2008 Issue by issue: Who do you prefer and why?

ebrown, I understand your position but I have a question or two. For how long should the man have the opportunity to reject parenthood? Roughly the first trimester? Would he be able to change his mind later if he decided he did want to be a parent? What if the woman did not inform the man within the first trimester? What rights would the child have once born with respect to support?

0 Replies

There is legal precedent for giving up parental rights as in adoption. In adoption the transfer of parental rights to the new (adoptive) parents is complete, except in two circumstances. The adoptive parents can make an arrangement if the birth parents change their mind.

A plan to give men reproductive rights would simply follow this precedent.

Unless there is a very good reason for not telling the father of his fatherhood (i.e. rape) women who don't tell should be put in jail.

Not informing a man he is going to be a father is a complete violation of a man's dignity and rights.

When will society accept the fact that fathers are parents-- and deserve equal rights of any other parent.

0 Replies

Can a father terminate his rights at this time without the adoption by another person, though? That seems to be key. Also, I'm still wondering about a time limit. A woman can really only make this choice easily in the first trimester -- how long would a man have to decide?

0 Replies

ob, I read your opening explanations on each issue, and I think you are a very conflicted person, politically. Somewhere, you must have an underlying belief system in regard to all of these issues, and I don't see any; you seem to be all over the board on all of these things.

First of all, are you in favor of socialism and bigger government, or are you for conservative ideals, individual freedom and responsibility, and protection of those liberties? All of the issues tend to become clearer when you answer the basic context, and the basic context you seem to lack. For example, you like Obama and Giuliani, and they are worlds apart in basic political philosophy.

On immigration, you are wrong to begin with, because I think all of the Republicans favor a liberal immigration policy, but it needs to be done legally, thats all.

0 Replies

Interesting topic:

For me:
Immigration: The McCain et al Bill was close to perfect.
Abortion: In favor of abortion rights
Free Trade: For it
Iraq War: Against it from day one, bring the troops home in an orderly way.
Afgan War: In favor of it to start, but we need to put in the resources to do the job right.
Iran: Talk to these people already. Iran has the most pro-US population in the Mid East.
Israel/Palestine: Need a two state solution ASAP. Both sides are in the wrong in many places.
Taxes: Repeal the last two Bush tax cuts. Completely ok with Death Tax.
Healthcare: In order for US business to compete globally, we need a single payer system that covers basic health needs and catastrophic coverage.
Energy: We need a unified national policy with a lot more emphasis on nuclear energy.
Environment: Strenghten clean air and water laws, roll back erosion of Bush adminstration.
Gay Marriage: Is this really an issue? If they want to make a life long commitment, who am I to object?

So where does that leave me? Basically Obama or Ralph Wiggum since everyone else accept Edwards and Paul are pro-Iraq war. Edwards is ok but waning and I'm not into his hate the rich spiel. Paul's writings show him to be a radical bigot.

0 Replies

Quote:

ob, I read your opening explanations on each issue, and I think you are a very conflicted person, politically. Somewhere, you must have an underlying belief system in regard to all of these issues, and I don't see any; you seem to be all over the board on all of these things.

First of all, are you in favor of socialism and bigger government, or are you for conservative ideals, individual freedom and responsibility, and protection of those liberties?

Maybe he doesn't see the world as completely black or white. Perhaps some see nuance in these issues.

Quote:

On immigration, you are wrong to begin with, because I think all of the Republicans favor a liberal immigration policy, but it needs to be done legally, thats all.

With the exception of Paul who seems like a true bigot and McCain who has proposed a rational immigration plan, all the Republican candidates have no real policy at all other than to make it clear that they dislike immigrants just as much as the next guy. If your entire policy is to build a wall and kick the immigrants out, you don't "favor a liberal immigration policy." I just flipped through Romney's, Guilliani's and Huckabee's web sites and liberal immigration policy is not in there. Romney at least says we should encourage legal immigration. Guilliani says build a fence, Huckabee say stop the leaks before you worry about fixing the house.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

Maybe he doesn't see the world as completely black or white. Perhaps some see nuance in these issues.

Its not a matter of black and white. It is a matter of foundational beliefs. If we don't have one, we end up with a very inconsistent set of policies on various issues, and you end up supporting people from opposite ends of the political spectrum. The result of that is basically very chaotic. There is no consistency there. Before we can form a good solution to any issue, we must first have foundational beliefs or philosophy on what works best. Example, is it government or free market, which one works best, and this can be applied to many issues. If you use one solution to one problem and a different one with another, it shows a basic confusion in terms of philosophy.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

engineer wrote:
Maybe he doesn't see the world as completely black or white. Perhaps some see nuance in these issues.

