Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 11, 2019, 12:29:25 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderators: TG, Associate Justice PiT)
  Summary of political beliefs (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Summary of political beliefs  (Read 407118 times)
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« on: January 26, 2014, 05:01:12 pm »

Very socially conservative. A few examples;
Abortion: Only when the life of the mother is seriously threatened.
Gay "Marriage": Completely and totally illegal.
Drugs: Marijuana should be completely illegal, and I'm not too fond of alcohol or cigarettes but I realize those two would be nearly impossible to illegalize, so I'll tolerate them in moderation.
Church and State: Keep "In God we Trust", school prayers should be allowed but determined based on the school districts, freedom OF religion not FROM religion, take out the "Solemnly swear" parts of oaths and return to what it was, etc.

Moderately economically conservative. A few examples;
Taxes: Should be a universal tax rate from the bottom of the ladder to the very top, with the exception being the absolute poorest of the poor, whom should receive government assistance, but must prove they are actively trying to secure a job that can pay for themselves.
Deficit Spending: Slash spending across the board, with the only exceptions being education and the military.
Welfare: Only for the poorest of the poor, and drug test applicants.
Debt Ceiling: Lower, lower, LOWER!!!!
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2014, 11:10:08 pm »

Very socially conservative. A few examples;
Abortion: Only when the life of the mother is seriously threatened.
Gay "Marriage": Completely and totally illegal.
Drugs: Marijuana should be completely illegal, and I'm not too fond of alcohol or cigarettes but I realize those two would be nearly impossible to illegalize, so I'll tolerate them in moderation.
Church and State: Keep "In God we Trust", school prayers should be allowed but determined based on the school districts, freedom OF religion not FROM religion, take out the "Solemnly swear" parts of oaths and return to what it was, etc.

Moderately economically conservative. A few examples;
Taxes: Should be a universal tax rate from the bottom of the ladder to the very top, with the exception being the absolute poorest of the poor, whom should receive government assistance, but must prove they are actively trying to secure a job that can pay for themselves.
Deficit Spending: Slash spending across the board, with the only exceptions being education and the military.
Welfare: Only for the poorest of the poor, and drug test applicants.
Debt Ceiling: Lower, lower, LOWER!!!!

...Do you really have Hitler quotes in your signature?

Yeah, I do. Also, sorry for the lateness of this reply; I wanted to maintain a presence on this forum but I forgot about it. I'll try to keep up now.
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2014, 11:11:30 pm »

Very socially conservative. A few examples;
Abortion: Only when the life of the mother is seriously threatened.
Gay "Marriage": Completely and totally illegal.
Drugs: Marijuana should be completely illegal, and I'm not too fond of alcohol or cigarettes but I realize those two would be nearly impossible to illegalize, so I'll tolerate them in moderation.
Church and State: Keep "In God we Trust", school prayers should be allowed but determined based on the school districts, freedom OF religion not FROM religion, take out the "Solemnly swear" parts of oaths and return to what it was, etc.

Moderately economically conservative. A few examples;
Taxes: Should be a universal tax rate from the bottom of the ladder to the very top, with the exception being the absolute poorest of the poor, whom should receive government assistance, but must prove they are actively trying to secure a job that can pay for themselves.
Deficit Spending: Slash spending across the board, with the only exceptions being education and the military.
Welfare: Only for the poorest of the poor, and drug test applicants.
Debt Ceiling: Lower, lower, LOWER!!!!


May I be the first to say that you make me, as a gay man, an atheist, a man who thinks government shouldn't control what you put in your body, a man who believes that those who can afford it should give back to the community, who believes that science should lead the way on issues of women's health and that women shouldn't be made to carry their rapist's baby, that our military is bloated and needs to be cut, and that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, sick? I think you might find a certain other Vladimir to be a good friend of yours.

Actually, I'm a big Putin fan. So is 70% of Russians and most Crimeans. Smiley
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2014, 11:17:41 pm »

Very socially conservative. A few examples;
Abortion: Only when the life of the mother is seriously threatened.
Gay "Marriage": Completely and totally illegal.
Drugs: Marijuana should be completely illegal, and I'm not too fond of alcohol or cigarettes but I realize those two would be nearly impossible to illegalize, so I'll tolerate them in moderation.
Church and State: Keep "In God we Trust", school prayers should be allowed but determined based on the school districts, freedom OF religion not FROM religion, take out the "Solemnly swear" parts of oaths and return to what it was, etc.

