What issue are you -most- to the (R) side on?

Even if "most" means "slightly less extreme liberal side than the rest", it's still "more", see? There must be some things that you feel less strongly about than others. Been curious.

I'm anti-abortion

The answer is simple. Don't have one. But, seeing as how your name is Mike, I don't think that will be an issue.

On edit, in response to the question, I can't say I side with the Republicans even one iota on any of those issues.

One thing that I do favor, which once WAS a tenet of the Republican Party, is balanced budgets. However, the funding for those budgets should primarily be borne by those who have reaped the highest gains from our capitalistic society, namely, multimillionaires and corporate conglomerates.

I just wish that we didn't just sentence folks to death because they're black or hispanic.... it needs reform.

That's not the reason they are sentenced to death, its because the don't have the money and resources that people who are better off have, so their case is not presented "as well" or by people who care (whether its about their paycheck or their client).

... just look at OJ.

...Oppressing cyclists, arresting more "minorities", tits on teevee, and those horrible, horrible rap lyrics. Those are the real problems that any real American is concerned about!

THIS I just CAN'T abide by... where's my shot gun?

But it still calls for Congressional hearings!

top of a tall, narrow power pyramid, and suing whatever wedge issues and lies they can think of to do it.

II don't believe the billionaires at the top care about abortion, creation, prayer, cyclists, race, or whatever except to the extent that it helps them make money.

Oh, yes, I know there are Tom Monihans and my rich great-aunt who talk a good game about moralilty and religion, but even for them, I think there's a subconscious desire for more money (through lower taxes) which drives even their moralizing.

And any working class person who gets his or her knickers in a twist over 'morality' is pretty much just a tool of some very rich and powerful people who are motivated by power and greed.

There was an article on a leftie website about how the Bushies: W, Rove, Karen Hughes, et al, were systematically destroying the essential structures of the Democratic Party to further the power of the rich. It was not even as obvious as destroying labor unions--it involved privatizing social service, tort reform, and all sorts of methods to get at the power in the left.

There was an essay in my Poli Sci text about how *Bush managed the Governorship of Texas. He didn't just sit on his chunk. He was hard at work destroying the Democratic party in Texas. Note that they lost the legislature to the GOP. This is serious stuff. The author refers to states as "laboratories of democracy". I have taken to referring to Texas as George Bush's "laboratory of fascism". Now he is doing it on a national scale.

You are right. He may appear stupid but he is not. But about being evil.... :)

Although I don't know that my stance on it is really a GOP stance. I've seen other dems with the same stance as I have on it before.

Anyway, I think that AA would be more effective if it was class-based rather than race-based. JMO.

That's my pick. I don't want it gone, I just think it's being done wrong...

you are quite right that affirmative action should be primarily class-based... although I tend to favour race/sex based affirmative action also (depending on how it is implemented - i think quotas are bad in theory and bad in practice for example).

...discrimination programs. Why are people so willing to toss race-based programs?

You know the problem of the glass ceiling in the workplace for women? They can't make it to the top ranks because of gender discrimination? Well, the women who make it to the penultimate floor have no problem that can be solved by class-based anti-discrimination programs.

It's the same thing with race. A black VP or senior associate who can't make it to the top floor is not going to have that problem addressed by a class-based program.

It's the same thing at the other end. Everyone in the army is in the same class. No class-based program in the army will do a damn thing for women and minorities.

I just find people to be so confused (and a little racist) when they think that race is just not important enough (and that all black people are poor) so that we can toss race-based programs, but keep class, gender (and disability?) based programs.

Let me clarify my stance a bit more.

I feel that AA has done little for racial equality overall.

While I feel that racism is still a serious problem in America, I also feel that class disadvantage trumps getting your foot in the door in many instances. I also have more empathy for a poor kid (regardless of color) that can't manage to get into college than a rich CEO that doesn't get promoted as much as they probably should.

.... how (in)effective affirmative action is.....

into account gender, disability, religion, and national origin are still OK.

Would you get rid of equivalent programs which try to remedy or stop those forms of discrimination, or is it only race-based programs you don't like?

And I'm down with rich vs poor, but I'm also down with middle class vs upper class, and even uper class vs super rich.

We need social mobility at all points of the wealth spectrum, and not just from super poor to middle class.

I guess that I'd like to see class acknowledged more than it is, because I strongly feel that class disadvantages contributes to the sometimes unbreakable cycle of generations of the working poor.

