Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of us would say we lean left or right on most political/social issues, but I think the catchall phrases liberal or conservative do not accurately or fairly describe most of us. I've often had the thought that the extreme views on either side of any issue, should only serve as starting points of reference and not as ideologies carved in stone. To label ourselves or anyone else this way, I believe only serves to diminish our capacity for critical thinking and create false divisions between us. Issues are rarely if ever black or white, the truth lies somewhere in the gray area. So in the interest of finding common ground, and to put this theory of mine to the test, I'd like to hear from those of you who lean left/right on most issues, but on this issue, break from the ranks.
First, you must identify yourself as mostly liberal or mostly conservative, then give us an exception...
Following posts should either address your post or offer a deviation of their own. Both is preferable.
It's only fair that I start. On most issues I lean left, but on the issue of the Hollywood media, movies, music and TV, I think their irresponsibility and no holds barred greed has been damaging our kids for decades now. I heard some pundit, can't remember which one say a few years ago, that we, the USA, is ridiculously conservative on some issues, and ridiculously liberal on others, and I totally agree with that assessment. The sexualization of our kids, the vivid sensational violence that they're subjected to from the time they reach the age of understanding is unforgivable. How many times as a parent I'd be watching what I thought was a harmless TV show with one of my kids and have to go for the remote at the speed of light. I also believe that we "liberals" have to accept some of the blame for the reaction from the right which we may see as overkill and misdirected, but which I believe is understandable given the permissive alternative.
I mostly lean right, but it's not very far to the right. I've voted for all republican presidents as far as I can remember (even Bush the second time, yes. I admit it, and it's because I think the middle of a war is NOT the time to switch presidents with such differing ideologies.). But, this time I think I'm going for Obama. I agree with traditional values, and meeting the status quo for most of societal needs. However, the one thing I'm very strongly against is the conservative view on stem cell research.
Now, I'm not saying that we should be pushing for abortions to "harvest" the stem cells from the fetus. But I'm very against using religion as a reason to stymy scientific research. Within the government, there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State. So, to say that you believe it's morally wrong implies that your morals are religiously-based (since where to most people get their "morals"?). So, to tell someone who is FACTUALLY dying that they can die because of a FAITH-based reason does not hold water to me, especially when we are on the edge of discovery where we can save lives. This dips into abortion, too. Although I disagree with it as a form of birth control, I think it's better than the alternative (back-alley, coat-hangar abortions) if it becomes illegal in any form.
I agree with your position on stem cell research. My understanding is that the "eggs" in question would be discarded anyway. Not only would advancements in this area save threatened lives, but also all of our lives would eventually be prolonged. Thanks for your input.
I agree with your position on stem cell research. My understanding is that the "eggs" in question would be discarded anyway. Not only would advancements in this area save threatened lives, but also all of our lives would eventually be prolonged. Thanks for your input.
From my reading, it seems that "embryonic stem cells" have yet to produce any results while adult stem cells have already proven to be successful as well as more compatible with the intended uses in the field. Initially it was believed adult stem cells to be the "weak link", but apparently this is being proven incorrect as time goes on.
Also, from what I have read concerning this issue, most are not saying we shouldn't use the already harvested stock as the damage is done and there is no sense throwing them out. I think what many are against is the continued harvesting of these cells.
As I said, from a practical view, it seems we have alternatives that are more effective. From an ethical standpoint, well that falls into the line of a different topic concerning the destruction or harm of life in order to progress science.
As for my political leanings, I would have to say I am pretty far conservative, yet not in the sense that it has been redefined for devious purposes. That is, I support a fiscally responsible government with limited power and interference with the states. I advocate self responsibility in the people in respect to the "pursuit of happiness", not the "right to happiness".
I believe in "help" systems driven by the people under the premise of donation based plans, not forced taxes. I believe in peoples complete freedoms to say and act as they choose, yet I believe penalties should be in place to deal with the consequences of those actions. More specifically, I do not believe in proactive restrictions in order to "possibly" prevent wrong doing on most issues. Personal responsibility and the results of that responsibility should be the driving force behind those actions.
That said, I do believe in some restrictions when the evidence of such circumstances can be consistently proven beyond a doubt to reside in that specific behavior. If some actions result, and some do not, that is not sufficient enough cause to restrict and regulate.
