What is your political orientation?

[Ken Ibold]

So high wings really are superior to low wings?

No. And so I got a biplane so I have the disadvantages of both.

 

[grattonja]

Fairly right republican fiscally and defense, fairly left socially. (live and let live, as long as your lifestyle doesn't harm my lifestyle, etc.)

Well said. That's about where I sit. I ended up voting moderate republican, which is interesting, I suppose, considering how much I dislike the current social conservatism in the Republican Party. I've never been able to pull the democrat lever across the board, though.

It's funny that folks on both wings of the lib/con lines can yell at each other so much, yet often when many folks answer the poll, there are so many who see themselves as "moderates".

Jim G

 

[woodstock]

Fairly right republican fiscally and defense, fairly left socially. (live and let live, as long as your lifestyle doesn't harm my lifestyle, etc.)

well said.

 

[Anthony]

Fairly right republican fiscally and defense, fairly left socially. (live and let live, as long as your lifestyle doesn't harm my lifestyle, etc.)

I'm pretty much with the live and let live crowd. However, If you are left socially, that means funding social programs which quickly become a fiscal issue. So you can't really seperate left social and right fiscal, unless by left social you just mean lifestyle stuff and not social programs.

There is no free lunch and no "government" money. The money comes from us.

 

[Keith Lane]

It's funny that folks on both wings of the lib/con lines can yell at each other so much, yet often when many folks answer the poll, there are so many who see themselves as "moderates".

Jim G

Perhaps it's because the labels on the outer edges of the spectrum have become so distasteful they don't want to think of themselves as extremists. Or maybe, someone who thinks his position is so righteous that it MUST be mainstream, therefore cannot be near the end of that spectrum, therefore they see themselves as "moderate". I can tell you for sure that the second scenario fits my Father in law to a "T". He makes Cheney look like Teddy Kennedy, but in his mind he's a moderate.

Or, third, maybe people just like a good fight, in the absence of good entertainment.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

Two words for you...

Zell Miller.

And I'm sure you can find a Republican who is actually left leaning too.

Specter and Snowe come to mind...

 

[Bill]

So you can't really seperate left social and right fiscal, unless by left social you just mean lifestyle stuff and not social programs.

Socially left in reference to rights and liberties. I believe a woman should have the right to abortion regardless. If someone is gay/bi/whatever, fine as long as you don't force your views upon me.

It just seems that with either party, its an all or nothing package. I'd like to order a la carte, please!

Take republican, I like the fiscal and defense viewpoint in general, but can't stand the hard line abortion/gay rights other social liberties stuff.

Add George's line tapping and other erosions of rights and liberties, patriot act, etc...

 

[Bill]

Take republican, I like the fiscal and defense viewpoint in general,

Although even that is not true anymore, under George we've seen the largest increase in government in history (big gov't normally being attributed as a "democrat" trait), large increase in deficit, etc.

My motorcycle buddies have all dreamed of pooling our monies together and buying an island somewhere.

 

[Anthony]

Add George's line tapping and other erosions of rights and liberties, patriot act, etc...

I don't think there has been any abuses under the Patriot Act and the wiretapping of international (in or out) Al Queda calls is fine to me. IMHO, the left has stolen more rights. Look at gun control and all the nanny state regulations we suffer in the name of "safety". The whole politically correct movement has come from the left. We no longer have the right to speak our minds for fear of offending somebody. This is a huge violation of the 1st Amendment. I don't see a right in the Constitution to not be offended.

 

[Bill]

IMHO, the left has stolen more rights. Look at gun control and all the nanny state regulations we suffer in the name of "safety". The whole politically correct movement has come from the left. We no longer have the right to speak our minds for fear of offending somebody. This is a huge violation of the 1st Amendment. I don't see a right in the Constitution to not be offended.

I'll concur with your points. I moved from the northeast specifically to get away from the leftish nanny states. (especially the Republik of Mass)

 

[infotango]

The whole politically correct movement has come from the left. We no longer have the right to speak our minds for fear of offending somebody. This is a huge violation of the 1st Amendment. I don't see a right in the Constitution to not be offended.