Its not a matter of black and white. It is a matter of foundational beliefs. If we don't have one, we end up with a very inconsistent set of policies on various issues, and you end up supporting people from opposite ends of the political spectrum. The result of that is basically very chaotic. There is no consistency there. Before we can form a good solution to any issue, we must first have foundational beliefs or philosophy on what works best. Example, is it government or free market, which one works best, and this can be applied to many issues. If you use one solution to one problem and a different one with another, it shows a basic confusion in terms of philosophy.

But what if you believe that a mostly free market with government imposed rules that are stated clearly for all to see is the best system? Then, you might vote for a free market person or a government control person depending on where you felt the pendulum was at a given moment. The same is probably true of every issue. Not certain about abortion, but afraid the Supreme Court will soon be packed with far right justices? Maybe it's time to go pro-choice. Hate taxes and hate deficit spending? Maybe it's time for more taxes (or less tax breaks.)

0 Replies

We need to expel illegal immigrants as quickly as possible. Should there be inaction, or amnesty, this would serve as a tremendous magnet for untold numbers of additional illegals. We also need a fence on the border asap to keep out, in addition to illegals, drugs and terrorists.

You have to be fairly rich to be subject to the federal estate tax. Moreover, the rich have a ton of loopholes available to reduce or eliminate the estate's liability.

Most of what is taxed in the federal estate tax is previously untaxed appreciation on all types of property. That is certainly wherein Bill Gate's wealth resides. Why should that escape taxation when a worker's pay for sweat labor is fully taxed?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If you use one solution to one problem and a different one with another, it shows a basic confusion in terms of philosophy.

No, it shows that you know when two problems are not alike. You don't use a hammer to drive a screw.

0 Replies

Thanks for participating Engineer. Quite a bit we have in common.

okie wrote:

ob, I read your opening explanations on each issue, and I think you are a very conflicted person, politically. Somewhere, you must have an underlying belief system in regard to all of these issues, and I don't see any; you seem to be all over the board on all of these things.

I suppose Okie, a person such as yourself may never experience such conflict. It is one of the unfortunate side effects of thinking for one's self. When someone endeavors to do so; all fantasies about perfect parties and politicians vanish, and they're forced to examine issues for themselves, rather than parrot the more clever talking points of the their party line.

okie wrote:

First of all, are you in favor of socialism and bigger government, or are you for conservative ideals, individual freedom and responsibility, and protection of those liberties?

Here is a perfect example. Favoring socialized medicine doesn't mean favoring socialism in general any more than socialized education or socialized law enforcement does. Most capitalists in the United States recognize a need for some form of safety net. Do you? Here are a couple of questions to help you decide: Should the children of the irresponsible go unfed or uneducated? Should the police and fire departments not cover the neighborhoods of the poor, if they lack the funds to pay for such services?

Thanks to socialized Education; poor kids do get to go to school. Thanks to socialized emergency services; their houses aren't allowed to burn to the ground and crime isn't usually completely ignored. You would have it another way?

If not; why is it okay with you for children to die of treatable disease? Why should unpredictable catastrophic illness be allowed to wipe out the fortunes of most they touch? Why do you see medicine so very different than education and emergency services?

okie wrote:

All of the issues tend to become clearer when you answer the basic context, and the basic context you seem to lack. For example, you like Obama and Giuliani, and they are worlds apart in basic political philosophy.

Obama, Giuliani and I agree on Roe Vs. Wade. We agree on Gay Marriage. They're as close as any candidates to me on immigration. Put short: Some of the things the Republicans have wrong; Rudy and I (and to a lesser extent, McCain) agree on. Some of the things the Democrats have wrong; Rudy and I (and to a lesser extent, McCain) agree on.

okie wrote:

On immigration, you are wrong to begin with, because I think all of the Republicans favor a liberal immigration policy, but it needs to be done legally, thats all.

You are deliberately missing the point. The legal immigration issue is a pretty low priority concern this election cycle.

Advocate wrote:

We need to expel illegal immigrants as quickly as possible. Should there be inaction, or amnesty, this would serve as a tremendous magnet for untold numbers of additional illegals. We also need a fence on the border asap to keep out, in addition to illegals, drugs and terrorists.

Tremendous magnet? Rolling Eyes

This is the kind of dribble you listen to when you're trying to defend a predisposition. Poor hungry people have bigger fish to fry (like getting a fish to fry Idea

).