I wouldn't do away with race-based programs, I just feel that AA hasn't been very effective as it stands now and needs to be reworked. I also think that if it was reworked, it would be more beneficial to poor minorities.

religion, and disablity anti-discrimination programs.

In fact, more money and effort probably goes into remedying class differences than anything else. Think of the EIC, financial aid in colleges, and all that. That's a TON of resources, private and public, which go into addressing class differences.

Perhaps you'd see more improvement on the race front if we put those kinds of resources into fixing the problem.

And I don't know how you deal with race by not dealing with it.

It can even be a joke, in the case of financial aid.

Take me, for instance. I grew up somewhere between working poor and lower middle-class with my grandparents and extended family. By the time I was a teen, I was then living with my mother and step-father, who were doing better every year and solidly middle to upper middle-class. When it came time for me to go to college, they refused to help in any way. Yet because of their current income, I couldn't qualify for any aid programs. I even appealed to the financial aid officer at two different schools and offered to get a letter from my family that said they refused to support me. It didn't matter. I had to be 24, married, or a minority to qualify for anything - their words. So I got a minimum wage job and saved up for a year to pay for two classes at the local community college. After that, I could no longer continue because I didn't have enough money and had to take on two minimum wage jobs to support myself.

Everyone has a sob story. But I'm sure I'm not the only person that ever slipped through the cracks of the system. These are things that need to be addressed. There isn't, still in 2004, anyone in my family that has ever had a college degree.

If you don't think there is a stigma, a prejudice, against lower-class or rural people all you need to do is take a gander at the board. It's real, it's increasing, and it's sadly 'acceptable' to even progressives. And it continues the cycle of poverty.

I'm not saying any other programs should be abolished. But I DO think that AA needs to be reworked to address this growing problem.

I'm not saying it's enough, but, really, for every black kid who gets into Harvard, there are 7 kids who, regardless of race, get financial aid.

By the way, I believe that you can declare that you are an emancipated minor and your parents income isn't calculated for financial aid. But your parents can no longer declare you as a dependent and take a deduction for you. Maybe not.

Anyway, I don't know why race and class are either/or issues. Nobody says we have to have "class OR gender programs," or "class OR disability discrimination." It makes no sense that race has to be either/or. I've asked several times in this thread for people to make an argument why race is different from gender or religion or disability or national (or even) regionaly origin, all of which are frequently criteria which give people an "advantage" over others.

You know, we can take care of race AND gender AND class. We don't have to pick one to ignore.

It selects a small percentage of ethnic minorities to bring into the ruling class, at which point they help to perpetuate the classist economic system that helps feed racism-- institutional and otherwise. Economic organization of the working class on an equal footing, regardless of race, is the only hope we have of abolishing racism. AA lets a few succeed, and the rest are still trapped at the bottom.

At best it's a band-aid on a sucking chest wound, at worst a scam aimed to perpetuate the very system it claims to correct.

who would otherwise be shut out because of the color of their skin.

Everyone benefits when there is a strong, wealthy, egalitarian middle class.

It's a sham because it doesn't go far enough, not because it's wrong to flow power down to the people.

interpretation of class. What most people mean by "middle class" is really middle-income, but that is nebulous even , because you have people earning $100Gs a year that claim to be "middle class". Class is defined in most of the rest of the world as how much relative power you have, especially in terms of power over your own labor and the labor of others, not strictly by dollar amount. For example, a union longshoreman is working-class even if he earns more than the junior executive, who is employing-class.

Misunderstandings about the nature of class and the capitalist system are what lead American liberals to think we can "fix" racism through Affirmative Action. Sorry, the problems are deeper and more systemic than that.

...early 70s. Since the early 70s, the middle class has seen their power slowly evaporate.

To me, a middle class is an economically powerful group of Americans, constituting a large % of the population who have options and social mobility.

Regardless of what the rest of the world things wealth is, America has defnitely had families who over a generation or two went, for example, from working in the auto plants in Detroit, to putting their kids through the University of Michigan, to having those kids becoming doctors and lawyers and physicists and poets and filmmakers, and now we're back to their kids having no opportunities, no savings, and no political power.

Detroit auto workers were middle-income working class, not middle-class. Being working-class does not mean no upward social mobility, it does mean you have to sell your labor power to someone else. I think these are important concepts, and simply defining "class" along strict economic terms muddies the waters when we're speaking of power relationshipd.

on vacations, organize, and have an influence on the world. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Middle whatever, they were it.

