How would you rate this?

This is merely a request for opinions, mostly from conservatives. I consider myself a centrist for the most part, so, while I have opinions of my own, I'd like to get some feedback from some people who consider themselves to be on the right -- to any degree, whether moderate or extreme.

Anyway, I was having some conversations with an ex of mine and her long-term boyfriend. They consider me a radical liberal and consider themselves to be moderate conservatives. What I'd like to know is, do you consider the following list of positions, coming directly from these conversations, to be ones of the moderate, average, or extreme right?

1. Birth control should be abstinence-only.
2. Businesses should be allowed to refuse any and all services to any or all customers at their sole discretion. (Note: in this case, "businesses" includes hospitals and emergency medical services.)
3. We should have never left Iraq after the first Gulf War, and if we had continued to occupy it we would not be in our current situation. The best policy to deal with Afghanistan is to "turn it into a sheet of glass."
4. People on welfare are overwhelmingly minorities, and most people on public assistance are both lazy and exploiting the system for financial gain -- usually by having more kids. Most people on welfare are, in the majority, criminals.
5. America should withdraw from all foreign involvements, including diplomatic ones. Complete isolationism is the best policy.
6. Fox News is the only unbiased source of news information and is the only journalistic outlet that provides equal time and representation to both sides. This is especially evident given the representation present on Hannity & Colmes.
7. All systems, with the possible exception of the educational system, should be privatized. Privatized systems are always more efficient than governmental ones.
8. Long-term abuses of power and centralization of capital are impossible in a free market. Market dynamics will always correct them.
9. Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons, had an active nuclear weapons program and active cooperative ties with al-Qaeda. The assertion that the Niger "yellowcake" documents were forgeries is debatable.
10. "Partial-birth abortions" have no medical use and should be unilaterally banned.
11. There is no justification for choosing abortion over adoption, including in cases of incest.
12. Although there are problems with the USA PATRIOT Act, the war on terror presents us with a new type of enemy and legislation of this type is both necessary and unavoidable.
13. Anyone who did in Vietnam what Kerry did there is a psycho and should not be allowed to hold public office.

Like I wrote, I'm not writing this to ridicule these positions. I'd simply like to know what other conservatives or centrists think of them, and whether they represent -- as these two assert -- the conservative position. If not, why not? To what degree would you consider them extreme, if you consider them extreme at all?

Edit: feel free to reply in my journal or by using the contact function in my profile. I don't want to turn this into a shitstorm, I'm just looking for feedback. Honestly.

[Added the clarification to #2.]


[Edited on Nov 18, 2004 by Infra]

*backs slowly out of thread*

ah... you know, this is what the american majority believes. this is america in 2004. most of it disgusts me, but hey, i'm the minority.

with friends like that, who needs enemies?

"FAIR AND BALANCED"
"WE REPORT, YOU DECIDE"

LOLZ

Well, the reason that I'm asking this is that my ex went through a lot of changes after she started dating this guy. One of them was that she started adopting positions like these. I feel that it's my obligation to her, as a friend, to bring up any objections that I have, but I know from prior experience that any criticisms I raise will be dismissed due to my "obvious" position as a bleeding-heart socialist. I'm seriously reconsidering my friendship with her given the views she's developed, especially the one about people on welfare, considering that I'm on disability... but I want to make sure that I've given it enough consideration.

So I thought that some independent views would be in order, just to try and balance things out.


[Edited on Nov 18, 2004 by Infra]

Ok. I'll bite. But mind that I'm a pretty moderate conservative...

1. Birth control should be abstinence-only.

Eh? That's kinda silly. No. And we should have better sex ed. Note: that doesn't mean more graphic, it means realistic. Ie. we don't need to show porn (like they did at one sex ed class here in Colorado), but there should be an idea of how things work.

2. Businesses should be allowed to refuse any and all services to any or all customers at their sole discretion.

I agree.

3. We should have never left Iraq after the first Gulf War, and if we had continued to occupy it we would not be in our current situation. The best policy to deal with Afghanistan is to "turn it into a sheet of glass."

Hmm. Well. I'd like to have seen the first Gulf War finish in Baghdad; after all, we did leave the Kurds out to dry... But Afghanistan, while in need of much work, has more potential than "a sheet of glass."

4. People on welfare are overwhelmingly minorities, and most people on public assistance are both lazy and exploiting the system for financial gain -- usually by having more kids. Most people on welfare are, in the majority, criminals.

People on welfare are not mostly minorities. But I do believe that many of them are either lazy, exploiting the system, criminals, or all three. There are some people on welfare legitimately. Not many, but some.

5. America should withdraw from all foreign involvements, including diplomatic ones. Complete isolationism is the best policy.

I disagree.

6. Fox News is the only unbiased source of news information and is the only journalistic outlet that provides equal time and representation to both sides. This is especially evident given the representation present on Hannity & Colmes.

Umm. No... Though it's bombastic and loud, that doesn't make it unbiased. I like the AP wire, myself... Note: I do tend to see a liberal bias in my local media (if only because I live in an extremely liberal city).

7. All systems, with the possible exception of the educational system, should be privatized. Privatized systems are always more efficient than governmental ones.

Not all, no. But most should be. The government does tend to be very inefficient.

8. Long-term abuses of power and centralization of capital are impossible in a free market. Market dynamics will always correct them.

No, not impossible. But, in general, they tend to be self-correcting, yes. In this country, we tend to swing back and forth from (middle) extreme to extreme...

9. Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons, had an active nuclear weapons program and active cooperative ties with al-Qaeda. The assertion that the Niger "yellowcake" documents were forgeries is debatable.

Yes, yes, and no. Sure, the documents are debatable. But they didn't look that authentic. The more accurate question would be when Saddam had the weapons programs...

10. "Partial-birth abortions" have no medical use and should be unilaterally banned.

Yes; sorry, I haven't seen any reason why a normal abortion cannot be used.

11. There is no justification for choosing abortion over adoption, including in cases of incest.

I disagree. I'm pro-choice.

12. Although there are problems with the USA PATRIOT Act, the war on terror presents us with a new type of enemy and legislation of this type is both necessary and unavoidable.

That's true. Anyone who has read the 9/11 Commission Report will attest to the gross lack of information sharing and large level of red tape. There are indeed problems with the PATRIOT Act (including its name), but it does give many beneficial powers to law enforcement.

13. Anyone who did in Vietnam what Kerry did there is a psycho and should not be allowed to hold public office.

Eh. War is a different place; witness the threads on Fallujah. I don't think that makes him a "psycho", but I do disagree with the way he acted after his return to the US. That doesn't make him ineligible for anything - I just disagree with him.

I kinda doubt I represent mainstream conservative viewpoints, but I hope that helps.


[Edited on Nov 17, 2004 by slimjim]

Excuse me?

i didn't need to read past 1 to have an answer, but i did anyways (unfortunately). sorry, but your ex is a twit.

That generally is a moderate feeling of things. Most moderates are not even remotely like that. I think everyone has varrying degrees to each topic you presented. Looks to me like one persons opinion and surely not the general conservative beliefs.

Thanks for the detailed reply, slimjim, and yes, it does help.

I'd just like clarification on one answer, tho, if you don't mind.

I should have noted this initially.... The way that this came up was that we were discussing the birth control pill sales issue. They extended this to apply to all prescriptions, including those that were medically necessary. Fully fleshed out, their position was that all businesses -- including hospitals and emergency medical services -- should be allowed to refuse service at any time to anyone for any reason. In sum, what they said is that there is no case in which a business would be performing a public service as opposed to a consumer transaction, and thus there was no reason to prohibit that business from withholding services, regardless of circumstance.

Would you agree that it should be carried to that extent?

1. shouldn't be mandatory, certainly, but if you don't want to run the risk of catching AIDS or babies, then maybe you shouldn't fuck

2. absolutely

3. agree with the first part, not as much with the second

4. it's unfair to paint it as a race issue. however, i do feel that the overwhelming majority of people; white, black or chinese, just don't want to work. which sucks

5. most, not all

6. ?

7. i agree. nefarious, devil-horned corporate greed is a liberal myth

8. i agree

9. i agree

10. if you can prove to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that there are distinct situations in which PBA's are required in order to save a woman's life, then i say go for it. otherwise, no way. what the fuck were you doing the last 9 months that you have to wait until you are on the table to have an abortion? playing dominos?

11. i agree

12. can't answer; never been to war, don't know what it's like

Koenigsegg, I'd ask for the same clarification on #2 if you don't mind. Also, do you consider yourself moderate, mainstream, etc.?

sure. people gotta get paid. boner pills and heart defibrul.. restarters don't come for free.

and i'm an institutional conservative

i'm not even remotely ccnservative but i wanna take a shot at this.

this would mean an er room could refuse treatment to someone based on their race, sexuality, or political beliefs.

also, why is it that in some conservatives minds it's ok to prevent an -individual- from 'sinning' (ie, abortion, birth control, welfare 'laziness' but as soon as you try to stop a business from certain actions it's unnecessary social control? related to that, but a slightly different question: why do consertatives assume businesses are fine without regulation yet the individual isn't?

this is even stranger when you consider that 'business' has a history of abusing labor and the environment with or without regulation.

the "sheet of glass" quote should be enough to tell you the person you're talking to is dangerously out of touch. i can only take that to mean they are advocating the use of nuclear weaponry. the loss of innocent life would be bad enough, but i suppose someone particularly deadened to such things could ignore that... but the environmental damage would be felt worldwide and the resultant backlash of world opinion would be irreparable... making anyone advocating such a tactic either lying to seem 'tougher' (cough) than they are or moronic.

racist and classist bullshit.

military involvement, yea.

anyone who believes unbiased news can exist needs a wakeup call. news, by the very fact that it is being reported, is necessarily being filtered. if said 'filter' is a corporation, the military (embedded reporters), and television (a many to one medium which requires a high level of entry) there is simply no way for the news not to be biased. anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to kill their television for a few years. hell, so do the people who agree.

more efficient at... making money.
making money has no direct bearing on quality of work.

privatized prisons = the reintroduction of slave labor into our culture under a new, safer name.

little green monkeys live in my nose and make me fart poetic brilliance.

chem = yea, we sold it to him.
nuclear = don't know about him, but i seem to remember we're pretty dangerous with the stuff.
yellowcake = because, you know, the liberal cia was lying.

if they had no medical use they wouldn't be performed and this would be a non-issue.

how these people advocate war in the next breath is beyond me.

do you ever wonder if some people actually think 1984 is a utopian vision?
is it really oppression when the people are clamoring for it?

psycho? nah. but yea, i'm not really down with putting people who have killed other people into public office, but what do i know?

WE DISTORT, YOU ABIDE!

1. Birth control should be abstinence-only.

false

2. Businesses should be allowed to refuse any and all services to any or all customers at their sole discretion. (Note: in this case, "businesses" includes hospitals and emergency medical services.)

certainly not in the case of hospitals and such.

3. We should have never left Iraq after the first Gulf War, and if we had continued to occupy it we would not be in our current situation. The best policy to deal with Afghanistan is to "turn it into a sheet of glass."

it was pretty fucked up to destroy half of iraq then leave tham to their own devices. and afgahniston into a sheet of glass? bad idea. ending the existance of an opposing nation is not winning a war.

4. People on welfare are overwhelmingly minorities, and most people on public assistance are both lazy and exploiting the system for financial gain -- usually by having more kids. Most people on welfare are, in the majority, criminals.

common stereotypes, but i don't buy them. i'm think the stereotypes started somewhere, though. i doubt someone just pulled them out of their ass one day.

5. America should withdraw from all foreign involvements, including diplomatic ones. Complete isolationism is the best policy.

and this would accomplish what, exactly? staying out of iraq for 10 years but still lobbing missiles at them is one of the reasons terrorists hate us.

6. Fox News is the only unbiased source of news information and is the only journalistic outlet that provides equal time and representation to both sides. This is especially evident given the representation present on Hannity & Colmes.

i don't think there are any unbiased news sources

7. All systems, with the possible exception of the educational system, should be privatized. Privatized systems are always more efficient than governmental ones.

the first part, no. the second part seems true from what i've seen.

8. Long-term abuses of power and centralization of capital are impossible in a free market. Market dynamics will always correct them.

as long as there is power there will be ways to abuse it

9. Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons, had an active nuclear weapons program and active cooperative ties with al-Qaeda. The assertion that the Niger "yellowcake" documents were forgeries is debatable.

saddam most likely had chem. weapons..... probably in syria or something now. if 380 tons of conventional explosive can disappear in a matter of a few days, i'm sure that chem. weapons can, too.

10. "Partial-birth abortions" have no medical use and should be unilaterally banned.

i am not familiar enough with this operation, and thus would leave it to doctors to decide if it has any use.

11. There is no justification for choosing abortion over adoption, including in cases of incest.

in cases of incest or rape, abortion seems a good choice to me.

12. Although there are problems with the USA PATRIOT Act, the war on terror presents us with a new type of enemy and legislation of this type is both necessary and unavoidable.

never read the patriot act

13. Anyone who did in Vietnam what Kerry did there is a psycho and should not be allowed to hold public office.

i had my own reasons to vote against kerry, this was not one of them. though i can see why people would feel this way.
i admit, though, that i know very little about kerry's vietnam record





[Edited on Nov 18, 2004 by somegrunt]

I'll play devil's advocate here, since I addressed some of these same objections. My responses here are the ones that they gave (not word-for-word quotes, but the substance is the same).

There's nothing wrong with that. At worst, there are always other places they can go. At best, this creates a demand that new companies will fill.

Maybe not nukes, but aggressive and comprehensive military dominance. Casualties would never reach the level that they did under people like Saddam Hussein. Even if they did, that's war. Collateral damage is to be expected.

Take a look around. That's what you'll see: minorities at the welfare office, especially asians here in La Crosse. That's what we see, anyway. Even if they aren't the majority here, they're the majority nationwide.

Liberals have a stranglehold on all major media outlets; take a look at who owns them. Fox may be owned by conservatives, but it doesn't show up in their programming. That's not the case with the liberal media. You rarely see both sides represented on networks like CNN. Even if the news is always biased, Fox is as even-handed as you're going to get.

We haven't followed those issues; we don't have time to follow the news that much. At any rate, privatized systems are more accountable to the public than government ones. Lobbying for changes takes too long and is almost always futile.

Again, we don't have time to follow the news that much. But when we went into Iraq, the weapons were there. They were smuggled out, probably to al-Qaeda, which is why we couldn't find them. If you were Saddam Hussein, wouldn't you do that? It's virtually guaranteed that they'd use them on the U.S. before they used them on Iraq, so you'd have nothing to lose.

It's also well-known that there are tunnel systems in the areas where the WMDs were located, so they were probably gone by the time our troops got in. The simple fact is that they were there.

They're an elective procedure. There's no medical reason for them.

Only a psycho wouldn't abide by the rules of war at all times. To kill someone in cold blood or raze a village you'd need to be insane, and why would anyone want a psychopath in any government position?

(None of these responses are exaggerated. This is what they said, to the best that I can recall.)

Thanks for the reply, somegrunt. In regard to this:

I just wanted to add that this is one of the things that I looked into over the last several days, and I thought you might be interested in the history. As far as I could find, this particular stereotype started in the 40s with the migration of African-Americans to the northern states and developed further during backlash to the civil rights movements in the 60s, but the actual "welfare queen" image and term was first coined in Reagan's 1976 campaign. It was based on the story of a woman named Dorothy Woods, one of the most notable welfare abusers who later became a proponent of welfare reform. It was later reinforced by Star Parker, another former welfare abuser and later (self-described) born-again reform advocate, in her book Pimps, Whores and Welfare Brats : From Welfare Cheat to Conservative Messenger.

After that it seemed to die out. Even the term "welfare queen" isn't used very much anymore AFAIK.


[Edited on Nov 18, 2004 by Infra]

noted.

an ER room is by defintion for emergencies. being turned away from one may result in death.

the behavior this allows [not just with ER rooms, but with pretty much anything] is in conflict with the 'deeply moral' stance your friends take on other issues.

death is to be expected too, but that doesn't mean we jump off cliffs.

having this argument with your friend is pointless. i would take a hardline approach with them and focus on the death of innocents issue. you likely won't change any minds during the course of the argument, but something you say might kick in a month or year later.

but really, i suppose i would ask a simple question: why? why do we need to dominate afghanistan?

this has been covered in other threads. your friend's boyfriend is racist.

the military industrial complex is liberal?

then why does such a large % of the population consider them ridiculously conservative?

there are more than two sides. the real 'left' is -never- presented on mainstream media. yes, television tends towards being socially liberal for a number of reasons... but in terms of economic and political coverage, they have a vested interest in putting forth pro-war, pro-corporate agenda.

We haven't followed those issues; we don't have time to follow the news that much. At any rate, privatized systems are more accountable to the public than government ones. Lobbying for changes takes too long and is almost always futile.


how many major corporate scandals (enron, etc) must the people suffer through? how are they held "more" accountable?

and if an important (ie, vital to our health as a people) company goes out of business for some reason, what happens?

this is all covered in many other threads...

how is it fact if there is no proof, and even -our- inspectors don't believe it is? do you have insider knowledge? or are you just making up facts to defend your worldview?

i had to delete the rest. not worth responding to.

i wouldn't be friends with these people. i would call them on the racism and classism embedded in their beliefs, call them on the crass conflict between their moralizing on abortion issues while defending mass slaugther (sheet of glass?!), and tell them when and if they decide to rejoin humanity i'll be willing to be their friends again. but until then, i'd walk away.

Oh. Umm. You know, I'd never really thought of hospitals in that context - as a business able to refuse customers (though I don't know why I haven't thought of it, with all this HMO shouting going on...).

No, I don't think it should be carried to that extent; there must be a basic level of social services. Thanks for asking for clarification.

How about if they start refusing service to blacks?

Planned parenthood have some information about why an abortion might be needed after the first trimester:

factsheet

Important to note the actual numbers of d&x performed are very low.

[Edited on Nov 18, 2004 by demetrius_z]

Hmm. No, I don't agree with that. But I do see a need to be able to refuse a service to an individual.

I may have missed it, but I glanced around on that fact sheet and several of the others and I didn't see "partial birth" abortions mentioned anywhere. Perhaps it's called something else? I looked under the "Surgical Abortions" section, but I didn't see anything.

At any rate, as you noted, the numbers of abortions after the 1st trimester are very low. But - the main cause appeared to be inconvience. I dunno. It's a very important decision to make and I understand it can take time, but months on end? My understanding was that Partial Birth abortions were 3rd trimester; perhaps I'm wrong?

Another (unrelated) "fact" that was on the Planned Parenthood site was that only a small percentage of women are depressed after an abortion. That may be true, but it doesn't match with my expierence. Most of my friends who have had abortion have some sort of depression. Anyone else have ideas about that?

My experience is that it depends on where you draw the line regarding depression. Every woman I've known who's had an abortion has experienced it as a traumatic experience, and there's always been a sense of loss... so in that sense I'd say that everyone I've known has had some kind of depression after an abortion. If we're talking about long-term or clinical depression, tho, I can't think of a case involving anyone I know where that's happened.

IME... grief is common, as is an "I never want to have to go through that again" kind of feeling, but depression isn't.

That's more what I meant, vice the clinical depression. So I suppose the statistics are on clinical depression.