I now do. I am continuing to learn and find it more and more important every single day. I admit a level of naivite as I go forward. I can be considered a "recent convert". I am 27 years old, not 47, I don't have the years of experience and knowledge that many of you have.

I may end up regretting my vote. I don't currently yet. I am feeling pains from it, and if there is an organized movement to protest against losing our 2nd amendment rights, I will join those voices.

I appreciate all comments from each side of thought, I am learning a lot from all of you.

Thank you.

- Joshua

pendennis
April 7, 2009, 05:26 PM
JuanCarlos -

The U.S. Constitution was written in order to limit the power of the Federal government. It was well-studied by Mason, Adams, and others. They also closely studied existing governments, and their role in the lives of their citizens.

The bastardization of the Constitution has come about by over-reliance on a judiciary, which has played an increasing role in what should be the realm of the Legislative branch.

The Congress has also usurped powers from the Executive. The War Powers Act comes to mind. They have also hidden behind the commerce clause to interfere in education, health care, and business.

With the adoption of the XIII Amendment, Congress gained increasing powers which further limited states' and individual rights. Using language like "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.",

The Federal courts and Congress have federalized elections. Nowhere in the Constitution does the language call for national elections, per se. States had the original say so over elections. The XV Amendment only guarantees the right to vote.

Yes, individual rights have been usurped by a Federal government which has increasingly used the Federal tax codes for social engineering. That, in and of itself, is a violation of individual rights. It amounts to wealth redistribution of wealth, which is socialist/collectivist on its face.

Al Norris
April 7, 2009, 07:34 PM
I'd suggest getting this one onto firearms, one way or another.....

or at least something besides gay marriage.
How many times must we inform folks that firearms are not the be-all and end-all of topics in this sub-forum?

And while homosexuality, in general, is a forbidden topic, the topic of gay marriage and government law (in the sense of Federal law), is on topic, generally, with the comments made by the OP.

Besides, they aren't even the main thrust of this thread. They are merely an incidental topic. Which brings me to...
I don't think this thread is long for this world anyway, peetza. It's largely off-topic to begin with, and bound to remain so.
How So?

Not all topics must be civil rights related. Many can and should be related to Law.

Pendennis, in post #26, quoted from the OP. I differ from his opinion about any civil rights relationship, as I see it as a relationship between what the Feds do and are doing and what the Constitution is supposed to restrict them from doing.

Oh Pendennis? What we call the Second Amendment, was originally the fourth Article of amendment proposed to the States as a Bill of Rights (the 1st Article has yet to be ratified and the 2nd Article was finally ratified and became our 27th amendment).

This has loosely been what a few members have posted about since the thread opened. Liberal or Conservative, you ignore at your peril that the Constitution was designed to limit Federal authority.

That to me, has been the actual and main topic of this thread. Nevertheless, my finger has been poised over the "Lock Thread" button, since it opened.

Jofaba
April 7, 2009, 07:56 PM
Nevertheless, my finger has been poised over the "Lock Thread" button, since it opened.

I am sorry to hear that and hope that it doesn't happen. It's been a very engaging and enlightening conversation, and seeing others with similar feelings about even opposing viewpoints has been a beneficial experience, at least for me.

Even if the thread does get locked, I would like to thank you all again for your involvement, and it's definitely given me a lot to think about,and I look forward to picking your brains on these forums in the future.

bessemerbob
April 7, 2009, 08:02 PM
I think the major reason for this is the lack of a third party. The fact that these days your either extreme right or extreme left is your answer… I know many gun loving Democrats, but the representatives of there party only follow the leader like lemmings. Over the next 4yrs its very important for all Pro Gun Democrats to let there elected officials know how they feel on the subject, after all they are elected to represent you!
So as I sate time and time again in every gun forum I belong to its vital to our rights that we in a loud yet professional voice let our elected officials know how we feel. If our discussions, and rights are kept to message boards then the out spoken radicals will have there way.

Hammerhead_6814
April 7, 2009, 08:39 PM
Jofaba, your going to find PLENTY of people like you in the world. You won't hear anything about them on FOX, CNN, or on Conservative or Liberal blogs. The reasonable, common-sense human being isn't seen as a middle-ground man in America, he's either a Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. That's the one problem I truly have with my countrymen these days, they divide each other into two camps and REFUSE to find common ground, or even acknowledge the existence of someone who supports a little of both, but associates with none.

