| What main factor do you really believe has been responsible for your political views? |
|
|
|
Asked 1 year ago
by greeneyegirl79  United States |
|
About
My eyes actually are green, I am being literal on the choice of screen name :0)
|
| 18 Points |
Life. Looking around at my fellow man and becoming something other than "self centered."
I helped Jimmy Carter get elected and discovered what he actually is. A liar of the highest order.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyWide reading, distrust of ideology and experience has made me a conservative
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyWhat? He got you addicted to pain pills, clouded your thinking, and then you were in such a stupor you started to think like him too? (heehee, ...tryin' to sound like Silly)
history. the achievements and failures of different political parties and doctrines throughout the history of my country and of the world in general.
btw I'm a liberal
I like to support the killing of babies, women, children and other civilians.
So you're conservative then?
lol. Nice.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyMy bad. What I meant to say was I get my views from my pessimistic version of common sense (which some will view as skewed, and others as outright wrong):
I said: I like to kill babies
Translation: I support abortion in virtually all cases where the mother is under the age of 18, or if they are deemed to be incapable of providing a stable home.
I said: I support the killing of woman, children and other civilians
Translation: When we are at war, I don't give a shit who gets collaterally damaged by our air strikes. Every Air Strike that kills a bad guy is one less that can kill one of our ground troops. Civilians are often casualties of war, I just accept that fact. And Women/Children civilians do not mean anything more to me than male adults.
So, do you support abortion because, in your opinion, the young'uns don't have souls?
In my opinion there are no such thing as souls.
Okay. No snappy comeback prepared for THAT answer. :)
I try :)
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyBirth. But I would outlaw abortion past the 2nd Trimester.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyI believe that the choice should be completely up to the woman. If the woman doesn't want the "child" incubating inside of her, then she can choose to terminate it. It is her responsibility to support the "child" should it come to term. So, it is her decision. And before you ask, I think the dads should have some say, but that isn't realistic.
If they could take the "baby" out and absolve the mother of any and all responsibility towards that "baby" as an alternative to termination that would suit as well. And I don't mean carry to term and deliver than give up for adoption with the above, that is already an option.
I am not making judgments on how it should or would "feel" for the prospective parents. I am sure that such a decision is always a very difficult one. But having a child at a young age can radically alter your own life, and the child starts at a disadvantage as well. A child born to two parents in a mature and committed relationship has an advantage over a child conceived in a car on a first and only date.
You can't really see anything in the first ultra sound by the way. The 2nd you can a little though.
Please note the terms "baby" or "child" could have been replaced by "thing" or "parasite", but I felt the sentences went better with the words I chose.
--------------------------------------------------
Civilians are the casualties of war?
So, by your reasoning, if the enemy nukes a country's major military bases and these bases just happen to be close enough to big cities that the fallout kills hundreds of thousands of civilians, in your opinion that's okay (regardless of whose side ends up with the collateral damage)?
Civilians are often casualties of war, that just a basic historical fact.
Yes. It is my belief that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the resulting casualties were both OK.
So if the enemy nuked Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, NY and took out all of New York City, in your book that would be okay too (just applying the same logic you are using here), right?
In my book it would be an unfortunate casualty of war. From their point of view, I imagine it would be OK. From my point of view I would think it sucked and expect out nation to seek revenge.
Yeah, especially since there would be no good reason for them to take out Fort Hamilton. At one point in time I think it was there to guard the harbor of New York, but nowadays I'd guess the harbor doesn't need a base right at the mouth of the harbor in order to get the protection of the US Armed Forces. Besides 9/11 proved they can't do ANYTHING to fend off an air attack, unfortunately.
Perhaps out hypothetical enemy disagrees.
=O
The price of a box of oatmeal now compared to ten years ago. If you buy anything, weigh the contents and see what you paid for.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyDamn. I'm gonna have to weigh my Cheerios and see if I too can have a political transcendental experience like you! :)
The economy and where it's headed.
When I was a younger, family. Nowadays, the issues.
I don't understand this answer. The issues cannot lead you towards a political view. The responses of various groups to certain issues can though.
When I was young I would have said I like McCain just because dad said he does. Today I can say I like Obama because I like his position on keeping jobs in America, his position on illegal immigrants, his position on Medicare, his position on Social Security, his position on health coverage for the uninsured, and these are just a few of the "issues" that affect my choice of Obama over McCain. Capeche?