Am I more of a liberal or a conservative

Thanks for pointing out that the only purpose of the death penalty is to kill someone.

 

...and ford was able to do that precisely because he was not saddled with outrageous regulation and inflated labor rates. cost efficient production is a two way street and many unions have been hogging the road for far too long. the endless spiral of higher wages creating higher costs creating higher wages has led us to the verge of the death of our manufacturing industries. we have bus drivers, factory drones and even janitors who own two cars and a nice little house in the suburbs. their labor isn't specialized and they contribute nothing special to their fields, but their unions are strong and unyielding so we all pay for their inflated rates. in ford's day his workers would live in nothing close to that sort of luxury and would still have to save to afford one of his cars. our infatuation with immediate gratification has led us to out-price ourselves from the market.

 

I think if someone commits a heinous enough crime, they probably shouldn't be walking this earth. Homicide in self-defense is touchy, look at the Zimmerman case. That stuff will be under a microscope now for a long time. I agree you should be able to use deadly force if you fear for your life, but it's extremely controversial.

 

I've never heard that killing someone in self-defense has ever been considered homicide.

 

There's no use arguing. I want people who aren't special, meaning working class drone/slugs to make a decent living, I want bus drivers, factory drones and even janitors to own two cars and a nice little house in the suburbs and today's ********** far right, wants the same very few people to get pretty much every cent while the rest live in poverty. Well I hope they choke on it. Someday it will come to a head. I hope the majority wises up and pulls a 'Russia 1919' on the rich guys and drags them out of their mansions and disposes of them in an ugly manner, since they refuse to compromise, and like you, seem to want the average guy to have very little.

 

Homicide is the act of killing another human being. Elementary stuff here.

 

Killing isn't wrong per se though.

 

That is incorrect. A fetus has a brain and a nervous system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_development

Brain development happens quite early actually, and brain activity can be seen and measured LONG before birth.

 

The purpose of the death penalty is to permanently remove a threat to society.

Killing the threat is a means to that end.

 

Okay, so what's the stage when they have neither called then? zygote?

 

I do not celebrate all life. Diseases are a form of life, and I do not celebrate them, for example.

 

"Fetus" includes all stages before birth. I believe the term usually refers to the child when it has a recognizable human form. I don't know exactly when the cutoff is. But "Zygote" is simply a fertilized egg.

 

Why not?

The people were not the targets. And in fact we go through a lot of trouble to avoid hitting them. I have never seen any evidence at all that the US has deliberately targeted civilians in any war in my lifetime.

 

Oh, but they don'y develop a brain or a nervous system immidiately do they? So wasn't I right then? An early fetus would be what I meant.

 

No. It happens sometime after the Zygote stage. There is no hard cut-off...it is a gradual process.

It is for that reason that anti-abortionists want to outlaw abortion...because we do not know exactly when it ceases to be a zygote and becomes a person.

Technically, no, you were not right. A fetus can have a brain and nervous system, and does for most of it's development.

 

Oh, I realise that I must have meant consciousness and being able to feel. How about those then?

 

what you just can't seem to grasp is that the conservative viewpoint is that everyone does deserve the best of everything, they only need to put in the effort. of course it isn't going to work out for everyone, but there are enough folks like me out there, willing to give them a hand, that no one really need go without the basics. the point is that life involves risks. the greater the risk, the greater the possible reward. without those who take those risks we will always remain just another unstable species with brains too big for our own good. what you advocate is rewarding people for settling and that has never gotten us anywhere.

that you dare to compare our present circumstances to pre-revolutionary russia and would hope for the same sort of outcome only shows how little you appreciate the benefits of self-determination. of course not everyone is going to live in splendor. of course not everyone is going to be jet-setting around the world, eating caviar each day and sleeping on the pillowy breasts of nubile young virgins. there will always be those who excel and envying them is merely childish infatuation. what most of us can hope for and realize is improving our lot in life by improving ourselves. the man who is content to turn the same wrench eight hours a day isn't improving himself, so why should he expect his circumstances to improve??? if he learns how to turn another kind of wrench, maybe even a screwdriver or two, he improves himself, improves his prospects and has a chance at improving his lot in life. if he then takes that further risk and strikes out on his own, maybe with others that share his enthusiasms, he then has a chance to further improve his life and join some of those he once envied. he can do all this without demanding anything of anyone but himself. he can do all this without stealing the wealth created by others. he can do it by creating his own wealth.

this notion that conservatism is to enrich only the wealthy is insane. why on earth would we do that? they certainly don't need our help. the hallmark of modern conservatism is the embrace of effort. we don't wish to cut the welfare rolls because we want to see people suffer, we do it because we want to see people succeed and no one can succeed without effort. we don't fight against the expansion of government because we don't want to see people taken care of, we do it because we want to see people taking care of themselves and each other. we don't stand against unions because we want to see the wealthy profit by abusing workers, we do it because so many abusive unions have taken the place of abusive management and we all pay for those abuses. simply paying people more and more to do less and less does no one any good and paying people to do nothing is downright self-destructive.