I really didn't want to participate in this argument, but I have to call you on this. The constitution only protects your rights to free speech from intrustion by state and local governments. You still have the right to speak your mind without fear of getting in trouble with a government, but whether people choose to be offended by your remarks is utterly unregulated by the constitution, and shouldn't be. After all if the government said that you couldn't be offended by remarks that somebody else made, wouldn't they really be stepping on your own rights to free speech?
Gun laws, I see your point, but your political correctness infringing on free speech rights argument is a total non-starter in my book.

 

[Richard]

I really didn't want to participate in this argument, but I have to call you on this. The constitution only protects your rights to free speech from intrustion by state and local governments. You still have the right to speak your mind without fear of getting in trouble with a government, but whether people choose to be offended by your remarks is utterly unregulated by the constitution, and shouldn't be. After all if the government said that you couldn't be offended by remarks that somebody else made, wouldn't they really be stepping on your own rights to free speech?
Gun laws, I see your point, but your political correctness infringing on free speech rights argument is a total non-starter in my book.

Your right to free speech ends when there is an express advocacy of unlawful conduct. IOW, it is a criminal offense to engage in such speech. Yes, there is the argument that there is no immediacy in your speech (the connection between what you say and the unlawful conduct which may follow) but it is a thin line and legal precedent does exist which has pierced that argument.

My concern is that cultural changes have increasingly established that such expression has become ever more constrictive. EX: calling a person a fag is now construed to be a hate crime. That is but one example of how our freedom of speech has been subjugated to one's entitlement to not be offended.

To further elucidate, the use of the word itself is not neccesarily the actionable offense. To wit; a balck man using the 'n'-word to another black man is mostly permissable whereas if a white man uses the 'n' word to a black man, now there is a problem. This example illustrates that it is not the expression itself but the implied offense which is actionable. Why does this double standard exist in the law??? Isn't the law supposed to be blind to prejudice?

The answer lies in the fact that our courts have become activists in the cause of whatever group labels themselves 'disenfranchised', 'marginalized', 'discriminated', or 'minority'. But that begats another question:

So what if you claim to be any of those, should that mean you are truly harmed? Our courts have played fast and loose with our rights--they have usurped the role of the grantor of those rights.

 

[infotango]

I'm not so sure that your fears are founded Five mins. on Lexis pulled up the following, a court recently held:
The government is permitted to regulate speech falling into the categories of "fighting words" and "true threats" because such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. Specifically, the government can restrict conduct that involves speech if the limitation is narrowly tailored and advances an important government interest. Indeed, where the government does not target conduct on the basis of its expressive content, acts are not shielded from regulation merely because they express a discriminatory idea or philosophy.
AND
The first amendment does, however, protect communications outside of the nonprotected speech categories even if that speech is distasteful or discomforting. Even this speech is protected and may not be punished. While it is difficult to articulate generalized standards as to the quantum and quality of proof necessary to justify abridgment of First Amendment rights, it is a heavy burden.

This was one court's response to a suit by several anti gay protestors who had been prosecuted by a state official, which has been accepted widely as the standard for first admendment prosecutions. On the whole courts are very willing to protect first amendment rights from over zealous prosecutors, even when the protected parties are offensive to minorities etc. Conduct which is mearly offensive should be plainly distinguishable from that which is designed to constitute a true threat. I welcome any supporting case law from an appeals court which you believe crosses that line. In my experience courts have been very zealous protectors of constitutional rights, at least in regards to First Amendment criminal charges.\

I'm not sure why I'm fighting on this issue even, I guess I just feel that courts for the most part do an admirable job of protecting our basic constitutional rights. I think that we basically agree on this issue; Constitutional rights need to be zealously guarded.

 

[SCCutler]

Constitutional rights need to be zealously guarded.

My problem is not the zealous protection of constitutional rights; rather, it has been the wilingness of the courts to usurp the role of legislators and states by expanding the scope of "protections" created by the constitution, using "penumbrae" and the like.

The stunning abuses of the commerce clause are the most remarkable examples.

 

[Anthony]

but your political correctness infringing on free speech rights argument is a total non-starter in my book.

I hear what you are saying and agree from a purely legal perspective. However, we have created an environment in which people become villified and labeled if they disagree with a groups agenda. For instance, if one is against gay marriage, the opposition immediate labels you a homophobe and a bigot in order to stifle your credibility and end the argument.

