What's you're political Idoligy

[dangeresque]

 

voting age lowered to 13, because, then the education system might get more support

 

 

What? A 13 year old's can't make completely informed decisions and will vote for whoever their parents like, that would just be a disasterous thing.

[The Dark Lord]

Gay Rights: Yes

 

 

 

Free Healthcare: I really like the idea.

 

 

 

Prostitution: I have no good reason either way to have a view on it. The only concern that comes to mind right now is that it might not have any health regulations and that it promotes sexism against women by portraying them as property.

 

 

 

Separation of Church and State: It should be enforced better. As of now, at least in Arkansas, you can vote inside a church. Also, religion has way too much influence on politics. In the United States, government officials are sworn into office with the Bible. Freedom of speech and religion is perfectly fine, but not when it compromises someone else's rights.

 

 

 

Creationism in Science Class: No. However if you want to teach it in a general religion class, be my guest.

 

 

 

Stem-Cell Research: Yes

 

 

 

Improved Education System: Yes

 

 

 

Abortion: I lean toward the pro-choice side, as there are certain situations that I really sympathize with the female. I frown upon it when it involves a case of stupidity and ignorance. Perhaps candidates for abortion should have a brief session that explains their options clearly and objectively.

 

 

 

Gun Control: Yes. Currently in the United States, you can walk into a pharmacy that sells guns and buy an AK-47 with a bayonet on it that looks like a hunting knife. Yes, they exist and are legal as far as I know.

 

 

 

Gender Roles: They should not be recognized by society, especially when it comes to jobs.

 

 

 

Alternative Fuel: There really isn't much of a choice, is there? Fossil fuels will not last forever, you know. It's better to start the research while you're ahead.

 

 

 

Affirmative Action: I frown upon it as it is racism. It should only be there to benefit people of ALL races that have very low income and cannot afford a proper education on their own. Right now, a racial minority with a good income can take advantage of affirmative action and be unfairly ahead of other individuals. It discriminates against "white" individuals just because they are coincidentally part of a racial majority. Affirmative action fails to solve racial discrimination as it provokes it.

 

 

 

Environment: Stricter policies should be enforced that would guarantee the protection of endangered species, other wildlife, and the overall well-being of the environment.

 

 

 

Legalization of Illegal Drugs: In cases involving medicinal benefits for cancer patients, I do not see the harm of it. I suppose it could add an element of honesty as drug users would not have to resort to buying it in a covert manner and perhaps you'd see the street dealers in a minority as commercial businesses would start to appear. This would help protect the safety of the would-be clients as they would not have to go to a dark street corner in the ghetto to buy some marijuana. If this area is legalized, it should definitely be regulated. Perhaps this could be used to run the street dealers out of business by creating competition.

 

 

 

Middle East: I think that we should try to end it as soon as we can. I fail to see economical benefits from it and we could use the money that we would spend on war supplies to actually improve national security and build up our economy.

 

 

 

Censorship: I'm against unnecessary forms of it, as I feel like it conflicts with freedom of speech. However, I am pro-censorship during certain cases, one of which involves child abuse and radical indoctrination. (A good example is a dangerous cult raising children to believe insane things.) A common example in America are families that are radically religious and they do not give the child a chance to form their own opinions and the child either ends up scarred and angry or out of touch with reality, again flowing back into my dangerous cult example. Another case involves violence and statement of intention of harm and/or bullying. This should be censored as it only terrorizes or intimidates an individual. Of course, censorship against articles that speak out against something, including government, violates a human's right to freedom of speech.

[Saru Inc]

Fyi, there's no such thing as Seperation of Church and state, it was written as a good idea in a private letter, it's nowhere in the Constitution.

[magekillr]

Fyi, there's no such thing as Seperation of Church and state, it was written as a good idea in a private letter, it's nowhere in the Constitution.

 

 

 

The next thing that you're going to tell me is that there is no such thing as separation of powers or checks and balances :roll: #-o :wall:

 

 

 

Tbh I see the Rep's (excluding evangelicals) as realistic and Dem's as idealistic.

 

 

 

No, the Democrats are just as liberal as every right wing conservative party around the developed world. I think the Republicans should move to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or India. They would fare much better over there with their twisted backwards views.

[jasignhagj]

voting age lowered to 13, because, then the education system might get more support

 

 

 

 

 

Sheesh that's a harsh drop..

 

 

 

I think 13 is a good age, as younger, you would likley be an extra vote to your parents, but i think that some thing like 16 is still to low to make sure all people have a say in government.

 

 

 

edit - i can see that some can disagree with 13, but i can see no reason against 16 being the age

[The Dark Lord]

 

I think 13 is a good age, as younger, you would likley be an extra vote to your parents, but i think that some thing like 16 is still to low to make sure all people have a say in government.

 

 

 

edit - i can see that some can disagree with 13, but i can see no reason against 16 being the age

 

 

 

I do not see the harm with lowering the voting age to 16. Many teenagers feel as if they have absolutely no say in what happens in the world and they complain. This would allow them to actually take action for a change. Age 13 is way too low, in my opinion. Children at that age are more immature than their young adult counterparts and are more likely to be influenced by their parents.

[Deiophobus]

I think 16 year olds are just as likely to be influenced as 13 year olds by their parents, and any sort of media hype. I think that's just too young. 18 really isn't much better, but I'd like to think that 16-18 people mature somewhat.

[oegly41]

I would never let the 16 year old me vote, and definitely not the 13 year old me. :?

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

No, the Democrats are just as liberal as every right wing conservative party around the developed world. I think the Republicans should move to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or India. They would fare much better over there with their twisted backwards views.

 

Stan of Arabia, anyone? :lol:

[ThurinEthir]

Just saying, one reason some teenagers might appear to know nothing about politics is because they don't care. They can't vote, so why should they have to decide who they support?

 

It's not exactly a great reason, but I have a feeling if the voting age was dropped to 16, a lot more 16 year olds would start paying attention.

 

And of course there will still be people voting for who their parents are voting for (And that being the only reason). Example - Yomyth. ;)

[Barihawk]

Fyi, there's no such thing as Seperation of Church and state, it was written as a good idea in a private letter, it's nowhere in the Constitution.

 

 

 

The next thing that you're going to tell me is that there is no such thing as separation of powers or checks and balances :roll: #-o :wall:

 

 

 

Tbh I see the Rep's (excluding evangelicals) as realistic and Dem's as idealistic.

 

 

 

No, the Democrats are just as liberal as every right wing conservative party around the developed world. I think the Republicans should move to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or India. They would fare much better over there with their twisted backwards views.

 

 

 

1) No, he's saying that there is no actual wording in the constitution as to the separation of Church and State. It was written in a letter and suggested by George Washington. I personally think it's a wise rule. It's never been a problem, either, because of those very checks and balances. Which, by the way, are written in bold print in the constitution itself.

 

 

 

2) Look at me! My argument is mature and valid. Seriously man, lighten up. You've referred to me as closed minded in the past yet I am currently eager for Obama to come into office despite the fact I specifically did not want him to be President. If it was the opposite, you'd be whining about McCain throughout the term. You are the closed minded one, you always have been. I'm really sick of your "anything that differs from thine views is wrong" approach to these conversations.

 

 

 

I'm sorry. I notice that the vast majority of people here who claim that other groups are "backwards" have some terrible character flaw that ends up making them much more "backwards" than the few Republicans who actually post here.

[magekillr]

I apologize Bari, you're not like other Republicans. Forgive me.

 

 

 

Honestly, I don't mind fiscal conservatism. Although I highly disagree with it, and I find it to be the "wrong" way to go, I can understand the stances and why people feel the way that they do.

 

 

 

What I cannot be open-minded about is social conservatism, with not allowing gays to marry or issues of the like. That's basically what I meant when I said that Republicans would fare much better in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia with their "backwards views". Republicans seem to have focused more on knee-jerk issues like abortion and gays that most moderate Republicans and independents are moving towards the Democrats even if they disagree with the fiscal policy.

 

 

 

I am open to compromise with the right on a vast majority of issues. I don't consider the Republicans to be the right, though. I consider them to be the radically far right wing party. Would I be unhappy with Harper if I were Canadian? Sure, but it wouldn't be that bad. At least they focus on moving off of oil, and don't question the validity of health care in their country. Would McCain be horribly bad? His views aren't that bad actually; I could live with him being President as far as his views. His judgment, however, is horrid. His health care plan was horrible, and he had no direction for the economy or his presidential decisions (Palin?).

 

 

 

However, I still cannot understand why health care isn't viewed as a "right" in this country.

 

 

 

edit: Btw, there are no checks and balances specifically listed in the Constitution in a literal fashion, much like the separation of church and state. The separation of church and state IS in the First Amendment in a non-literal fashion because no law within the state may be made protecting religion, nor harming it. The wall is there, in a non literal sense, just like checks and balances are there when the powers of each branch are listed.

[jasignhagj]

Im Canadian and i Dislike harper. Its not so much his conservativeness, but his unwillingness to do anything. Compared to the us election ours was pointless and boring. my party, the liberals,had an idiot as a leader. Evreyone new the conservatives would win another minority gov, and we;d be back at it in 8 months. I still suppoprted liberals though, to keep my riding safe untill the next election when our leader isnt an idiot