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.
The only major issue I have with liberal positions is gun control. I am beyond the right wing when I avocate that every law abiding citizen should have and carry a firearm where ever they want. I also advocate that anyone firing a gun is completely responsible for what the bullet does and had better have a very good reason if the bullet hits a human being. Self defense is one good reason.
I also am for the overturning of the NAFTA agreement of 1994, which makes produce in all 3 North American countries equal. The value of corn (the main export) went straight down in Mexico and as a result millions upon millions of Mexicans have migrated to the US, many illegally. If this is overturned immigration numbers to the US would be fractioned.
I also am for the overturning of the NAFTA agreement of 1994, which makes produce in all 3 North American countries equal. The value of corn (the main export) went straight down in Mexico and as a result millions upon millions of Mexicans have migrated to the US, many illegally. If this is overturned immigration numbers to the US would be fractioned.
I completely agree with all of this. I'm glad you mentioned illegal immigration as well because ending NAFTA, along with other trade agreements that promote a race to the bottom, is one of the keys to stopping illegal immigration in my opinion; this hardly ever gets brought up in illegal immigration debates and should definitely get more attention. NAFTA is one of those wierd issues where the status quo of both parties seems to support it and the more radiacal elemets of both parties are where there is most likely to be opposition. Well, it seems as if almost the whole REpublican party is far right nowdays exept for Senators Snowe and Collins but I'm surprised at how many conservative Republicans don't support NAFTA, The WTO or trade agreements that promote corporate globablization. I think the pro-NAFTA and anti-NAFTA people can more easily be defined by whether or not you can think outside of the box than by partisan affiliation.
- For Gay marriage and transgendered rights etc.
- For legalization of ALL drugs
- For some oversight of corporations to eliminate illegal activities
My conservative issues (why I support conservative values) are 2nd amnedment, reforming welfare, limited government, anti abortion, limited spending, 1st amendment,
I believe capitalism in its true form, when not abused is the perfect economic system
I just thought of another one: DNA testing. For those of you that don't already know, while I'm a tax and spend/government regulation type of person when it comes to economic issues, on social issues I want the goverment to stay out of my business. I guess that I could call myself a social libertarian. However, I think that in some cases people should be forced to submit DNA samples. Here's an example of a case that I saw on TV a while back.
a twenty-three year old rape/murder in Winston-Salem, North Carolina was solved and an innocent man, Darryl Hunt, was freed when DNA from the crime scene was run through the state’s database and they got a near match which was remarkably close to a felon in the database. The follow up investigation showed that the man who actually committed the crime was the felon’s older brother, Willard Brown. When confronted with the DNA evidence, Willard Brown confessed.
For the DNA sample that they got from this felon, they knew that the real killer was a close relative of his. From what I remember that the ACLU, which I usually agree with, tried to stop the government from forcing Willard Brown, or any other of this felon's relatives, to give a DNA sample.
In cases like this, I think the government should force the relatives to give DNA samples because it not only could show who the real killer is, but it could also liberate an innocent person that's serving time for a crime that he/she didn't commit. The good thing about DNA evidence is that it's the only thing 100% sure to reveal the truth. Police can force people into false convessions, witnesses can lie under oath, juries can be discriminatory, but DNA evidence doesn't discriminate against anyone.
What I find interesting are the groups which I usually disagree with BUT we agree that we are against Cap & Trade. We have different reasons for being against it, but still, we are against it.
A couple of the groups are environmental groups and another is a labor group.
After my last post, I dug up the video for the 60 Minutes story that I saw originally; here it is in case anyone wants to check it out. The correct phrase is familial searches of partial DNA matches. The question is, if DNA from a murder scene is a partial match of someone in jail, and the law enforcement agencies know that while the person in jail didn't commit the crime a close relative of him/her did, should they get DNA samples from this inmates relatives? I think they should.
I made a mistake in my original post. The guy that was against familial DNA searches was not with the ACLU. However, I can tell that I'd probably see eye to eye with him on many issues. I think that in many cases law enforcement violates people's privacy rights trying to solve cases. But I think it's ridiculous that the FBI can't share partial DNA matches from one state with other states. As this video shows, pursuing partial DNA matches can solve crimes and help free the wrongly convicted.
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.
I'm glad you mentioned illegal immigration as well because ending NAFTA, along with other trade agreements that promote a race to the bottom, is one of the keys to stopping illegal immigration in my opinion; this hardly ever gets brought up in illegal immigration debates and should definitely get more attention. NAFTA is one of those wierd issues where the status quo of both parties seems to support it and the more radiacal elemets of both parties are where there is most likely to be opposition. Well, it seems as if almost the whole REpublican party is far right nowdays exept for Senators Snowe and Collins but I'm surprised at how many conservative Republicans don't support NAFTA, The WTO or trade agreements that promote corporate globablization. I think the pro-NAFTA and anti-NAFTA people can more easily be defined by whether or not you can think outside of the box than by partisan affiliation.
