[ronald_reagan]

On what issue have you changed your mind on most drastically since being interested in politics?

If you generally classify yourself as a conservative or liberal, on what issue are you the most opposite on? (ie, I'm conservative, but pro-choice.... I'm liberal, but for gun rights)


For me, I haven't really changed my view on this issue, but I've created a radical viewpoint (not so radical to the founding fathers, but to today's citizen)... I would fight to the death to see the 17th amendment repealed and go back to the framers intentions on the issue of how Senate members are selected. There is currently a small movement to do just that, and Zell Miller actually introduced legislation a few years back in support of it.

On the second question, I'm a radical conservative with liberterian leanings. So its easy for me to have polar opposite views when dealing with social compared to fiscal issues. I'm pro-gay marriage, anti-death penalty, and generally a non-interventionist. I'm for legalized drug use and prostitution. These are things that go against conservative views (mainstream).

So your turn. What have you changed your mind about? And what views do you consider to be polar opposites of what your general political philosophy is?

:letsparty :letsparty

[Beef]

I would fight to the death to see the 17th amendment repealed and go back to the framers intentions on the issue of how Senate members are selected. There is currently a small movement to do just that, and Zell Miller actually introduced legislation a few years back in support of it.

Why would you want this changed? Shouldn't the people be able to elect who they want to be in charge?

[LOOKAYANNER]

I've changed mine on the death penalty. I'm not for it anymore, and I once was a big proponent. Too many cases where modern technology has proven people on death roll innocent, some who have been there a long time, through DNA. One mistake in a death sentence of an innocent person is one too many. Give them life without parole and if new facts are exposed, then you at least don't have a dead person on your guilt.

[ronald_reagan]

I've changed mine on the death penalty. I'm not for it anymore, and I once was a big proponent. Too many cases where modern technology has proven people on death roll innocent, some who have been there a long time, through DNA. One mistake in a death sentence of an innocent person is one too many. Give them life without parole and if new facts are exposed, then you at least don't have a dead person on your guilt.

That is exactly right. I couldn't have said it any better....

The death penalty was once an absolute 'truth' in my own mind. Today I'd go as far as saying that the death penalty shouldn't apply to anyone, even bin Laden himself.

Judeo-Christian values teach us to only take a life in defense of our own. The Catholic church teaches that the death penalty isn't acceptable anymore in most cases, do to the ease of protecting the innocent from the convicted.

However, as Bush said.. this is an issue that good people can and will disagree upon.

Great post though lookayanner! :notworthy

[ronald_reagan]

Why would you want this changed? Shouldn't the people be able to elect who they want to be in charge?

Well if you're a federalist as I am, you'd support the founders intentions. It wasn't until the 17th amendment that senators were 'elected'. Until then, the states appointed them as their representatives (as a soveriegn body/entity). The people already have representatives. The senate was never intended to be a popular body, but ambassadors to the federal government.

Do you realize that we're a union of 50 'nations'... states aren't just borders, they're soverign lands and governments with rights.

Beef you seem to be a very educated person, and I'm sure that with further study you'll come to the same conclusion that I have on this, and be in agreement with the founders.

But to take your point further... the constitution never gives us the 'right to vote'. It gives reasons we can't be denied, such as based upon age, gender, race, failure to pay poll taxes... but it never gives anyone else the RIGHT to vote. For instance, felons, mentally incompentent, those who owe back taxes, ect in some states can't vote. We have NO right. We have a privilege.

Today we have term limits for the president, which goes against the idea that we can elect 'who we want'. I support it myself. As do I support a 6/6/6 rule. Its a 3 x 2 year terms for house members, 1 x 6 year senate term (appointed by states), and 1 x 6 year presidential term voted on by district and not state.

[More Cowbell]

If you generally classify yourself as a conservative or liberal, on what issue are you the most opposite on? (ie, I'm conservative, but pro-choice.... I'm liberal, but for gun rights)

I find myself taking political sides with both parties on various issues. It's often very hard for me to pick between the Dem and GOP candidates for office because I disagree with much of what each will support.

Traditional Democratic positions I agree with:
1) smaller military
2) keeping church out of schools

Traditional Republican positions I agree with:
1) lower taxes
2) individual gun rights

There are many more, but these are a sampling...

[Advance Eagles]

Me-Liberal Dem.
I'm not on the other hand for the welfare/foodstamps issues.Yes,some people need them temporary.I just think some changes are in need.

