Am I more of a liberal or a conservative

Are you anti-abortion but pro-capital punishment? That is one of my conservative/liberal litmus tests.

 

I would say you are confused, but why do you need a label.

 

That has nothing to do with anything. You can be anti-gay-marriage without being anti-gay.

I am saying your logic (by proxy of your link) makes no sense. Marriage, including benefits, is clearly not about children for all the reasons I mentioned. Sterile straight couples can get married and have no chance of producing children, yet they still get all of the benefits...and none of the anti-homo-marriage people has a problem with that.

That is evidence that marriage is not about children.

20% is more than 0%. Why deny benefits to those 20% unnecessarily?

- - - Updated - - -

I am that as well.

Abortion is killing an innocent person. Capital punishment is killing a guilty person. You really do not see the difference? Context is everything.

 

Your'e neither red, nor blue, but bronze

 

War kills a lot of innocent people too.

 

he seems to be mix, so why not just purple?

 

War does not kill a lot of innocent people intentionally. You are wrong.

 

The death penalty doesn't kill innocent people intentionally either, but it sometimes still kills innocent people accidentally.

 

The interesting thing is, that while those 1960 Democrats where socially conservative, they did not get on their knees and lick the boots of Wall Street and the wealthy corporations that employed them, they didn't kisss the butts of the private sector business people like their ancestors do today. They actually fought their bosses to gouge a bigger share of the profits for themselves and weren't ashamed to do so.

I find it funny when I run into certain people I know from that group! WW2 guys, with maybe a HS diploma or even less, who lived the high life because they where in a high paying factory job and a union and got big pay and huge pensions, who now vote for Republicans and profess hate unions for ruining America and putting all their kids through college! And acting like they pulled up their own bootstraps and staked a claim and the union had nothing to do with it! In fact they would have done better without the damn union

We all know those jackassses!

 

I'm Pro Choice, not Pro-Abortion, also I'm leftist and pro-capital punishment! I have no problem with frying a murderer, in fact I want the person being executed to suffer, I want it to HURT REAL BAD, I want them to FEEL IT.... BUT... it should only be applied in cases where guilt is 100% certain, like multiple, reliable witnesses or on a video camera or some extremely conclusive evidence.

 

They probably see their pensions in bankruptcy, that is the issue because the company went under thanks to the unions.

Definitely a 1965 Democrat. Just short of a McGovern.

 

You're conservative by every definition of the word except the one Americans use. You are, as other have said, almost exactly (but not totally) a 1960's Democrat.

 

It just shows that social issues really define what we label the parties. When the GOP adopted conservative social positions, it became "conservative" even though it was still half liberal (economically), and vice versa for the Dems.

Americans vote with their hearts, not their wallets.

 

I am anti-capital punishment.

 

Wrong again. Many of these people are wealthy because of the unions. People like them today will be on foodstamps because they don't have a union.

 

There fellow countrymen paid that price though. That is what unions do, they raise prices against their countrymen and they keep them out of jobs they could otherwise apply for. I believe you call these people scabs.

 

the question is whether factory drones really deserve the sort of wealth the unions "gouged" out of the factories. they risked nothing, they invested nothing, they added nothing more than common labor that most anyone else could have done as well. they put in their hours and went home, compensated for their time but always demanding more. in return for those demands we all received higher prices and lower standards on the products. the people who took the actual risks and responsibilities certainly weren't going to cut into their bottom line, so we all suffered along with the industry in general. this is true of every industry that has a strong and unyielding union. when their demands are not met, mayhem ensues and management caves in or loses even more than they would by simply giving in to unreasonable demands. eventually any industry that pays its workers more than they are worth will fail. someone else will come along, paying their workers a reasonable wage and undercutting the union shops. they will give a better product at a reasonable price and all those union drones will have to join the rest of us, paying the prices they helped inflate and having no union goons to inflate their own salaries to match.

 

You have some of it right and some of it wrong, imo. Nordic model will fail in a large diverse economy. Gays should have the right to marry, it is none of your business. Abortion is unfortunate, but sometimes preferable. The feminist movement is a joke, so you got one right. Affirmative action serves only to keep minorities down, read Thomas Sowell, The Politics Of Race. So you got two out of five for people who reason, probably more than the average.

 

The economy discussion...to long for my preference to delve into. Gay marriage is my business when they get benefits from my taxpayer dollars. Abortion is fine in cases of rape or incest (and of course when the mother's life is endangered); other then that there is adoption and dealing with bad decisions. Personal responsibility...we're loosing it.

 

No innocent people are ever sentenced to death on purpose. Using your logic, we should abandon imprisonment as well. And there are a lot more innocent people imprisoned than put to death.

Abortion results in the death of an innocent person 100% of the time. The death penalty rarely results in the death of an innocent person. Do you disagree?

 

The death penalty costs more than life imprisonment...and death is an easy way out for criminals.

 

Cost effectiveness is not the purpose of the death penalty.

 

You failed to address my second point.

 

If that's what you're concerned about -keeping them alive in prison so they won't get away so easily, to punish them- then why not do it right and just torture them? The argument for life imprisonment that you used here -that it's making life miserable- for them is a very bad one in my view. If that's the goal, there's plenty of better ways to do it.

I'm not talking about medieval torture. I'm sure there's lots of fancy refined drugs that could mentally torture people without the medieval hassle. That would be a much cheaper way of achieving this goal of yours to make them suffer.

And by the way, knowing that you're gonna be executed is very good torture too you know.

 

I shape my opinions using practicality. Practically speaking, torture would never be accepted as a viable punishment in the western world, so why should I waste my time advocating for it?