0 Replies

How many times has Nimh voted? This is kind of scary...

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/1792/edwardsgm5.jpg

0 Replies

OCCOM said:
"Immigration:
None of the candidates support my position. I would open our borders to all who can show a clean record and the ability to support themselves. Only candidates that will provide a path to citizenship will be considered. Democrats + Rudy and McCain."

Truly moronic! You think that we have water shortages, sinking wages, increasing welfare, etc., now, the country, with open borders, would become one large refugee camp with people fighting over scraps.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

OCCOM said:
"Immigration:
None of the candidates support my position. I would open our borders to all who can show a clean record and the ability to support themselves. Only candidates that will provide a path to citizenship will be considered. Democrats + Rudy and McCain."

Truly moronic! You think that we have water shortages, sinking wages, increasing welfare, etc., now, the country, with open borders, would become one large refugee camp with people fighting over scraps.

Advocate, you are correct, ob is moronic on this issue. None of the candidates support open borders, except perhaps Democrat whackos that aren't serious candidates, or perhaps Democrats that don't state their true beliefs. And all of the Republicans support immigration with the ability to screen out those without clean records, etc. ob is totally wrong on this issue, just for one issue, without even addressing the other ones.

0 Replies

Welfare and crooks, eh? Rolling Eyes

Did I forget to exclude those who can't support themselves and crooks? Eh, no. No I didn't. You guys might want to refrain from the moronic accusations, at least until you can comprehend what you quote. That was stunningly stupid.

0 Replies

I am enormously concerned with our Nation's lack of border security and the dysfunctional nature of our current immigration system.

Steve Israel

0 Replies

Regarding illegal immigration, Tancredo said:

"This issue, if not addressed, leaves any President, including George Bush, open to the criticism that they are essentially ignoring the destruction of the nation and I believe that with all my heart."

-- Tom Tancredo

0 Replies

"In fact, the place where we have indicted more terrorists or potential terrorists, is our Northern border."

-- Tom Tancredo

0 Replies

Tancredo deserves credit for bringing this issue to the forefront.

We have made a simple problem into a complex one by simply not enforcing the existing laws. All we really need to do is start enforcing the law, providing a good way to verify status to employers, punish employers that knowingly break the law, and force any legal authority or government to quit giving away benefits to illegals. Emergency medical treatment should be given, but beyond that, we are only enablers. By enforcing laws, we would soon find the folks going back home and applying in a legal manner. By doing that, you can weed out the criminals and other undesireables, ob. Creating sanctuary cities and other moronic stuff that has been done only makes the problem worse.

0 Replies

Re: 2008 Issue by issue: Who do you prefer and why?
ob, I find your list interesting, so will try it. I am limiting it to Romney, McCain, Huckabee, or Giuliani, as I don't think the other Republicans have a chance: For Dems, it would be Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. I don't recommend Clinton or Edwards for anything.

Immigration:
Only Republicans are serious about really fixing this, and not all of those are. McCain isn't really serious, although he says he got the message. Romney the best on this. Thompson good but he has no chance.

Health Care: Romney recognizes the problem and as a problem solver, could possibly use his experience in Mass. to come up with something workable to retain as much responsibility in the private sector as possible.

Iraq: McCain strongest on this, but Romney will do.

Taxes: Huckabee and the fair tax, but I really don't think the fair tax has a chance, so any other Republican will also do in a pinch.

Taxes2:
Death taxes are not a big issue. We already exclude amounts down to a million or two. In regard to farms and other businesses, raising the limit could avoid selling and ending up with assets flowing to larger companies. Keep them in the family is better. I don't know which candidate is better on this, but most assuredly Repubs are better on any tax issue. Romney is smarter with business and has the best grasp on this issue.

Energy: Any Republican is better on this, Romney probably the best because he has the best grasp of facts, figures, and the realities of business and energy.

Trade: Any Republican better, Romney the best because he understands business.

Abortion: Republicans oppose murder of unborn, so no question who is better on this. The issue is the protection of life, the most sacred thing we have.

Gay Marriage: Most Repubs are better, I would need to study this issue closer.

Scumbag Quotient: I will mention Obama as a decent man along with all four Republicans I list.

Qualified candidates are as follows: Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani, and if a Dem is to happen, Obama.

Last note, our enemies around the world would love nothing better than to see a Democrat elected. What should that tell us?

0 Replies

2008 Issue by issue: Who do you prefer and why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know