[ronald_reagan]

I find myself taking political sides with both parties on various issues. It's often very hard for me to pick between the Dem and GOP candidates for office because I disagree with much of what each will support.

Traditional Democratic positions I agree with:
1) smaller military
2) keeping church out of schools

Traditional Republican positions I agree with:
1) lower taxes
2) individual gun rights

There are many more, but these are a sampling...

Just curious, why do you agree with a smaller military?

IMO, thats like saying to a hunter, you should use a sling shot to kill the deer instead of a .270.

I respect your position, but don't confuse that with me thinking that its dumbfounding.

If you choose to explain or not, thats fine. I was just curious, as I don't hear a 'smaller' military advocated by even democrats. In fact, they've voted to expand the size of the military, and increase the military budget on a habitual basis.

[ComfortEagle]

My political views:

For a smaller government.
For lower taxes/no new taxes.
For free trade.
For a woman's right to choose.
Against the death penalty.
Against the war in Iraq, for our actions in Afghanistan.
For gun rights.
Against a draft.


Additionally, I hate the way our welfare system/SSI system works right now. I have met too many people who do not need to be on either of these that choose to make being disabled or being on welfare a profession.

[ronald_reagan]

My political views:

For a smaller government.
For lower taxes/no new taxes.
For free trade.
For a woman's right to choose.
Against the death penalty.
Against the war in Iraq, for our actions in Afghanistan.
For gun rights.
Against a draft.


Additionally, I hate the way our welfare system/SSI system works right now. I have met too many people who do not need to be on either of these that choose to make being disabled or being on welfare a profession.

You actually sound alot like me. A rebel democrat, or maverick republican. In otherwords, a Libertarian.

A fiscal conservative, a social liberal.

The only disagreement I have with you is the 'right to choose'. Besides that, we're dead on. :notworthy

[ComfortEagle]

You actually sound alot like me. A rebel democrat, or maverick republican. In otherwords, a Libertarian.

A fiscal conservative, a social liberal.

The only disagreement I have with you is the 'right to choose'. Besides that, we're dead on. :notworthy

Centrist/Libertarian is where I've been placed in political quizzes, however I'm registered Democrat so I can vote in their primaries.

Funny story. One of my friends who...just recently, became a dead-set Republican, said that I was Libertarian and that meant "that I didn't care about the government or politics."

I had to tell him he had Libertarian confused with Apathetic.

[ronald_reagan]

Centrist/Libertarian is where I've been placed in political quizzes, however I'm registered Democrat so I can vote in their primaries.

Funny story. One of my friends who...just recently, became a dead-set Republican, said that I was Libertarian and that meant "that I didn't care about the government or politics."

I had to tell him he had Libertarian confused with Apathetic.

libertarians are typically the most hated and most misunderstood of all political sectors.

i take a lot of heat for my views, and am told often that i'm fascist (which isn't even close, as its the most liberal of all views), and am told from time to time that i'm an extremist.

Republicans and Democrats alike hate me. I just find it funny that if someone considers themselves republican or democrat, they have to agree with ALL of their party's platform. I typically identify myself as republican, am registered as a democrat, but find that the answer to my political beliefs isn't with either.

[ComfortEagle]

libertarians are typically the most hated and most misunderstood of all political sectors.

i take a lot of heat for my views, and am told often that i'm fascist (which isn't even close, as its the most liberal of all views), and am told from time to time that i'm an extremist.

Republicans and Democrats alike hate me. I just find it funny that if someone considers themselves republican or democrat, they have to agree with ALL of their party's platform. I typically identify myself as republican, am registered as a democrat, but find that the answer to my political beliefs isn't with either.

I agree that it's funny that once someone embraces a political party, they feel the need to agree with the entire platform, which is what happened in the case of my friend.

Before he "became a Republican" (like it was some sort of religious experience) he had his own views on things and was very moderate. Now he won't stray from anything that's deemed non-Republican, and I had one of the dumbest debates in history with him about immigration.

[ronald_reagan]

I agree that it's funny that once someone embraces a political party, they feel the need to agree with the entire platform, which is what happened in the case of my friend.

Before he "became a Republican" (like it was some sort of religious experience) he had his own views on things and was very moderate. Now he won't stray from anything that's deemed non-Republican, and I had one of the dumbest debates in history with him about immigration.

Its why I respect people like Arlen Spector and Rudy on the republican side, and the blue dog democrats (along with Daniel Patrick Moynihan) on the democrat side. I disagree with them all strongly on many issues... but when people don't waiver or waffle for political gain, its impossible to say that they're wrong.