Moderately economically conservative. A few examples;
Taxes: Should be a universal tax rate from the bottom of the ladder to the very top, with the exception being the absolute poorest of the poor, whom should receive government assistance, but must prove they are actively trying to secure a job that can pay for themselves.
Deficit Spending: Slash spending across the board, with the only exceptions being education and the military.
Welfare: Only for the poorest of the poor, and drug test applicants.
Debt Ceiling: Lower, lower, LOWER!!!!


May I be the first to say that you make me, as a gay man, an atheist, a man who thinks government shouldn't control what you put in your body, a man who believes that those who can afford it should give back to the community, who believes that science should lead the way on issues of women's health and that women shouldn't be made to carry their rapist's baby, that our military is bloated and needs to be cut, and that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, sick? I think you might find a certain other Vladimir to be a good friend of yours.

Are you really losing your sh*t to an obvious troll?

Then again, I'd probably do the same thing.  THese trolls are like watching a train wreck.  So horrible, but you just got to watch.
I'll apologize to you as well for the lateness of this reply; kind of dropped the ball on this even though I wanted to keep up; once again I'll try to now. But, with that aside, I assure you I am no troll. I actually used to be quite a bit more conservative but I've changed a bit. I like to call myself an "Authoritarian Conservative" as in I'm still very conservative, but I like a strong government minus bloated taxation and certain other things, and I'm not necessarily a supporter of genocide or racism as in Hitler. Btw to address my signature, it's there because of how true it is. I do not support Adolf, but I see the use of certain quotes of his in application to other things. And, the two particular quotes I chose are very applicable to a certain president Smiley.
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2014, 12:32:43 am »

Very socially conservative. A few examples;
Abortion: Only when the life of the mother is seriously threatened.
Gay "Marriage": Completely and totally illegal.
Drugs: Marijuana should be completely illegal, and I'm not too fond of alcohol or cigarettes but I realize those two would be nearly impossible to illegalize, so I'll tolerate them in moderation.
Church and State: Keep "In God we Trust", school prayers should be allowed but determined based on the school districts, freedom OF religion not FROM religion, take out the "Solemnly swear" parts of oaths and return to what it was, etc.

Moderately economically conservative. A few examples;
Taxes: Should be a universal tax rate from the bottom of the ladder to the very top, with the exception being the absolute poorest of the poor, whom should receive government assistance, but must prove they are actively trying to secure a job that can pay for themselves.
Deficit Spending: Slash spending across the board, with the only exceptions being education and the military.
Welfare: Only for the poorest of the poor, and drug test applicants.
Debt Ceiling: Lower, lower, LOWER!!!!


May I be the first to say that you make me, as a gay man, an atheist, a man who thinks government shouldn't control what you put in your body, a man who believes that those who can afford it should give back to the community, who believes that science should lead the way on issues of women's health and that women shouldn't be made to carry their rapist's baby, that our military is bloated and needs to be cut, and that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, sick? I think you might find a certain other Vladimir to be a good friend of yours.

Actually, I'm a big Putin fan. So is 70% of Russians and most Crimeans. Smiley

Good to know, I'll need a good punching bag about which to get needlessly angry and rant on the internet. Now, starting with the easy questions, why should gay marriage be illegal?


 Good question! But, before I start, you don't have to get angry with me. I'm a nice guy once you get past your initial disgust and contempt with me Wink.
  Anyhow, I could simply answer that question based on my belief in God, but that's probably not what you are looking for, and I'd get a stock response for it so I'll stay away from that. Why gay "marriage" should be illegal; the definition of marriage is (or should be based on whatever view you have on the definition) a union between a man in a woman, based on love, for the purpose of creating a stable family environment for a child/children.
  Your next assertion would undoubtedly be one of the following; either, "If two gays love eachother, why can't they be happy too?" or, "Gays can create a stable family environment and raise children as well, so why can't they do so?". Well, before I continue, let me say that I have several gay family members/friends and I do not hate anybody for simply being gay. Now, with that said, I contend that homosexuality is not natural, and is a self-induced mental condition, meaning, a state of mind one puts themselves in. (I'll probably get questioned for this statement but I assure you I can back it up, but I'll save that for later). Also, for two gays to "create" a family, they have to either adopt a child, or artificially produce one through the help of modern science. Sure, on the outside it appears to be relatively similar to a "straight" marriage. But, the sad truth is, is that the vast majority of said gay "marriages" do not provide a stable family environment. Gays have a much higher; divorce rate, partner violence rate, disease (whether it be an STD or a genetic disease) rate, as well as a much lower percentage reporting marital fidelity.
     
