Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
I am for more personal freedoms, and less government interference in my life.
I would like to decrease the size of the government, give them less power.
|
Most people believe the same. But the devil is in the details. What exactly would you do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- I am for lowering taxes if possible..
|
At what point do you consider it possible or impossible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- I support the 2nd amendment.
|
OK. But to what extent? Should violent felons get guns without waiting periods? Should people have access to rocket launchers and tanks (after all in the spirit of the second ammendment, we are supposed to be defending ourselves from armies)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- Anyone can come to our country, just do it legally.
|
I agree. But should we change the laws to make them simpler and more fair... or should we keep them difficult for poor, unskilled people to get by? And if the latter, we are going to need to spend a bundle on fighting would-be immigrants at the borders, given that most in Mexico and below who would come are desperately poor peasants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- Illegal aliens, that are already here, should be given a chance to become citizens without deportation (because that is a waste of time) but if they do not register by a given date then they will be deported. .
|
If trying to deport is a waste of time, how does it become a good deterrent after a certain date? Seems there is more to work on than just that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- I am pro-life except in certain cases. (rape, health risk to mother)
|
Here you match most Americans... but not the ones who this issue will make or break you with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- I will use common sense and common decency in my decision making.
|
Sounds good as campaign rhetoric... But in reality these are very unreliable standards by which to judge. They have no static meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- I think we should ditch social security. (It's your money, do with it what you wish).
|
I'll echo Joker's concern: Do I get back what I put in? But aside from that, I think this move would be viewed as a mistake within a generation or at the next stock market catastrophe. It's a better idea to reform social security in some way, change its targeting, make it solvent, possibly partially-privatize it. Getting rid of SS will not return the communal values that once supported the aging population. And what about those who become disabled early in life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- I think that as long as you are not causing harm to others or the environment, then do what you want. (exception: addicting drugs and stuff i can't think about right now.)
|
Why to addictive drugs create a different standard if not for the problems they cause for others? And once again, this is a fairly broad definition, as few agree on the exact point where you can stretch out your arm before hitting my nose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- I would fund the research of alternative fuels.
|
With what funds? Using what method? Some ways of funding science may just be wastes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- Stay out of other countries business unless they are harming or in a position to harm us.
|
At what point do we draw the line at what is harmful to us? What about regional/world stability? This effects us. Is there a line you can draw that specifically states what is and is not our business? I agree in principle... but I don't see a practical way to employ the principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- My religious views tell me that I am opposed to gay marriage, But my political views say,"It's a free country, as long as it doesn't cost me anything, get married if you want to." .
|
I agree... but you'd get a lot of strong opposition from the religious right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- The government should not control smoking laws, except in government buildings, it should be up o the business owner to decide whether or not smoking is allowed in their facility..
|
I agree. But the government should have a say on public areas. Though I have no real sympathy for smokers... none at all. And frankly I think its a double standard to say addictive drugs are a problem outside of effects on others... while accepting smoking which both directly harms others and is highly addictive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- I would like to preserve more national wildlife areas.
|
How?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- I think that whether there is global warming or not is irrelevant to the issue, and that we need to work on being a cleaner society no matter what. Lets protect the world we live in. As of now its all we have.
|
How?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- We need to fix or local justice system..
|
A big resounding HOW? As I see it there is little you can do to change our justice system that would not only make it worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- In court you can't sue for something stupid. (If a kid trips while running through my yard he can't sue me for his broken leg.)..
|
I disagree. Our civil law system is designed to allow the addressing of all grievances and let courts decide. It's a shame that some judges have allowed stupid cases to win... but that reflects on them, not on the system. However, I do think judges should be allowed to rule that the plaintiff pays court costs if the suit is deemed frivelous. There should be risk perhaps, but the law should allow any civil case to be heard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- If it doesn't harm you or anyone else then don't worry about it. (for instance if heir is a religious icon in a public place, lets not waste our time complaining about it, just don't look at it if it bothers you.)
|
And this should be burned into law? I think not. People are free to complain, picket, and sue. Get over it. It's part of being in a free country. How do you determine what harms who if you are unwilling to hear people's grievances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
- I am for the death penalty. (it saves space and money)
|
It costs more, in part because we NEED to be sure. The death penalty cannot be undone. It is not right to make it cheaper, in that this increases the chance of executing one who is innocent.
For me saving space and money do not make up for the chance of mistake, no matter how small. I have other reasons for opposing, but they fall in the religious realm.
Over all I think this lacks substance and simply addresses common broad philosophical ideas that are not so easily translated to policy.
That said, the same is true of most politicians and parties.