I've voted Democrat before. I said it. I've voted Democrat before. I haven't in the Presidential elections mind you (I've only voted in one of those, and I wrote in Ron Paul :) ). But in local elections, and soon to be national elections, I care more about the person than the party.

Sometimes they refuse to acknowledge a person of a differing background as a like-minded person because they often support ONE little thing that they disagree with. My neighbors refused to vote McCain simply because he was for the war originally, Obama wasn't. Screw everything else, McCain was for the war. To hell with the border situation, to hell with the economy, and damned be the healthcare system, McCain supported the war.

People like tat ruin America, and unfortunately they're to extreme (usually) to snap them out of it.

johnwilliamson062
April 7, 2009, 08:41 PM
I won't argue that a vote for a libertarian candidate in the US presidential election is not a waste of your vote. I could and face to face I could convince some, but not in this forum.

Whar about local politics in off years? Many of my city elections have 50 to 100 votes in off years. When president isn't up no one shows. No one knows the local candidates. All you have to do is show up to the election with a good number of friends and you can win a local position.

Our country has historically been dominated by two partis, but it has not always been THESE two parties. Every once in a while one of the parties gets way off their supposed platform and is replaced. WHich party is that right now?

44 AMP
April 7, 2009, 10:42 PM
and seldom fits anyone perfectly.

First, let us all remember that the numbers on the amendments are irrelevant to their legal importance. ALL are equally valid, and equally legally important and binding.

In the real world, the rights enumerated in the First Amendment have a primacy of importance, and daily impact. In the court of last resort, the 2nd Amendment rights have a physical primacy, without which our options are severely limited. Continued respect for our First amendment rights, by the govt is what keeps us from having to resort to the final argument.

Second, lets also remember that no matter how much we might wish otherwise, we have come a long way from the system set up by our Founders. We have to live, and deal with what exists today, and by so doing, create what will exist tomorrow.

American voters can be divided into several groups. One group votes straight party lines. Most do this because of tradition. "Grandad was a Democrat, Dad was a democrat, and so am I," etc.

Another group votes with their wallets, as they see it. "My union says vote democrat, and so I do, because they will keep me working." Or "I own a business, and Republicans are for business, so I vote for them", etc.

Another group are those who vote for the important social/civil rights issues they believe most strongly in. Many gun owners (but by no means all) are there. So are the Abortion folks , both pro and con, the gay rights people, the environmentalists etc. etc.

And there is yet another group that is living comfortably enough that they have nothing important enough to them to bother to vote.

All these groups have myriad degrees, and one can be in one, or several, depending on the precise views you hold, and how strongly you feel about them.

No one seems to be completely satisfied with either of the main parties choices on everything, so those that do vote, mostly wind up voting for whichever party/candidate that seems to agree strongest with their particular sacred cow, accepting the "bad" to get at least a little "good".

Lots of us don't fit perfectly and completely in either camp. Perhaps one reason why so many of us are dissatisfied with politics, parties, and politicians. And all of us "know" things would all be just fine if the politicians actually did what we want them to do. Trouble is, that with so many widely differing points of view, what is right to some is completely wrong to others. And it changes with each different issue, and individual.

Take national health care, for one. To me, it is one of those things, like communism, a fine sounding idea, in theory, but something that invariably doesn't work well in the real world. Forget, for a moment, all the arguments about who pays, and whether it is socialism, and everything else, and just ask your self one question. Do you really want the Federal Government running our health care system? And, before you answer that, look at the fine health care system already run by our federal govt. The VA.

Because, the best of intentions not withstanding, once enough people and bureaucracies get involved with it, that is what it will come down to. Is this what you want for yourself, and your children? And is it right to give our govt agencies the legal authority to force us all into that kind of system?

Now, go on and consider all the other arguments, pro and con, and make up your mind.

Gay Marriage. Something that affects me personally not in the least. However, being a bit of a traditionalist, at least when it comes to language, I oppose gay marriage. I favor "civil unions" having ALL the legal rights of marriage. I just oppose the term marriage being used for anything other than its traditional definition.

Abortion. Being a man, my gut reaction is that I have no place in this issue. BUT, I fully agree and support my wife's position, which she explains this way; She is pro-life AND pro-choice. Sounds like a contradiction at first, but her reasoning is actually quite simple, and logical. She believes abortion (for convenience) is wrong, BUT she believes that is not the govt's decision. The same govt that claims the authority to say "you shall not" has the authority to say "you must!", and that, to her, is wrong.