I like being a rebel. And when people or my party disagree with me, I laugh it off and don't let it get to me.

[More Cowbell]

Just curious, why do you agree with a smaller military?

IMO, thats like saying to a hunter, you should use a sling shot to kill the deer instead of a .270.

I respect your position, but don't confuse that with me thinking that its dumbfounding.

If you choose to explain or not, thats fine. I was just curious, as I don't hear a 'smaller' military advocated by even democrats. In fact, they've voted to expand the size of the military, and increase the military budget on a habitual basis.

I advocate an end to the ceaseless increases in defense spending, increases which often end up wasting our country's financial resources. Even more importantly, I am opposed to the senseless wasting of American lives with fighting in places where we don't need to be.

Do I want our country to be safe? Of course. The problem is that increases in funding to our nation's military have nothing to do with improving national security. They have everything to do with lining the wallets of defense contractors who stick their fingers in the backs of our lawmakers and make them say what they are told to. Our country's defense budget is ridiculously bloated by all this backscratching, and needs to be scaled back.

[More Cowbell]

My political views:

For a smaller government.
For lower taxes/no new taxes.
For free trade.
For a woman's right to choose.
Against the death penalty.
Against the war in Iraq, for our actions in Afghanistan.
For gun rights.
Against a draft.

Additionally, I hate the way our welfare system/SSI system works right now. I have met too many people who do not need to be on either of these that choose to make being disabled or being on welfare a profession.

CE, I agree with almost all your positions, aside from the abortion issue. I feel my political views most closely resemble that of the Libertarian Party, and I generally want the governmant to protect individual rights over everything else. I usually end up voting about 60-40 Republican in general elections, although I am a registered Democrat because many local races are decided in the primaries.

[ronald_reagan]

I advocate an end to the ceaseless increases in defense spending, increases which often end up wasting our country's financial resources. Even more importantly, I am opposed to the senseless wasting of American lives with fighting in places where we don't need to be.

Do I want our country to be safe? Of course. The problem is that increases in funding to our nation's military have nothing to do with improving national security. They have everything to do with lining the wallets of defense contractors who stick their fingers in the backs of our lawmakers and make them say what they are told to. Our country's defense budget is ridiculously bloated by all this backscratching, and needs to be scaled back.

I think your first post was overly simplistic, and it caused me to not understand.

If what you speak of above is actually a 'smaller military', then I too support just that. However, I think its actually incorrect to say from your post above that you want a smaller military. Having a smaller military means less troops, less equipment, less armor, ect. I've written more letters than I'll ever care to count, to officials from top to bottom advocating a clean up of the federal budget. Starting with entitlement reform, and then straight to the defense appropriations bill. The defense spending measures have too much pork, and too little competition. This years defense bill (just passed) was over 10% more than what Bush requested because of the added amendments and pork. We spend roughly 500 billion currently on the DOD, while the other 200 countries in the entire world... the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD spends just under 500 billion. Our budget is over 50% of the entire world spending. This can be fixed quickly and easily. Our defense spending bill could be about 30-40% lower without sacraficing anything other than some campaign contributions.

[More Cowbell]

I think your first post was overly simplistic, and it caused me to not understand.

If what you speak of above is actually a 'smaller military', then I too support just that. However, I think its actually incorrect to say from your post above that you want a smaller military. Having a smaller military means less troops, less equipment, less armor, ect. I've written more letters than I'll ever care to count, to officials from top to bottom advocating a clean up of the federal budget. Starting with entitlement reform, and then straight to the defense appropriations bill. The defense spending measures have too much pork, and too little competition. This years defense bill (just passed) was over 10% more than what Bush requested because of the added amendments and pork. We spend roughly 500 billion currently on the DOD, while the other 200 countries in the entire world... the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD spends just under 500 billion. Our budget is over 50% of the entire world spending. This can be fixed quickly and easily. Our defense spending bill could be about 30-40% lower without sacraficing anything other than some campaign contributions.

It's all just semantics. You consider "smaller military" to mean less troops, I consider it to mean a smaller defense budget. Although I don't think we really need to add more troops right now either, we just need to quit sending our soldiers off to wars in places we don't need to be.

I'd rather not argue about words, though, since it seems we agree on this issue.

[sherman14]

Here's my thoughts. I'm against abortion in all ways. I am for gambling. And I am against letting illegal 'immagrants' coming into this country illegally.