P.S. For the record, I don't care if gays marry or not. I was just using that as an example. I just don't think they should get special rights because they marry.

 

[infotango]

My problem is not the zealous protection of constitutional rights; rather, it has been the wilingness of the courts to usurp the role of legislators and states by expanding the scope of "protections" created by the constitution, using "penumbrae" and the like.

The stunning abuses of the commerce clause are the most remarkable examples.

I agree that the penumbra arguments seem far fetched, but in the only situation I know of that they were used, the court used them to establish a constitutional right to privacy. The privacy right has been used in a whole bunch of other cases, which basically respect our natural expectations to privacy, and do things like keep cops from looking in our windows without reason. I really like this particular right, so I'm reluctant to really attack the court on the penumbra argument, even if I'm still not sure I buy it. Tough call on that one.
As for the commerce clause, I'll agree that some situations have seemed far fetched, but keep in mind the court uses the commerce clause to support the application to states of decisions made by the congress. So it is a combination of courts and congress on those abuses. Lately the trend has been reversed, and the Supreme court is much more tough on the application of the commerce clause to things which aren't directly related to commerce. Recently, some congressional laws (guns in schools and I believe crime against women) have been overturned by the SC on the basis that they fail to adequately connect to interstate commerce. Again the biggest stretch of the CC in my view was the case which integrated (different from affirmative action) restaurants in the South. I like integration, I'm not sure how I feel about the stretch of the CC. Tough call again.
The courts struggle with really tough questions. It's a position I'm glad I don't have.

 

[infotango]

I hear what you are saying and agree from a purely legal perspective. However, we have created an environment in which people become villified and labeled if they disagree with a groups agenda. For instance, if one is against gay marriage, the opposition immediate labels you a homophobe and a bigot in order to stifle your credibility and end the argument.

Good point, I notice both sides seem to do this. I guess it is because it's just so easy to do. It's one of the things which turn me off from politics.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I hear what you are saying and agree from a purely legal perspective. However, we have created an environment in which people become villified and labeled if they disagree with a groups agenda. For instance, if one is against gay marriage, the opposition immediate labels you a homophobe and a bigot in order to stifle your credibility and end the argument.

And vice versa. "Gay marriage will destroy the institution!" Hogwash!

P.S. For the record, I don't care if gays marry or not. I was just using that as an example. I just don't think they should get special rights because they marry.

What special rights would those be? The same rights you and your theoretical wife have? How are those special?

Too many of us vote for what we aren't, instead of what we are. And thats a shame.

 

[SkyHog]

And vice versa. "Gay marriage will destroy the institution!" Hogwash!



What special rights would those be? The same rights you and your theoretical wife have? How are those special?

Too many of us vote for what we aren't, instead of what we are. And thats a shame.

Ahh, but isn't marriage more a religious ceremony than a legal or governmental one? I know its "become" more of a governmental one, but it certainly still is a religious issue, and as such, the government should not be the ones to change it.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Ahh, but isn't marriage more a religious ceremony than a legal or governmental one? I know its "become" more of a governmental one, but it certainly still is a religious issue, and as such, the government should not be the ones to change it.

Sounds good to me...let's stop passing laws banning it

 

[SkyHog]

Sounds good to me...let's stop passing laws banning it

Agree - no more laws banning or allowing it.

Then my side wins! Its already illegal! Yay! Go political process.

 

[Bill M.]

Fiscal conservative and social liberal. Keep the Republicans out of my bedroom, and the democrats out of my wallet.
Bill

 

[Anthony]

What special rights would those be? The same rights you and your theoretical wife have? How are those special?

Theoretically, two men could say they were legally "married" and one or the other receive company benefits, tax benefits, and financial and legal benefits in which non-married people do not qualify. I fear abuses like this, but since the gay population is probablyaround 1% I don't think the impact would be that great. Again, I don't care if they get married or not, but I don't think the intent was for pandoras box of financial and legal benefits be extended to same sex "marriages".

 

[ausrere]

Ahh, but isn't marriage more a religious ceremony than a legal or governmental one? I know its "become" more of a governmental one, but it certainly still is a religious issue, and as such, the government should not be the ones to change it.