Guns and shooting are my main hobby, a passion I have enjoyed for nearly 40 years. To me, they are the main factor in who I vote for. I'll put up with an awful lot (but not everything) as long as you leave my things alone. Trouble is, they won't. So, generally, I hold my nose, and vote for the ones I hope will leave me alone the longest.

On this issue, neither party is our good friend. One just wants to do it to us faster than the other. This is, of course a broad generalization, and so, not completely accurate. There are good people who feel the same way we do on this issue in both parties. Trouble is, that they aren't, and haven't been the ones running things for some time now.

pendennis
April 8, 2009, 09:00 AM
Abortion. Being a man, my gut reaction is that I have no place in this issue. BUT, I fully agree and support my wife's position, which she explains this way; She is pro-life AND pro-choice. Sounds like a contradiction at first, but her reasoning is actually quite simple, and logical. She believes abortion (for convenience) is wrong, BUT she believes that is not the govt's decision. The same govt that claims the authority to say "you shall not" has the authority to say "you must!", and that, to her, is wrong.
Well said!

My view parallels that of your wife's.

I also look at what's termed "choice" a little differently than others. I also believe in choices, but that we must abide with the results of those choices.

A man and woman who engage in what's euphemistically referred to as procreation, have already made a choice. After creating life, neither the man nor the woman has the option of terminating that life intentionally.

Dingoboyx
April 8, 2009, 09:47 AM
Heavy thread, but very enlightening.
I congratulate all who have partaken on your calm discussion of a normally volatile subject. It was a great read, like I said, very interesting to me as I live in Australia on the other side of the world.
I also congratulate the staff of TFL for allowing the thread to go on, because it got well away from guns and shooting, but I believe was a worthy thread to be kept alive.
I have heard many anti's rave on about how "gun people" are all 2 headed morons with no more than one brain cell between them, but you gentlemen (and ladies) have proven to me (and hopefully any anti spies, spying) that you are just normal educated people, who love your guns and shooting, can allow others to have their own opinions, and get on with our favorite passtime..... shooting :D

I take my hat off to you all, you are all great blokes (even the sheila's) & I am proud to be accepted as a member of TFL :D

Keep up the good work :D

vranasaurus
April 8, 2009, 11:19 AM
My biggest gripe is that every other industrialized nation has it, and even though the number the news is toting says 50 million Americans, there is a large chunk of those covered that get denied services

And there are a great deal of people who are denied services through government run health care around the world. Because it is either too expensive or there is not enough capcity in the system to give everyoen the requested service. Almost every other industrial nation has much more restrictive gun laws than we do, should we adopt that as well. Just because they do it across the pond doesn't mean we should do it here. If it is good for us we should do it if not we shouldn't. Too me government run health care is not good for us.

Quote:
Abortion. Being a man, my gut reaction is that I have no place in this issue. BUT, I fully agree and support my wife's position, which she explains this way; She is pro-life AND pro-choice. Sounds like a contradiction at first, but her reasoning is actually quite simple, and logical. She believes abortion (for convenience) is wrong, BUT she believes that is not the govt's decision. The same govt that claims the authority to say "you shall not" has the authority to say "you must!", and that, to her, is wrong.

Well said!

My view parallels that of your wife's.

I also look at what's termed "choice" a little differently than others. I also believe in choices, but that we must abide with the results of those choices.

A man and woman who engage in what's euphemistically referred to as procreation, have already made a choice. After creating life, neither the man nor the woman has the option of terminating that life intentionally.

I would agree that abortion is wrong but it is not the government's place to say you can't.

I agree that a choice is made the minute two people decide to have sex and take no precautions to prevent pregnancy.

It galls me when pro-choice people make the claim that they some how have a right to choose to end a life for no reason or when pro-life people, or any other group for that matter, try and tell others how to live.

I do support efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies (before conception) and reduce the amount of abortions through adoption. But I can't support an outright ban on abortion.

publius
April 8, 2009, 11:41 AM
You sound like a Libetarian except for the nationalized health care. i am a Libetarian, and it's just that the republican party is usually closer to the Libetarian party's views. Liberals do share some views with the libetarians and anyone who supports the Second Amendment is welcome no matter how he chooses to label himself.

johnwilliamson062
April 8, 2009, 12:48 PM
You sound like a Libetarian except for the nationalized health care. i am a Libetarian, and it's just that the republican party is usually closer to the Libetarian party's views.
I think it is simpler than that. General the republicans have moved to keep money in working peoples pockets, well at least people working in the private sector. If you have the money you can do almost anything you want.