    I could go on, but I have a feeling this is already a bit much. So, I'll continue whenever prompted to. Also, I can provide sources for these "accusations", which I will probably be asked to list. Also, let me assure you once more; I do not hate anybody for merely being gay. I have many gay friends/ a few gay family members. I do not hate anybody here that opposes my views/facts. Also, if you or anybody else disagrees, please avoid vitriol and stick to logical, factual responses; I'm not here for a pissing contest. (Just figured I should state all the above less I be called a 'homophobic bigoted hater' or something of the like).
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2014, 12:44:48 am »


No, the second one's Goebbels IIRC.
[/quote]

   Is it Dr. Goebbels? Could've sworn that was Adolf. If you can show me it was Goebbels, I'll change my signature to show that.
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2014, 12:50:17 am »


May I be the first to say that you make me, as a gay man, an atheist, a man who thinks government shouldn't control what you put in your body, a man who believes that those who can afford it should give back to the community, who believes that science should lead the way on issues of women's health and that women shouldn't be made to carry their rapist's baby, that our military is bloated and needs to be cut, and that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, sick? I think you might find a certain other Vladimir to be a good friend of yours.

Are you really losing your sh*t to an obvious troll?

Then again, I'd probably do the same thing.  THese trolls are like watching a train wreck.  So horrible, but you just got to watch.

   Hey, you should take a look at my political matrix score before assuming that. I'm the real deal Wink
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2014, 05:42:17 pm »


May I be the first to say that you make me, as a gay man, an atheist, a man who thinks government shouldn't control what you put in your body, a man who believes that those who can afford it should give back to the community, who believes that science should lead the way on issues of women's health and that women shouldn't be made to carry their rapist's baby, that our military is bloated and needs to be cut, and that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, sick? I think you might find a certain other Vladimir to be a good friend of yours.

Are you really losing your sh*t to an obvious troll?

Then again, I'd probably do the same thing.  THese trolls are like watching a train wreck.  So horrible, but you just got to watch.

   Hey, you should take a look at my political matrix score before assuming that. I'm the real deal Wink

Right, because it's not like any idiot can just type in a fake PM score. Roll Eyes

   Please keep the insults out of this. I don't really care whether or not you are repulsed by me, but try to keep the conversation cordial. Resorting to insults makes you look bad Smiley
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2014, 06:20:06 pm »

Let's take this apart one piece at a time, shall we?

Good question! But, before I start, you don't have to get angry with me. I'm a nice guy once you get past your initial disgust and contempt with me Wink.
  Anyhow, I could simply answer that question based on my belief in God, but that's probably not what you are looking for, and I'd get a stock response for it so I'll stay away from that.

Your point?  I am seeking and preparing to be on the ordination path this fall, partly because, and not in spite of, my unwavering support for increased LGBT representation and acceptance in the Christian church.  Your personal belief in God or what God wants should not dictate the law of the land.  In fact, it's worth absolutely nothing in the realm of civic discourse because it has no bearing on what other members of society believe in or desire.  Nothing warrants its mention.  If you oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, you have the right to not marry a person of the same gender.  You do not have the right to tell other people to live your lifestyle.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is your view on how marriage should be "defined" superior to any other view?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody cares how many gay people you know.  Really.  No one cares about your personal relations with other people.  If you affirm the right of opposite-sex couples to enter a marriage contract and oppose that same right for same-sex couples, you are essentially discriminating against the latter group.  I don't see how this doesn't constitute as hate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Burden of proof is on you here.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure where you get the divorce rate statistic from, since gay marriage is not legal in most states.  However, domestic violence is common among both straight and gay couples, and the majority of same-sex couples are well functioning similar to that of healthy heterosexual couples.  Even if you can prove statistical disparities between these groups, the burden is on you to draw a clear and direct link to sexual orientation.
    