Those auto jobs were great jobs.

movement did. Everybody thinks things were so great because the Democrats were so good. They only responded to what the people were demanding through strikes, demonstrations, riots and blood. People were shot and had their heads bashed in so that we could have the minimum wage and live like spoiled brats.

the middle whatever form were put in place by FDR. They were really the ideas of socialists in the 1890s and early 20th century, but they were passed into law by FDR.

It makes it seem like he was just doing it because he was such a good man. I don't think that was the case. I think he, along with the other New Deal Dems, simply saw the writing on the wall that others may not have: Reform or Revolution. But none of that would have been possible without the brave sacrifices of millions of working men and women on the picket lines and in the streets. I choose to remember and credit them with the New Deal and the economic prosperity of the working-class for the next 30 years, not FDR.

probably very motivated by that.

I think we can give him credit for the 30 years of prosperity that followed.

"You mean we're in danger of giving black people too much of a break?"

Come on, 40 years of affirmative action have done very little to redress the discrepancies between white and black America. 'Class based' affirmative action will do nothing.

One could come to the conclusion that AA has been ineffective anyway.

...class door, but there's still a lot more social mobility at all points of the spectrum where things could be a little more fluid.

And the funny thing is, whereas the middle class used to be a great place to be, now that a lot of black people are getting there, we're discovering that it's a place with stagnating wages, heavy debt loads, litte mobility beyond the middle, crappy public schools, etc. etc.

It's not what it once was. Now the brass ring is reserved for a few people at the very top, and they aren't opening the doors for blacks, immigrants, or many others.

Why is it only race that people think is unworthy of addressing head on?

an anti nafta/wto plank which calls for the us to pull out cause texas farmers have been heavily affected and have lost alot of their jobs

AA is on shaky ground Constitutionally... it represents the conflict between the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Liberals like myself tend to put more weight on the Equal Protection Clause (fair output more important than fair function), but there is a valid (I think weaker, but I'm obvious biased) case for the other way around.

Now, once AA works to the point that there is no longer a conflict between EP and DP, it will no longer be constitutional.

that people are not held back because of gender, race, disability, religion, national origins, etc., and are able to have access to opportunity so that they can contribute to society up to their fullest capacity -- ie, so that they can get a fair % of the wealth they create with their labor, and so that they have no barriers to creating wealth and contributing to society (which is good for everyone, regardless of race, gender, etc.).

However, I also believe that race, gender, disability, religioun, national orignin discrimination are so pernicious that you can't pick any one form of discrimination, address it, and expect all the other pieces to fall in place.

Furthermore, I don't think you can pick the bigger picture -- class, it's root -- and address ONLY that, because there is so much variabiolity within class, that, if you pick any point on the class spectrum, above which you say you're not interested in addressing, you leave out a lot of people, and create a stagnation, and an inability to arrise within that higher sub-class.

I'm sure billionaires would love to have only class-based affirmative action which stops at income levels of, say, 15,000/year. That way, all the rich, white, male, protestant, able-bodied, fourth-generation American billionaires will be guaranteed their hegemony because none of the black, women, one-legged, muslim immigrants will be able to be promoted out of the mid-level management ranks and threaten their power even if they work their asses off and have the best ideas.

The context which it appears in Supreme Court jurisprudence, which as you may know is my specific field of interest.

In Bakke, the Court held that racial AA was constitutional because it was remedying past wrongs that would have been left unremedied without AA. Hence, it passes the strict scrutiny test.

I admit, I am a little lost as to your position. Do you support AA in perpetuity for the groups you mentioned above, or temporarily, or for class, or what?

Hopefully, some day, we won't need to do anything for people with disabilities, women, etc., but I don't think we're there yet.

There isn't enough social mobility in American, and race is just one of several places where things could be more fluid.

My point is that AA is both constitutional and a good idea so long as there is a conflict between the Due Process Clause (system treats all equally), and the Equal Protection Clause (everyone has equal opportunity). Once everyone can have equal opportunity without requiring modifications to the "system," AA becomes neither.

equitably and fairly.

Just significantly more succintly.

having class-based affirmative action programs, you protect it from every having to flow to anybody who isn't already at the top, no matter how hard they work and how smart they are.

...of their approaches to crime problems and, here in Texas, the emerging new attitudes about sentencing for illegal drug possession. We even have other states coming to look at what we are doing down here.

What type of changes are being maded in the drug laws?

...possession "crimes" from a criminal court to a medical one. Your record will not get screwed up with the arrest and you will not serve jail time. It has started to create room in our prisons so that violent criminals can be taken off the streets longer. This has helped our crime rate and others want to come and study how we did this. I don't see why this can't be done over the phone as it is not all that complicated.

I hope that these results lead to other reevaluation
of the failed Drug war policies.

...state and may tick the feds off...but we will see.

Here is what our state is doing about gun crime but this is a national program. I think the site even has the info on how gang crimes are going under RICO now.

I hope our Democrats here get on board before it is too late...

this bothers me a great deal. Same with atheism.

And that many on the Left laud these as part of being "Liberal" is disturbing.

I am not a prude nor a virgin when it comes to drug use. But empty sex for self-gratification and habitual drug abuse are counter productive.

Of course people who engage in such behavior may have an essential "right" to do so. But it DOES effect others personally and society as a whole.

As for atheism... people who don't recognize that we are each part of a greater whole need to expand their outlook. God is the word used to reference Consciousness of Unity....

sperates left from right in regards to those subjects

And a lot of defining oneself left/right has to do with the perception of the world around us as well as our own self perception.

You said: As for atheism... people who don't recognize that we are each part of a greater whole need to expand their outlook. God is the word used to reference Consciousness of Unity....

As a Non-Christian theist I find this offensive, its that self-rightious bullshit I hear day in and out about being a damned "Devil Worshipper", its BS.

open ended.

will have sex with anything that moves.

I don't agree with one single plank on the Repuke platform. I am vigorously opposed to ALL of them. I feel strongly about every single one of those issues, and I'm far left on all of them.

I believe that everyone who's had a thorough background check should have the right to protect himself or herself with a firearm if they so wish. This is a protected right under most state constitutions, and I can understand why our party loses votes over this issue.

Too many accidental shootings, homicides, and suicides, even in the homes of registered gun users. If we could somehow make sure that those guns never got out of the houses of the owners, then maybe I'd be more willing to talk about it. But the disgraceful stats prove you wrong:

"The research has shown that when other factors are held constant, the gun death rises in proportion to the rate of gun ownership. One study found a 92% correlation between households with guns and firearm death rates both within Canada and in comparable industrialized countries.

Other studies show that increased risks are associated with keeping guns in the home:

Homicide of a family member is 2.7 times more likely to occur in a home with a firearm than in homes without guns. Keeping one or more firearms was associated with a 4.8 fold increased risk of suicide in the home."

and this is from CANADA, which has gun control:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html


And take a look at this:

http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/myth-guns2.html

"For murders in 1994, almost half of the victims were either related to (12 percent) or acquainted with (35 percent) their killers. Only 13 percent were killed by total strangers. Of female victims, 28 percent were killed by their husbands or boyfriends.

Types of Firearm deaths - 1993:

Type Number
Suicide 18,940
Firearm homicide 18,571
Handgun homicide 13,980
Justifiable homicide 251
Accidental 1,521
Undetermined 563
Total 39,595

In 1993, the FBI counted 24,526 murders ( 13,980 by handguns )
yet only 251 of these were justifiable homicides by civilians using handguns.

This is only one percent of all murders!

These stats don't lie. The only argument gun lovers have against this is to say the stats are wrong. Which they aren't.

far to the left. Nor is being anti-gun control taking a right-wing position. It is just the peculiarity of this country, that liberal Democrats have supported gun control, whereas conservative Republicans have opposed it. Of course, the 2nd Amendment is pretty unique to America as well-- I doubt any other Consitution has anything like it.

My belief is this: The gun-control debate boils down to are you more comfortable with the police and military having a monopoly on small arms (including stuff like assault rifles), or are you more comfortable with private citizens owning them, knowing that they may be used irresponsibly. I'm more comfortable with the latter because I fear our government and their corporate masters, but this is neither a left or right wing position. Both sides could theoretically agree or disagree on this issue depending on their particular political orientation or political realities.

they want to get out of nafta and the wto because it is costing texan farmes their jobs

same-sex marriage rights. I'm against it. Please don't preach to me about this, I understand most DU'ers here are for it. You aren't going to change my mind.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Someone called me that here - I forgot why (not voting Nader?)

If the Repubs still supported the more Libertarian view regarding Freedom of Speech, separation of church and state, gay marriage, drug laws and such, then you could put me on that side.

But since they have seemed to go more to the authoritarian / fundie side of the issues, I can't see it.

I've always been closer to Republicans on military spending, etc. but think they are blowing things in Iraq.

The biggest social problem facing the USA is the plight of the underclass and, in the long run, the ONLY way out is to fix urban public education. Kids who never learn to read or do basic math have pretty grim futures in store.

Unfortunately, however, the Democratic Party has given the teachers' unions a veto power over educational policy, which means that most Democrats end up opposing serious reform. We stand pat and avert our eyes while yet another generation of poor kids is written off.

I would be less judgmental about this if any of our Democratic pols put their own precious kids in, for example, the DC public schools, but of course they don't. THEIR kids are in private school or out in the 'burbs. Just to take one high-profile example, the loudest opponent of DC's new scholarship program is Eleanor Holmes Norton, who sent her own son to private school while opposing school choice for the poor. And so it goes.

The Party needs to get right on this issue, the faster the better.

My 75-yr. old, extremely liberal mother always told me there might come a time when we will need our guns, all of us together....get the picture?

I think we lose so many votes on this issue that it's not even funny and we will never get rid of guns here in the US.

My gun-control plan: Anyone whose gun ends up in the hands of a child (and causes harm) spends 30 years in prison.

(I am extremely liberal on most other issues.)

believe and want to and attempt to take away handguns or all guns or beleive that ever to be possible.

And I'm sorry but there isn't ever going to be an armed revolution in America. The authorities are going to win. They also have weapons, and theirs are nicer and they know how to use them better, and they might just run you over with a tank.

I can't for the life of me understand why a party that claims to be socially liberal wants more government control of firearms.

Of course the answer is that BOTH parties are authoritarian, both having a vested interest in maintaining the overwhelming strength of the federal government because they're one of the only two "official" parties.

I think there should be a death penalty. Prisoners who are on death row knew the punishment they would face when they committed the crime. They deserve what's coming to them.

Also, I don't think prisoners who have been convicted of high-profile crimes like rape, murder, or any other capital cases should have special rights...or any at all. Why should a murderer have a tv in his/her cell? Why should a murderer have any rights whatsoever? I tell you what, if anyone I knew got murdered, and the prisoner had rights in prison, I would be pissed.

Anyways, those are the only two issues I agree with Repukes on.

:kick:

mind on the gun issue because of whats goin on in iraq. They have the ability to defend their land and wage a resistance from people who are committing warcrimes and abusing them.Also like it or not 2nd ammendmant is in bill of rights and i dont like freepers in power to say well we can tinker with 1st since we can tinker w/ 2nd.So while i would not have a gun i am pro 2nd ammendmant

I was once a misguided person, worked on Ronald Reagean's campaign, amongst other Repubs...back in 1979... One day I found myself in an autditorium in Maine, en route to New Hampshire, and the social platforms they had going , I had to BEG to DIFFER to say the least. Well, that was about the time that I realized that I was not cut out to be the Young repug. could tell you even more, back when I was sort of cute and young, as to what they tried to line me up for...like entertain these old motherfucks. yeah right. So Whatever. It's a long story that I can't really seem to make a short one.

...despite the thousands of gun laws on the books, there's always some politician coming along with a new bill that will supposedly eliminate accidental shootings and gun crime. I'd laugh if it didn't anger me so.

I'm not a regressive conservative, on ANY issue...and I sure as fuck aint no fence sitter, a moderate...Fucking ugh...I'd kill my first born if I was!

So your poll left me nothing to vote for!!!!

I have ALWAYS had a part of me feel guilty for that one. I know it is not really an issue, but it isn't a hybrid. I love that car and I drive it daily to the tune of 22 miles to the gallon and 29 on trips. I know that is not terrible, but I still feel somewhat guilty.

And it's reflected in this poll. It isn't just Dean of course, but it's a big reason. It's also the whole cozying together of the 2 revolutionary left right fringes with regard to alot. They both believe it possible to take back the government from the establishment if they have guns. We used call these people nut balls. Not anymore apparently.

10 percent of americans favor less gun regulation. 50 percent favor more.

popular revolt. First Federal firearms laws passed during social upheaval of the Depression. The gov't wasn't concerned when bootleggers were using Tommy guns in the streets, but when strikes, riots, and leftist-organized demonstrations became commonplace, all of a sudden it was a problem. Strangely enough, the corporations didn't have any problems accessing machine guns to mow down strikers, nor did the private armies they employed. Nor did the police or soldiers breaking the strikes.

The first California gun laws were passed in reaction to the Black Panther Party arming themselves for the purposes of self-defense. Gun control is a way for the government and their corporate masters to squash both the potential of armed revolt, and the chance for working-class people to defend themselves against corporate/gov't assault.

And please nobody post how you can't resist the US Army with all of their heavy weapons and high-tech gadgets. The Iraqi insurgents are doing it with assault weapons and improvised munitions right now.

to do since alcohol prohibition was over.

but if I had to pick one it's the gun issue. I am from rural america. Grew up hunting and fishing. But at the same time if they want to make background checks and not allow sale of assault weapons, grenade launchers etc. I'm all for it.

I'm for it. I think we should be returning to the moon and gearing up for a Mars mission.

While some on the left did ridicule *'s moon/mars plans, I think that had more to do with the current debt situation.

BTW, I agree with you that space exploration is EXTREMELY important.

...there are a few right wingers I would like to send off into space. :)

I chose law because the DP was included but I disagree with the other aspects mentioned.

n/t

But it doesn't go far enough it should be legalized and regulated.

You have ZERO chance of stopping a Gulagging with "harsh language".

With a gun you might STILL get Bushevikked, but at least you've got a chance.

rather than living, organizing, and equipping a true resistance.

fight tyrannical regimes.

What about trying the first with all your might, but keeping insurance around in case the Busheviks decide to go Full-On Nazi (really, it could happen almost anytime after 2005)?

I have Homeowners Insurance so I won;t be homeless if a tree falls on my house.

I own guns because, in the event of Full-On Nazism or Sovietism or Bushevikism (whatever it's final form will be---Imperial Rome-ism?), it gives me a small chance to fight back.

Without one, my chances are ZERO!

If it's the choice even between a 0% chance and a 1% chance, I'll ALWAYS take the possibility, however small, over the impossibility.

God Forbid it should actually come to that.

But that's just me.

Right now we have a situation where citizens are armed and the police, national guard and army are armed as well, the latter having much superior arms. This has been the situation through two centuries, and I think it is a pretty good situation, although I think the US armed forces are too over-armed, they're armed to be the world's imperial army, not to defend the borders of the US.

I look at it as insurance. The Nazis wanted a disarmed populace - here citizens are armed, as they should be. I don't think only citizens should have the right to have arms should be stripped, especially as we're continually building larger nuclear missiles, aircraft carriers and such. Stacking people with rifles against that arsenal is like throwing rocks at tanks anyway. With a tank, you might as well throw a rock as shoot a handgun or rifle or shotgun at it.

With the Patriot Act and all of this, I get nervous when talk turns to new gun laws...I wonder what is going on. I don't see why owning a gun precludes organizing and so forth as someone suggested. One person with a machine gun can hold at bay 100 organized unarmed people anyway. Although if a couple of them have rifles, the odds start shifting.

People in this country should be organizing, I don't know what that has to do with people having guns though. A disorganized gun-owning populace would not be able to do much if something happened. Anyhow, I think this is mostly protection in case someone comes in and tears up the constitution or something in the future, as long as you can legally organize to get what you want, as long as no one tears up the constiution, there'd be no reason to ever take the gun off the rack.

:silly: :silly: :silly:

not a 9-11 thing either...always have been.

Doesnt mean I support the Iraq war, though, or defend this BS at that POW camp.

It's the Democrats' own fault that they've allowed gun rights to become a "Republican" issue in the first place. They set the wedge, and we do the rest.

are as pro-gun as everyone claims they are. Sure they talk a good talk when it comes to guns, but then they pass more gun control.

A ban on late term abortions.
The end to lifetime entitlement to welfare benefits.
Civil unions rather than gay marriage.

I don't have rabid positions either way on these issues but I think they are reasonable compromises.

Of course we are pretty much at this point on two of the issues and civil unions would be a step forward at this point.

I'm against affirmative action, lifetime welfare and welfare as an entitlement, and most forms of gun control. I also believe that if a woman has and supports a child at taxpayer expense, she should do so only after receiving a Norplant. Additionally, I'm in favor of a war on terror, but it should be conducted against Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq as Hussein was a secular dictator. I'm also in favor of ending most foreign aid programs and deminishing our role and support for the UN. I am also in favor of sealing our borders with a moratorium on all immigration.


I'm for using all the foreign aid and UN money for domestic education programs that'll (hopefully) decrease the amount of welfare needed. I believe corporate power must be curtailed through regulation and oversite. I believe in more research using fetal stem cells and human cloning. I believe that we must increase our efforts to explore outer space as well. I favor a strong defense budget. I believe the war on drugs has been futile and has caused domestic tyranny. I also favor a moratorium on the death penalty until a full exploration is completed on it's disproportionate application to the poor.