Lets face it, if Donald Trump wanted to purchase a helicopter with a GE minigun on board for his personal entertainment he could do it. He could buy a small island and call it an independent country, start a shell security firm, or any number of other things to accomplish this task.

There was a guy who couldn't get a radio license or something in the US b/c of his politics and he just went to Mexico, built a huge radio emitter that could reach most of the US and told the government to stick it.

If you are gay and want to be married and you have money you can easily get a lawyer to write up a special contract and afford the extra litigation if it is broken. Probably a good bit more costly then going before the justice of the peace and going through the relatively streamlined divorce proceedings if that contract is breached.

Abortion illegal? Not if you have money. Go to Europe for a month and problem solved. Maybe you run with that country club crowd with a few doctors. "Hey Johnny, my daughter has a problem, do you think you can help me out."

With money, almost any restriction on the amendments or civil rights in general can be circumvented.

ilbob
April 8, 2009, 01:34 PM
Marriage has historically been the joining of man and woman for the purposes of procreation
Its a LOT more than that. The family has been the basic unit of social structure just about forever. The legal structure of marriage is mostly about regularizing that structure and putting it into context with the rest of society.

Much harm has come from government meddling in what should be strictly family matters.

sailor99
April 8, 2009, 01:48 PM
hey 44Amp, run for office, I will vote for you.

raimius
April 12, 2009, 03:47 AM
For some reason, I get the feeling that the libertarian mindset is a lot stronger than many would have us believe.

I would call myself generally libertarian. (I am also very willing to listen to pragmatic ideas, especially in the "public goods" field.)

During the past election, I found myself voting for a 3rd party candidate. While I greatly admired one candidate and generally respected the other, their policy stances were just too far from my own views. Call me stupid, but I would rather make my opinion known and lose than vote for someone who will not adequately represent my views.

RDak
April 12, 2009, 06:30 AM
I'm a simple, ordinary old man and for me the answer to the OP is pretty basic.

Conservatives/Libertarians tend to blame the individual for the deficiencies of the individual.

Liberals tend to blame outside forces for the deficiencies of the individual.

For example, conservatives tend to blame the person pulling the trigger of the gun for the outcome of "pulling that trigger". Liberals tend to blame society or the person selling or manufacturing the gun for the "pulling of that trigger".

This difference in basic outlooks can apply to almost any question the OP asked about IMHO (i.e, except gay marriage).

I fall heavily into the conservative camp. I believe strongly that we all hit the "crossroads" in our lives at some point in time and we have to make a choice. The choice is that of the individual.

As far as the constitutional liberal.... just depends on your basic outlook on individual versus collective rights IMHO. I believe the constitution was written to enhance and protect individual rights, liberals disagree with me.

Edit: Do I think my way is clearly the correct one and I know this for sure? No.

pendennis
April 12, 2009, 11:44 AM
RDak - You have a very clear picture, and that individual rights form the true path to freedom.

There has been a disconnect taking place over time, that somehow relates collectivism to some sort of bastardized democracy. Most folks don't understand, or choose to ignore, that democracy is nothing but mob rule, and our founders worked very hard to insure that we didn't suffer the same fate as all democracies in times past.

We need only to look at the French Revolution. Their concept of "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" caused a bloodbath among what the revolutionaries considered enemies of the state. The tyranny of Marat and Robespierre were direct results of a revolution feeding on itself. Their deaths were the results of their actions.

gc70
April 12, 2009, 01:32 PM
I'm always amazed at the number of ignorant people that look to government as if it were some magical entity possessing a bottomless well from which to ladle money.

The majority of our countrymen are largely ignorant about politics in the dictionary sense of being uninformed. A recent poll (sorry, but I didn't save the link) showed that a majority of Americans think the trillions of dollars for the current economic bailouts come from some magical repository of money set aside by the government. Such political ignorance means that two things dominate the political landscape - fringe issues and group identification.

Firearms are my passion and hobby. I recognize that the RKBA is a fringe issue because the vast majority of voters are just not interested in firearms. If I could find politicians who were consistently for less government in all areas except firearms, I would vote for such politicians. But I have not found politicians who are consistently for less government, so firearms issues usually drive my vote.

Our country has two main political parties that absolutely agree on one thing - that they do not want serious competition from more political parties. To that end, they have jointly created barriers to other parties' ability to effectively enter the arena. With only two real choices, the main parties do not really have to be different; they both favor more government, with a little differentiation at the margins. The two main parties have claimed various fringe issues to which they give more or less attention. After dividing up the fringe voters, the parties appeal to the masses of the politically ignorant on the basis of name identification; "vote for Candidate X because he is a Democrat" or "vote for Candidate Y because he is a Republican."

My view of the law and civil rights is that there should be as few laws as possible to enable and ensure our civil rights. Lately, my litmus test (other than RKBA :)) for politicians has become whether or not they support the repeal of laws. Maybe it is the nature of the beast, but the function of government seems to have become producing ever more laws. Whenever politicians actually support eliminating existing laws (and not substituting replacements). I take close notice.

johnwilliamson062
April 12, 2009, 02:28 PM
GC70, I liked the first three paragraphs so much I passed it on. Hope you do not mind.

Jofaba
April 12, 2009, 05:21 PM
This board is offering me contact with dozens of differing viewpoints and some great discussions have been had so far. It is definitely opening my mind a lot, and giving me a lot to think about.

I plan to learn a lot here, and really appreciate the maturity everyone has here. It's much easier to get engaged into a conversation that may actually teach you something about the world or yourself, when they don't put up walls and are willing to talk about stuff that they already have an iron clad core belief about.

pendennis
April 12, 2009, 06:02 PM
GC70 wrote:
Firearms are my passion and hobby. I recognize that the RKBA is a fringe issue because the vast majority of voters are just not interested in firearms. If I could find politicians who were consistently for less government in all areas except firearms, I would vote for such politicians. But I have not found politicians who are consistently for less government, so firearms issues usually drive my vote.

Firearms happen to be a hot-button issue, because abuses of that right happen to be more visible, and usually more deadly. Other rights which get suppressed, are usually much more quiet and reside under the radar (or outright ignorance) of the so-called media.

In 1992, Bill Clinton managed to get Congress to pass a tax hike, which was retroactively applied to January 1, 2003. Not one newspaper took him to task, nor did one lawsuit get filed over the apparent violation of Article 1, Section 9 (ex post facto clause).

As you so astutely mentioned, both parties are merely carving up the middle, with a few fringe arguments giving the appearance that there are substantial differences between the two.

This past spring, I was so upset with the apparent selection of John McCain as the Republican candidate, I wrote to the RNC, advising them that I could no longer support them or their candidate apparent. The only thing I received in return was a form letter asking me to make another donation.

With the loss of this past Presidential election, and further erosion of power in Congress, Republicans choose a liberal RNC Chairman from Maryland! It proves your point succinctly.

This morning, Fox News mentioned that an increasing number of Republicans were referring to themselves as more conservative than Republican. One can only hope that this is a harbinger.

BlueTrain
April 15, 2009, 05:53 AM
Wow! My opinion of the contributors to this forum has gone up as a result of reading this thread. There's a lot here that I could comment on, but won't because there just isn't enough room. But I'll add a few things.

One, I don't care for labels so much and they have been used a lot in this discussion. For one thing, I think labels are often false. That is, someone calling themselves conservatives might not be as conservative as they are reactionary. On the other hand, no one here seems to be particularly revolutionary and I'm not even sure if there are any progressives. No offence to anyone.

Another thing is that labels generally imply more than is true about a particular group or individual at a given point in time, even though it may often be accurate enough.

One point not discussed so much is the idea that the far left and far right (or simply, the left and the right) are not representative of most people but rather that more people are somewhere in the middle, presumably the silent majority as someone called it. I fear that is not the case at all. While there may be many who are uninterested and uninformed about political matters, that doesn't place them in the middle. That puts them somewhere on the outside. In other words, for most people, most voters anyway, issues are seen as black/white, either/or. For better or for worse.

Most things aren't, like it or not. Nationalized health care, for instance. There seems to be the general assumption that if the federal government somehow implements a nationalized health care system, then private health care will somehow disappear. Well, it might but there are certainly plenty of private schools to send your child to if you don't like government run and therefore socialized public schools.

The word socialism has been used a lot here as if it is something bad. One might be a socialist but if you aren't, does that make you an anti-socialist?

Here's something else to ponder. Someone called me at home a few years ago asking me to attend a "support the troops" rally on the national mall (I live near D.C.). I asked her (It was a woman calling) to describe what it was. Was it a recruiting rally? Was it a bond drive? The caller was at a loss.

Well, I don't know about gay marriage but it seems to me that if you wanted to have a law to protect marriage, it would be about making divorce illegal. But I don't think these things through very well.