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You condescendingly put quotations around the word 'marriage,' when referring to gay marriages.  Why should we think of you as anything other than a bigot, given that you have a clear animus for same-sex couples?

I will say no more until you provide sources.

    About my faith; I recognize this and that is exactly why I chose to leave that argument out. I chose to go along the logical/statistical/factual/what-have-you side. Thus, please keep the Jesus bashing out of it.
     Secondly; my/many many people through history's view on the definition of marriage is "superior" because of a few things. First off, I will note briefly that the term "marriage" as is used today (not the simple unions between men and women used before in Greece, Rome, etc) was created by Christianity. Either way, my so-called "superior" definition is the definition that has been time-tested and time-proven to be the most effective and lasting of any unions between any 2 people. It is the definition that has been widely recognized as the "purpose" of marriage in our society and the definition which is the most logical. Now, if you want to allow gay "marriage" to be legal, than you'd have to redefine the definition of marriage and thus invalidate all marriages by the previous definition. If you want to allow gay "unions", then that is a different argument entirely.
    You then go on to state that nobody cares about how many gays I personally know. Before I continue, let me just state that that is a ridiculous statement. Of course nobody cares. I doubt you care about anything I could possibly say. Quite frankly, I don't care about anything you say either. Don't want to sound mean by saying these things, but it's the sad truth. This is the internet. Anything you say about yourself cannot be validated without myself personally going to your house and observing the said action/situation (Which, might I add, is a bit creepy Tongue). So, yes, I know that you do not care. Save both of us time and leave out obvious, irrelevant, statements. Clearly you intended that to in some way belittle/ "get" me. And, I will once more say, this makes you look bad and makes it more difficult for me to take your position seriously. I said that I personally know many gays for the sole purpose of removing any notion that I am either ignorant or that I "hate" gays. Clearly this was lost on you, however.
    Next, all the "bigot" accusations. Once more this makes it very difficult for me to take you seriously. You cannot "prove" that I am a "bigot", nor can I "prove" that I am not a "bigot", therefore these accusations are irrelevant and beyond the purpose of me stating my opinions here. I plead you again to keep your argument relevant, and logical. Your whole accusation falls under the guise that anybody that opposes gay "marriage" is a "bigot". This statement alone is beyond the realm of reality.
    Lastly, my "condescending" use of quotation marks; I use them around gay "marriage" because I do not consider it to be marriage, therefore I consider the subject to be false and only call it gay "marriage" for lack of a better term. Thus, I insert quotation marks to show that I do not recognize it's so-called legitimacy.
    
       My next post will include sources for you guys; but before I continue, I just want to ask this fellow to please keep any responses cordial and for them to be valuable responses that actually add something to the discussion. You say that you will not respond further until I provide sources (which I am about to do), likewise, I will not respond to you further unless your replies contain something of value and abstain from frivolous and trial accusations. I'd like a relatively serious discussion.
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2014, 06:21:44 pm »

I see you are dodging all of the questions, Vlad...

 Give me a bit of time, Goldwater; I have many responses to attend to haha. I'm going to spend a bit of time and pull up my sources next. If you have questions after that, then I'll get to them.
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2014, 07:04:34 pm »

I see you are dodging all of the questions, Vlad...

    Whelp, I spent about 30 minutes readying a post and citing sources, but it says I cannot post links until I have 20 posts. So, you guys decide; should I remove the links or just wait until I have 20 posts and insert the entire thing? (Copy-pasted the whole post into a word document).
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2014, 07:13:16 pm »

    About my faith; I recognize this and that is exactly why I chose to leave that argument out. I chose to go along the logical/statistical/factual/what-have-you side. Thus, please keep the Jesus bashing out of it.