I don't understand why people get into such a tizzy about this issue. I agree that marriage is religious ceremony and the government has no business getting involved in it because of that. But there is a need to recognize unions between two people for legal reasons. So why can't we separate the two? To me it seems a simple solution. If you want to have a relationship recognized by the government for tax, hospital visitation rights, etc. run down to your nearest courthouse, pay your fee and get a civil union.. gay, straight, bi..doesn't matter. The benefits would be the same. A simple "sign on the dotted line" procedure. If you want to add all the ceremony hoopla with it, you can.

If you want a religious union only, then talk to your church and go through what ever ceremony your church offers to recognize your union. You want both.. then do both. Make marriage ONLY a religious church sanctioned ceremony and a civil union ONLY a government sanctioned union.

Just seems a simple thing to me.

 

[Everskyward]

Ahh, but isn't marriage more a religious ceremony than a legal or governmental one?

I'm certainly no authority on marriage but I know plenty of non-religious married couples.

 

[jkaduk]

So why can't we separate the two? To me it seems a simple solution.

Gets my vote. My guess is that this isn't being done because it is so simple and logical. We can't have the government doing that.

 

[ScottM]

Ahh, but isn't marriage more a religious ceremony than a legal or governmental one? I know its "become" more of a governmental one, but it certainly still is a religious issue, and as such, the government should not be the ones to change it.

Actually the tradition of marriage is one of property transfer to ones heirs. It was not until the middle ages that our western culture started to intermix the idea of religion with marriage. Many marriages happened outside of the church. The council of Trent in 1563 was concerned about these marriages that were not witness and declared that marriage must be witnessed by a priest.

Even then the idea of marriage for political and property issues continued well into the modern ages. It realy wasn't until the late 19th centruy that marriage started to be about love.

Today we tend to define a marriage as a a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. This concept of marriage has been consitant in our culture and has not changed through the ages. The other concepts have changed throughout history and throughout different cultures.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Theoretically, two men could say they were legally "married" and one or the other receive company benefits, tax benefits, and financial and legal benefits in which non-married people do not qualify. I fear abuses like this, but since the gay population is probablyaround 1% I don't think the impact would be that great. Again, I don't care if they get married or not, but I don't think the intent was for pandoras box of financial and legal benefits be extended to same sex "marriages".

Well, if you will take the word married and marriages out of quotation marks above, you will see that no one is asking for "special" rights involving same sex marriage.

 

[alaskaflyer]

snip but since the gay population is probablyaround 1% I don't think the impact would be that great.

LOL! If that percentage makes you feel better then go ahead and believe it

 

[alaskaflyer]

In retrospect I've been thinking that my posts kind of "piled it on" Anthony. Didn't really mean it that way. It does go to show why the poll is interesting and relevant though. I tend to be pretty darn socially and economically liberal (liberal in the modern not classical economic sense) but in other things can be quite conservative. in todays climate who do you vote for? Vote hot button issues? Do a value analysis for each candidate? Vote along party lines?

 

[Anthony]

In retrospect I've been thiking that my posts kinds "piled it on" Anthony. Didn't really mean it that way.

No worries Alaska! Just don't let me catch you going to see "Brokeback Mountain" LOL!

Again, all kidding aside, I am all for "live and let live".

 

[tom.]

And vice versa. "Gay marriage will destroy the institution!" Hogwash!


.

That one always cracks me up.

 

[judypilot]

I put down "independent" because I'm really a libertarian with a small "l" or what used to be called a classical liberal. "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" is fairly close, although I'm big on personal responsibility, which is where liberals seem to fall down. Another might be "paleo-conservative" (to distinguish me from the neoconservatives, with whom I disagree fairly regularly).

What I wish we'd do with ballots is have a choice of "none of the above", where if that gets more than 33%, we start all over again. Yeah, that means some elections might not get decided for awhile, but so what? It just means whoever's in there gets to stay until things sort themselves out, which can't be worse than what we already do, which is to re-elect people even if we think they are idiots.

Judy

 

[AirBaker]

I'm certainly no authority on marriage but I know plenty of non-religious married couples.

Very True. In an attempt to please both sides, why not let the religious folks get 'Married' and the non-religious, gay, or others be 'Emotionally Joined at the hip'.

I'm not opposed to the RIGHTS to get married. However, if the Church wants to have their WORD back. Let them. It doesn't matter what you call it at home or tell your friends.