 

Why do you feel you need a label? Labels are always shifting anyway. For example, it's not so long ago that "conservative" meant "monarchist." I would suggest that what you should really be against is the two party system and the excessive amount of power held by the two main political parties. What we really need is an instant run off voting system where you rank candidates instead of just picking one.

As for where you fit in the current US political system... All I can really say is that the GOP seems to be in the process of imploding - it's no longer the "stupid party," it's become the "bat sh*t crazy party." How else would you describe a party that says that they firmly believe that cutting government spending (which means firing people) will create jobs? Or that insists it wants a balanced budget, but does everything in its power to block any actual budget deals since they would necessarily involve raising taxes? Or that says it believes in an opportunity society but is trying to defund the public schools? Or that opposes infrastructure spending as government waste when we have bridges collapsing?

Unfortunately, none of us are ever going to have a perfect candidate to vote for that we agree with completely. So you have to rank your issues in importance and use that to decide who you agree with more. Personally, I put more importance on issues that could result in the total collapse of the economy then on social issues. There are lots of things I don't like about the Democratic Party, but at least they generally don't run people out of the party for being insufficiently cra... err, I mean ideologically pure. For example, I suspect you'd like Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, a prominent pro-life Democrat. There are a variety of constituencies in the Democratic Party that could be described as conservative in various ways. For example, it was the Blue Dogs in the Democratic Party who killed the public option in Obamacare, not the GOP. (Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, I'm using it to illustrate the Dem's big tent.)

All wars kill innocent people, whether that's the stated purpose or not. It's unavoidable, and must be a part of the moral reasoning on whether or not to go to war. There's no such thing as a good or moral war, but sometimes war is the least bad option available.

I'm going with Tolkein on this one:

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

 

I don't know? I don't think 2 cars and a little home in the suburbs is too much to ask really, yet people like you, want to prevent that and kick the money that pays for it upwards to those that have 2 cars and a little home inside their 5th home's back yard. The vast majority isn't going to constantly be improving themselves. The vast majority needs govt.jobs and wrench turner jobs to get by, sorry that's the truth. I don't want to live in your world, where you have to super special and motivated just to have "2 cars and a little home", bring on the revolution.

 

Oh I am adamantly against the two party system. I hate both of the political parties, but especially the Republicans. I think the biggest thing that separates me from the Dems is me being pro-life and anti-equality (in the sense of affirmative action and feminism; I think we should base the value of someone based off of the individual...not their gender, race, etc).

 

luckily for all of us, you are wrong. there is a huge contingent of folks out there that realize the necessity of self-improvement. i like to call them the 76%, though the number is more symbolic than anything else. they recognize that their place in society is fluid, that they can rise or fall in the blink of an eye, and that improving their skill-set may be all that stands between their present circumstances and losing all they have gained. they don't expect to be rich, but they do relish the self-determination that allows them to rise or fall through their own efforts. you won't find many of them protesting on the white house lawn and none of them occupied wall street or anywhere else, though their numbers were co-opted by the OWS crowd to prove some childish point. they are simply too busy for all that nonsense. they are working, looking for work, looking for better work and simply enjoying their families and the fruits of their labors. they may stop actively trying to improve themselves once they have reached some level of comfort they find pleasing, but they will never really stop learning. any day that passes where we do not learn something might be considered a wasted day.

 

Again, there is no hard cut off. So I would go back to whenever there is measurable brain activity.

 

So you do not think that stopping the Nazis from stuffing people into gas chambers would be a moral war?

http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

That is a short list of people who have killed again after being released. The Death Penalty would have prevented them from doing so.

The alternatives are worse. That is my justification for the Death penalty.

 

And life imprisonment would have stopped them as well...and save 2 million dollars.

 

I am pro-abortion for all liberals (cut the herd) but personally against it.

For drug decriminalization (the 'drug war' has caused more death and destruction than war).

I am for equal pay for equal work but against feminism because it has become a male-bashing institution.

Pro-legal immigration, against illegal aliens because our immigration system is gravely broken and we are being flooded from the South.

Pro-gun because criminals will have guns regardless of any law...That's why we call them 'criminals.'

Against government trying to over-regulate. Government does not make profit, it only gets money on a 'needy' basis. Regulation of the private market is needed but it should be effective and rare.