Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!
If you figure it out, let me know - I certainly can't.
On the "conservative" (common usage) side, I'm:
anti-union (especially public unions)
anti big government and high taxes
pro strong military
generally skeptical of social programs (especially those that are designed to mask the pain of a problem without solving it)
anti-universal health care (somebody has to do the rationing, and I distrust business less than government on this one)
pro-business but anti-bailout (let business owners keep the rewards for the risks they take and the hard work they do, and keep excessive regulation out of their way, but don't pour good taxpayer money after bad private investments)
anti affirmative action.
On the "liberal" side, I'm:
pro-choice
pro gun control (in cases where it actually aligns with common sense and has a prayer of actually doing some good)
pro civil rights (read: gay marriage)
pro financial regulation (let the government be the rules committee and referee but don't let them play the game or choose the winners)
pro marijuana (I've only ever seen one joint in my life and have no interest in drugs whatsoever, but live and let live)
pro using taxpayer funds to develop alternate energy as long as its something that's meaningful and sustainable (sorry, solar and wind).
Besides which, I don't see anything in my post #641 that advocates a liberal position. I perceive that post to be entirely factual - "lock step" is not a pejorative term; it's the reality of the situation. The guy I quoted is one of the arch-conservatives - if using his words is "parroting a liberal position" then I think the cats and dogs are finally living together.
With one or two relatively minor quibbles, that's approximately where I am, too. Our liberal colleagues simply can't (or won't) distinguish as between fiscal and social when it comes to conservatives. Thus, anyone who claims to be a conservative must be pro-life, anti-gay, anti-evolution, etc. etc.
Your caveat that "gun control" measures must have some likihood of "working," (however we define that) is on point. Every time we have an Auora or Sikh temple or Columbine the gun control types dust off the proposals they always offer and offer them again. And they have no more liklihood of working the 5th or 10th time around. Although I've never owned a gun and most likely never will, I recognize anti-gun b*ll sh*t when I see it. And this nonsense about "assault weapons" is b*ll sh*t. These weapons are no more powerful or capable or dangerous than other semi-automatic weapons that fire the same ammunition, at the same rate, with the same impact. They just LOOK more lethal. And cosmetics shouldn't be our first concern.
You know, these gun control types remind me of folks who try to get convicts they believe have been wrongfully convicted off of death row. A worthwhile endeavor, to be sure, since nobody wants an innocent person put to death. But what these folks will hardly ever mention is they don't want ANYBODY executed, ever. And their efforts to get "innocent" guys off death row serve two purposes: to avoid miscarriages of justice and to help build their case for abolition. I think lots of gun control people are abolitionists, too. And they're working day and night to figure out a way to get around that pesky 2nd Amendment.
While I don't see gay marriage as a "civil right," that's not really my quibble. I just want to make certain we protect the rights of those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons and to lay off the demonizing. Generally speaking, government should not be in the business of forcing people to abandon their religious beliefs. This can be tricky, of course. "God don't want me to serve no n-words" doesn't cut it. But forcing a military chaplain to perform a marriage which is against his principles doesn't either.
I've never held a joint in my hand, althugh as president of my fraternity, I had to fire my pledge trainer--he was dealing to my pledge class. Back in my day, there was a popular poster and expression: "9 out of 10 heroin addicts started out on pot." A classic example of confusing correlation with causation, because 10 out of 10 of those junkies started out on milk. So I don't lose any sleep over pot, since I assume tens of millions of Americans smoke it at least some of the time, including Michael Phelps.
You make a sound point on developing new sources of energy. Feel good, touchy feely "solutions" to the problem have no chance of succeeding. Besides, anyone talking about energy independence who refuses to discuss nuclear is unserious. This business is usually presented as "either/or." Either we continue as we have been or we find new sources of energy. How about both? With the oil boom in Canada and the United States we're looking at a new golden age, with independence from OPEC. And projects like the Keystone Pipeline and drilling in ANWAR must go forward. We cannot afford to have our energy policy held hostage by a tiny clique of so-called environmentalists. We just can't afford it. But that shouldn't stop us from exploring new, economicaly sensible sources of energy too.
Put away the tinfoil hat and get out for a walk around town, Rover ol' buddy.
