Indie Thoughts

[G&T]

One more thing.  I've taken some of those online tests to see where I am on the spectrum, in net, and I am usually close to the middle.  But here, I seem to end up on the left more often than not.  What is up with that?

 

Understandable. I take those test and always come up centrist but I lean to the right. I'm really a libertarian. If you vote for Democrats then you probably want to support your choice, where I vote for Republicans and want to support my choice. IMO if we both voted for candidates that truly reflected our ideas we would support those ideas. Which is why I have vowed to vote for third party candidates when and if they can actually do a good job.

[NorthSideSox72]

Understandable. I take those test and always come up centrist but I lean to the right. I'm really a libertarian. If you vote for Democrats then you probably want to support your choice, where I vote for Republicans and want to support my choice. IMO if we both voted for candidates that truly reflected our ideas we would support those ideas. Which is why I have vowed to vote for third party candidates when and if they can actually do a good job.

That's a noble cause.

 

I think part of my suddenly lefty position is because many of the issues I lean right on are not discussed much here. Issues like gun control/2nd amendment, states' rights, affirmative action, federal funding and budgetary issues and crime and punishment, for example, haven't gotten much play here (except for the death penalty). If they did, I'd probably look like a true GOPerhead.

[Rex Kickass]

That's a noble cause.

 

I think part of my suddenly lefty position is because many of the issues I lean right on are not discussed much here.  Issues like gun control/2nd amendment, states' rights, affirmative action, federal funding and budgetary issues and crime and punishment, for example, haven't gotten much play here (except for the death penalty).  If they did, I'd probably look like a true GOPerhead.

 

I don't think that's necessarily the case.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think that's necessarily the case.

Which part? Maybe those issues were discussed a lot before I started posting in here a few months ago.

[YASNY]

Which part?  Maybe those issues were discussed a lot before I started posting in here a few months ago.

 

This should be interesting.

[Rex Kickass]

Which part?  Maybe those issues were discussed a lot before I started posting in here a few months ago.

 

I don't think that Democrats are far off from you when it comes to states rights issues.

[YASNY]

I don't think that Democrats are far off from you when it comes to states rights issues.

 

Then your saying the states should be able to decide whether or not abortion should be allowed in their states ... or gay marriage?

[Balta1701]

I don't think that Democrats are far off from you when it comes to states rights issues.

Not when a Republican is in power. Or at least a big-government Republican.

[YASNY]

Not when a Republican is in power.  Or at least a big-government Republican.

 

That's one of my major objections with Bush. But, traditionally, the Democrats have been the big government party.

[Rex Kickass]

Then your saying the states should be able to decide whether or not abortion should be allowed in their states ... or gay marriage?

 

Abortion, yes. Although I'd like to see a federal legalization of it.

 

Gay Marriage, no. It's a constitutional question regarding equal rights and protections under the law as far as I'm concerned.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think that Democrats are far off from you when it comes to states rights issues.

So the Dems would be OK with removing virtually all federal funding from education, putting that entirely on the states? And the Dems think that states should have complete control over their own national guard (which is really a state guard), including the right of refusal to federal mandates for their use overseas?

[Rex Kickass]

On the second issue, I think the GOP is far off your views - let alone the Dems.

 

On education, I think with the right argument - very possibly.

[NorthSideSox72]

Then your saying the states should be able to decide whether or not abortion should be allowed in their states ... or gay marriage?

I personally don't think that federal OR state governments should have any place at all in marriage of any kind.

[Rex Kickass]

I agree.

[YASNY]

Abortion, yes. Although I'd like to see a federal legalization of it.

 

Gay Marriage, no. It's a constitutional question regarding equal rights and protections under the law as far as I'm concerned.

 

Of course you'd like to see federal legislation of it, unless it ended up being pro-life legislation. Then you'd be all up in arms about states rights. I won't argue with you on the gay marriage issue other than to say marriage, in itself, is a religious union and based on religion, that in itself is contradictory. I wouldn't be opposed to a civil union type of arrangement to where a gay couple would be eligible for equal benefits and/or penalties under the law.