In terms of content displayed publicly and freely open without initiative, I do believe in some "common decency" laws should be in place. That is, issues such as the FCC regulates in terms of public broadcast channels in those areas. Past that, I do not think the public retains the right to infringe on avenues where a person or persons must make that initiative to engage in that content.
Using children as an example of the misdeeds and poorly educated behaviors is not the responsibility of the government to enforce or regulate. It is the sole responsibility of the parent to educate and mold their children responsibly, not the states and the state should have no say in its application outside of the defense of wrong doing (physical or extensive emotional harm) or the implementation of responsible punishment for the mismanagement of this development.
I believe our role is to protect our nations interest first and foremost before we go abroad and help others, for one who is not healthy can not properly help another who is unhealthy. I do think however that our involvement within the worlds stage should be one of proactive measures only in that it serves a goal that is both beneficial to those we help and to our own interests (which to be honest is often too subjective itself).
I believe taxes should be reduced for ALL, not specific institutions or persons. I think simply by removing the extensive amount of social programs within our society would allows us to achieve this goal by drastically reducing the need for the income. I do advocate educational support to the people by the government, but only in that it is an "advising of options" and not a tangible distribution of wealth. That follows the idea of "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime". The government should represent all of the peoples interests evenly, not any one area and in order to do that effectively, the amount of help the government can apply needs to be severely limited forcing the localities of the people and each individual themselves to take responsibility for themselves.
From my reading, it seems that "embryonic stem cells" have yet to produce any results while adult stem cells have already proven to be successful as well as more compatible with the intended uses in the field. Initially it was believed adult stem cells to be the "weak link", but apparently this is being proven incorrect as time goes on.
As I said, from a practical view, it seems we have alternatives that are more effective. From an ethical standpoint, well that falls into the line of a different topic concerning the destruction or harm of life in order to progress science.
Admittedly, I'm probably not as well-read on this topic as you are. But I guess my question goes to how much further along we would be with the research had we not had as many people "knee-jerk" reacting, all the way through the President? Would we have found out that embryonic stem cells are no more successful than adult stem cells earlier? Would we not have found the "alternatives" sooner had we not said it's against religious morals to take the cells from existing fetuses? And, had we been able to push forward with the research could one more life have been saved?
My only point is that conservatism often proves too cumbersome in the political arena where science is involved. That's all. Not to debate whether it's right or wrong (since that is a subjective term in the context of stem cell research). Other than that.. there are many issues I lean towards the conservative side with. But again, that's a slight lean, not a heavy one.
In terms of content displayed publicly and freely open without initiative, I do believe in some "common decency" laws should be in place. That is, issues such as the FCC regulates in terms of public broadcast channels in those areas. Past that, I do not think the public retains the right to infringe on avenues where a person or persons must make that initiative to engage in that content.
Using children as an example of the misdeeds and poorly educated behaviors is not the responsibility of the government to enforce or regulate. It is the sole responsibility of the parent to educate and mold their children responsibly, not the states and the state should have no say in its application outside of the defense of wrong doing (physical or extensive emotional harm) or the implementation of responsible punishment for the mismanagement of this development.
What is common decency, how is it defined, and by whom? I am not a prude, I live in Hollywood or thereabouts. In my own life and especially in my more youthful days I would have been considered permissive by most. And yet, I've cringed when I've watched some TV, MTV one of the worst, or listened to some song lyrics, with my suggestible children. You want them to be broad, to experience the greater world virtually before they are old enough to experience it actually, and I don't have much problem with them seeing the real world, but when images and situations and people are distorted to serve a dramatic end then I think it can be harmful to kids. It's so common the image of a sexy girl in a perilous situation, usually one that involves a zombie and a chainsaw, that it is by now a cliche. Are most kids able to process these images and come out unscathed? Yes. Are the ones of more tenuous temperament more vulnerable. You bet, and the problem is of course though they are someone else's kids, they are also kids that all of our kids will have to share the Earth with; which brings me to my second point regarding your post.