Well, you obviously didn't leave it out, otherwise it wouldn't have been in your post.  And please, the last thing I am is a 'Jesus-basher."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see how giving the same rights that everyone else has to gay couples invalidates the integrity of straight marriages.  As far as definitions go, no word is written in stone.  Language is an evolving thing, otherwise we would all be speaking the same language as our ancient ancestors.  Social institutions are evolving, as well, and many languages use one word to refer to multiple things.  In either case, semantics has little bearing on why two consenting adults should be allowed to enter a marriage contract.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can just as easily say, "I have a black friend," and support Jim Crow laws.  Again, it really doesn't matter.  My point is, you can say whatever you want and that doesn't change the context of your views.  No one is going to excuse you for bigotry based on how many gay people you know.  You will be called a bigot, and rightly so.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I can.  You openly oppose allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as straight couples.  The evidence speaks for itself.  Try saying to someone, "Y'know, I wish they'd bring slavery back.  That's not because I'm racist, or anything."  See how they react.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay.  I will continue to call you a bigot and refuse to recognize you as human-being to show that I don't recognize you as anything else.  Sound good?

I'm going to call a shovel a shovel regardless of how much it hurts your feelings or "makes me look bad."  Get used to it.


    It's pretty ridiculous to equate a lack of allowance for gay "marriage" to slavery. Texas doesn't have gay "marriage", and my cousin's doing just fine. He's recently got a new boyfriend and brought him over for my New Year's party. He's a nice guy too. But, I may have missed their shackles and whipping scars and the dogs that were chasing them down for escaping their plantation Wink. I never stated that I advocated suppression of gays in any kind or extermination of them or what have you. I simply said that gay "marriage" should not be considered "marriage". Am I a promoter of slaughter of the gay populace for this horrid offence? I'd think that the overwhelming majority of people would disagree with you.
   Anyhow, trying to speak to you logically is impossible. I even resorted to your class of rhetoric to reply. But, like I've said, I will stop responding to you if you continue to fail to make a legitimate statement.
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2014, 07:26:16 pm »

    About my faith; I recognize this and that is exactly why I chose to leave that argument out. I chose to go along the logical/statistical/factual/what-have-you side. Thus, please keep the Jesus bashing out of it.

Well, you obviously didn't leave it out, otherwise it wouldn't have been in your post.  And please, the last thing I am is a 'Jesus-basher."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see how giving the same rights that everyone else has to gay couples invalidates the integrity of straight marriages.  As far as definitions go, no word is written in stone.  Language is an evolving thing, otherwise we would all be speaking the same language as our ancient ancestors.  Social institutions are evolving, as well, and many languages use one word to refer to multiple things.  In either case, semantics has little bearing on why two consenting adults should be allowed to enter a marriage contract.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can just as easily say, "I have a black friend," and support Jim Crow laws.  Again, it really doesn't matter.  My point is, you can say whatever you want and that doesn't change the context of your views.  No one is going to excuse you for bigotry based on how many gay people you know.  You will be called a bigot, and rightly so.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I can.  You openly oppose allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as straight couples.  The evidence speaks for itself.  Try saying to someone, "Y'know, I wish they'd bring slavery back.  That's not because I'm racist, or anything."  See how they react.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay.  I will continue to call you a bigot and refuse to recognize you as human-being to show that I don't recognize you as anything else.  Sound good?

I'm going to call a shovel a shovel regardless of how much it hurts your feelings or "makes me look bad."  Get used to it.


    It's pretty ridiculous to equate a lack of allowance for gay "marriage" to slavery. Texas doesn't have gay "marriage", and my cousin's doing just fine. He's recently got a new boyfriend and brought him over for my New Year's party. He's a nice guy too. But, I may have missed their shackles and whipping scars and the dogs that were chasing them down for escaping their plantation Wink. I never stated that I advocated suppression of gays in any kind or extermination of them or what have you. I simply said that gay "marriage" should not be considered "marriage". Am I a promoter of slaughter of the gay populace for this horrid offence? I'd think that the overwhelming majority of people would disagree with you.

Way to miss the entire point.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you for ignoring half my post.

I don't care if you decide to not respond anymore.  You will still be challenged on your assertions.

    I want to be challenged for my assertions. If I didn't, I wouldn't be spending time typing all this Smiley
Logged
Vladimir
Newbie
*
Posts: 16
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.55, S: 8.26

« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2014, 07:35:11 pm »

Also, I'm open to other arguments as well. But, I don't want to leave off on the gay thing unfinished... just need to keep finding ways to make semi-meaningless posts so I can get my count to 20 and be able to post all of my sources Smiley
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC