News Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed

[GleefulNihilism]

Sure. Do you really expect that after freely admitting (boasting, even?) that you embrace Nietzsche's or Hobb's morality that one would then believe you give a damn about protecting anything other than yourself?

You missed the whole point. The whole damn point went right over your head. I didn't embrace ****, I don't admit anything that can touch Nietzsche with a stick. I hate feeling this way, I hate being such a black hearted cynic all the ****ing time, I WANT TO BE WRONG. The only thing this view has going for it is that as far as I can tell it's the truth. But there's the one person in a million who blows right past my cynicism and they are worth the price I paid for admission on this ****ty ride the rest of the human race has set up.

And really, if you're willing to write off and demonize a fellow human being because of a way something they wrote can be interpretted, regardless of what they actually ment, then what does that say about you?

 

[kach22i]

I'll take a map.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

Quite true.

Though I'm not sure that it's in everybody's best interest to promote opinion-by-personal-experience. In that sense "how would you feel if you were..." is a form of ad hominem fallacy. It means those who will never be in that sitch can dismiss the argument outright is non-applicable.

What we really want is an argument that holds up in objective circumstances (such as one that those who never can or will have face that decision can support).

But I think you're right. I'll bet 90% of the pro-lifers either can't or don't plan to be in a sitch where they might be faced with that choice.

There's a joke in my circle of friends.

Please keep that joke within your circle of friends

The best part is I've only seen one exception to this rule, and even then it's only if she doesn't talk because she's a home-school fundie that I probably couldn't stand to be in the same room with for more then a couple minutes anyway. That 20 year old who's leading a campaign to force Colorado to have fertilized eggs full human status. If she gets the 76,000 signitures she needs on her petition there's a good chance I'll became an hero but I freely admit that I would hit that.


(Sorry for the double post, I thought the natures of the posts were so different that it warrented it.)

 

[Alfi]

"You are, in my opinion, killing another human being for your own benefit."Ah ?? - is that not just a broad definition of the purpose of the military?

baby killing from 40,000 feet sort of thing.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, if I ever get caught robbing a bank, I'd want the robbing of banks to be legalized, too, but that isn't a good argument for doing so.

For the record, I said yes to:

Making abortion illegal - If you've been here for more than a year or so, then you know in incredible depth why I feel this way.

Strong environmental protection laws - Tops on the agenda would be doing something about agricultural runoff into floodplains and rivers, tougher mandates regarding green building in the general plans of cities, restoration and protection of coastal wetlands, and a required commitment for all water districts to put in place strong agency policies that curb water demand, especially in agricultural districts, as metropolitan districts have actually already been doing a pretty good job of this.

Mostly unregulated imports and trades - Lower the domestic corporate tax to reduce the incentive for offshoring and eliminate all protective tariffs, especially sugar tariffs.

Elimination of the national debt - This needs to be qualified because Ivan is right that deficit spending isn't always a bad thing. It needs to be more carefully used, though. Using it as part of a stimulus package is one thing, or to fund infrastructure improvements, basic research, and other things that make the economy stronger in the long term, but when "interest on the national debt" is one of the largest line-items on the federal budget, that isn't a good thing. You risk running a permanent deficit and going bankrupt a la Orange County in the 90s.

That was all. I'd certainly support massive tax code overhauls, but the above statements are far too general to know what I'm supporting in this case.

 

[Art]

Be simpler just to give all women (or men if feasible) of child bearing age a birth control implant so that pregnancy becomes an opt in rather than an opt out issue, that would decrease the number of abortions dramatically

 

[wildman]

Yes, quite vague, but that never stopped me before. I support the following:

Abortion made illegal
Amnesty for illegal aliens
Strong environmental protection laws
Mostly unregulated imports and trade
Throw out the existing tax structure
Increase taxes on the rich

Interesting combination. You obviously are an independent thinker...

 

[Poop-Loops]

For me it was

Environmental protection -- Global Warming or not, protecting the environment is important. I like my air with nitrogen and oxygen, not smog and car farts, okay?

Getting rid of the national debt -- I assume this meant taking steps to paying back what we owe to other countries. I really hate interest rates, unless they're in my favor. Here they are not, so we need to focus on getting rid of this.

Throw out existing tax structure -- a layperson cannot possibly understand the current tax system to its fullest, and neither can most accountants. It is FUBAR. Get rid of it and start over.

Increase tax on the rich -- Reaganomics don't work, sorry. Rich people are just as stupid as poor people. Instead of investing, they buy an expensive car and total it. You might as well give poor people money for food instead of giving rich people money to buy a bigger boat. And if you don't want to give it directly to poor people, then extend scholarships, student loans, and military benefits/salaries. Surely we can all agree to that?