Unfortunately, to say that these things are the sole responsibility of the parent is to me an exercise is wishful thinking. As we adults know, not all parents are up to the challenge, many of them are just as irresponsible as the kids they are supposed to be molding. You show me a mean, troubled, violent kid, and I'll bet that I can show you a parent that wasn't there, one that wasn't so well-adjusted themselves, or due to marital complications or business obligations, was absent.
I lean left on many issues, but also lean right on a few. In ways, I am quite a paradox. I carry somewhat socialistic beliefs on the way a country should be ran, but also believe in conservation (less spending where possible). I believe in universal health care, and higher taxation (such a taboo belief) for programs such as this that promote a greater good in society. I do not believe in a truly free market that allows the rich to be unbelievably rich, while most of a society are bred into financial starvation. However, I also am against abortion rights ... except for extreme cases such as rape. I also tend to cringe at most TV/entertainment, just like OP described. Fwiw, I am also against the out-dated standard 40 hour work week, but that is a separate non-political issue .
I lean to the left but when it comes to welfare or social services, I for the most part don't believe the government needs to become the nanny of poor people.
I'm very liberal on social issues but conservative when it comes to fiscal issues.
At the same time, I believe in universal health care but I would want individuals to pay based upon their income and they would receive a certain # of doctor visits under their plan and if they WANT [not need] to go more, they can but they will have to pay. I know some people who go to the doctor for every little minor thing and it seems to wasteful. Of course exceptions for the number of times you can go to the doctor or whoever annually would be made for those with chronic conditions. Prevention would be stressed and it would truly be HEALTH care and not just SICK care.
I lean left on many issues, but also lean right on a few. In ways, I am quite a paradox. I carry somewhat socialistic beliefs on the way a country should be ran, but also believe in conservation (less spending where possible). I believe in universal health care, and higher taxation (such a taboo belief) for programs such as this that promote a greater good in society. I do not believe in a truly free market that allows the rich to be unbelievably rich, while most of a society are bred into financial starvation. However, I also am against abortion rights ... except for extreme cases such as rape. I also tend to cringe at most TV/entertainment, just like OP described. Fwiw, I am also against the out-dated standard 40 hour work week, but that is a separate non-political issue .
Two of the toughest issues for me have always been abortion rights and the death penalty, funny they're both life and death issues.
My understanding is that if Roe v. Wade were ever overturned, the issue would then revert to the jurisdiction of the state. You would think that in states like CA or NY or Mass, abortion would still be legal. My problem with legal abortion is the obvious abuse; some women do seem to use it as just another form of birth control. Despicable in my mind, but I once knew a girl who claimed to get a bad, nervous-anxiety reaction to the pill. At the time I met her, she'd already had three abortions. She was 24.
Still, good girls can get pregnant too. In the case of rape or incest, to me that's a non-issue, but for the 19 or 20 year old girl who's been fighting off her boyfriend's advances since high school, and finally gives in one night in the fear of losing such a swell guy and gets pregnant, I think a girl like this rates a way out, other than of the back-alley variety. I wanna say that all we need is stricter regulation, but know that when money is involved, you need eyes in the back of your head to watch these opportunists.
I lean to the left but when it comes to welfare or social services, I for the most part don't believe the government needs to become the nanny of poor people.
I'm very liberal on social issues but conservative when it comes to fiscal issues.
At the same time, I believe in universal health care but I would want individuals to pay based upon their income and they would receive a certain # of doctor visits under their plan and if they WANT [not need] to go more, they can but they will have to pay. I know some people who go to the doctor for every little minor thing and it seems to wasteful. Of course exceptions for the number of times you can go to the doctor or whoever annually would be made for those with chronic conditions. Prevention would be stressed and it would truly be HEALTH care and not just SICK care.
I think LBJ's "Great" Society proved that entitlements don't work. Enabling is what it becomes, as it did. Didn't Clinton reform Welfare, don't those that can work, now have to work to get their checks? That makes sense to me, as long as again it's run properly and honestly and with compassion, meaning that those that are physically unable to work should not be left to starve. Helping is fine, admirable when necessary, but abuse and laziness, and taking advantage, killed the golden goose.
Something tells me that bureaucracy is often the culprit in these instances and it strikes me how little our governments, local or federal, are able to do well, if at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