[Balta1701]

So the Dems would be OK with removing virtually all federal funding from education, putting that entirely on the states?

Having seen what happens when the Feds step in, I'm not sure that would be a terrible idea, if there was some way we could guarantee that the funding levels wouldn't be cut in, oh, let's say Alabama, which would hurt the U.S. as a whole by creating a less educated workforce in a decent chunk of the country.

 

The nice thing about having more state participation in education is that it would provide more opportunity for innovation to develop...for states to find things that are actually working better and saving themselves money, as opposed to having the Feds say "you must do things this way."

[Texsox]

I personally don't think that federal OR state governments should have any place at all in marriage of any kind.

 

This would take a major rewrite of our legal system. From one perspective, a marriage is a legal merger of two entities. They are in most cases now responsiible for and to each other. We would also have to rewrite laws regarding testifying against your spouse. We would have to rewrite a host of laws.

 

Far better IMHO, is making this legal merger just that, a legal merger. Let the Churches handle a religious union, let the government handle the legal stuff.

[kapkomet]

This would take a major rewrite of our legal system. From one perspective, a marriage is a legal merger of two entities. They are in most cases now responsiible for and to each other. We would also have to rewrite laws regarding testifying against your spouse. We would have to rewrite a host of laws.

 

Far better IMHO, is making this legal merger just that, a legal merger. Let the Churches handle a religious union, let the government handle the legal stuff.

Isn't that kind of what happens now? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

[Balta1701]

I wouldn't be opposed to a civil union type of arrangement to where a gay couple would be eligible for equal benefits and/or penalties under the law.

Interestingly, it is starting to seem that some Republicans are actually starting to take up that position. In Colorado, a Republican in the State's Senate introduced a bill which would allow just that, which seems to have gained the support of Focus on the Family's James Dobson (those on the left will probably have heard him bashed at whatever websites they read).

[NorthSideSox72]

This would take a major rewrite of our legal system. From one perspective, a marriage is a legal merger of two entities. They are in most cases now responsiible for and to each other. We would also have to rewrite laws regarding testifying against your spouse. We would have to rewrite a host of laws.

 

Far better IMHO, is making this legal merger just that, a legal merger. Let the Churches handle a religious union, let the government handle the legal stuff.

I know its highly unlikely - but that is the way I'd like it to be.

 

In the short run, since marriage is probably a legal fact here to stay, I just don't want to see the Feds do anything to ban a certain type of marriage. I think its hateful and unconstitutional.

[NorthSideSox72]

I have to apologize - my rant, which led to an issues status discussion with Rex and YASNY and others, has totally muddled this thread. Sorry about that.

 

Good discussions, though.

[kapkomet]

I know its highly unlikely - but that is the way I'd like it to be.

 

In the short run, since marriage is probably a legal fact here to stay, I just don't want to see the Feds do anything to ban a certain type of marriage.  I think its hateful and unconstitutional.

That is true. The government (at least at the federal level) needs to stay the hell out of this issue.

[Rex Kickass]

That is true.  The government (at least at the federal level) needs to stay the hell out of this issue.

At every level. The issues at stake here roll down to things like hospital visitation.

[Texsox]

Isn't that kind of what happens now?  Or am I misunderstanding your point?

 

I guess I left out the leap. By calling it a legal merger, we would allow any two persons to become this new merger. Since it isn't a "marriage" which presumable calls for sex and reproduction, it could be any two consenting adults.

 

Extreme case. Viewing it simply as a legal merger of two individuals, two siblings could form this merger, yet I pray we all would agree they couldn't marry. Why is it that this legal union always presumes sex? It's as if we view a marriage license as a sex license, and half the population knows that ain't true.

[mr_genius]

Harry Browne died today (libertarian guy)

 

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=8666

 

RIP buddy