Any FJingerites with conservative opinions?

[rollmeover]

I found it really odd when I saw people making assumptions that those who are pro-life would also be pro-death penalty.. I was thinking wtf? because to me, that's odd. I'm mostly pro-life and I am very definitely against the death penalty - right from the start you have the chance that an innocent person could be convicted of a crime that he/she didn't commit. That risk right there puts it right off the table as an option, as far as I'm concerned. Anyway yeah .. I had no idea (until further reading) that so many of the fundie pro-life folks were also pro-death penalty. They come at it from a religious sanctity of life angle, so why doesn't that apply to the other end? (and that makes me wonder.. would those same people be against self-chosen euthanasia too? I'm okay with that, as long as the wishes of that individual are being followed -- we don't want people choosing to put down their grandparents. ;)

I have been so saddened by the number of Christians who support the death penalty. I think all humans are worthy of respect, even those who have treated others with no respect at all. I do totally get the very natural instinct to "blot out" those who are guilty of particularly disgusting crimes, but I think we have to rise above that. In the same way, I don't want to punish women who are pregnant and don't want to be, but my own life story and those of some of my loved ones makes me want to stand up for the lives of the unborn. I think both the expectant woman and the unborn deserve respect and compassion. Maybe the pro-life movement in the UK is "gentler" - most of the pro-life people I know are against war and the death penalty and are not hateful to those who support access to abortion or who have had/who provide abortions, and I think it seems very different in America.

[AmyP]

I'm pretty conservative in most of my opinions.

[AmyP]

I'm pretty conservative in most of my opinions.

[formergothardite]

Is the pro-life movement in the UK trying to make abortion illegal or just trying to help women who want to keep the pregnancy be able to do that?

It is impossible to respect a woman while at the same time forcing her to continue a pregnancy against her will.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip)

There is no abortion here. There is pretty equal support for legislating for it and for keeping Ireland abortion free. The pro choice lobby have not been very vocal until recently. Honestly, I am not sure where I stand on it. I have no strong feelings either way. It's still something I'm working out. I probably see it case by case and I find it tricky to form a definite opinion either way. I would not like to see repeat abortions happening because its just so easy. But at the same time, I wouldn't like to see any woman forced to give birth.(snip)

What's easy about it? Why wouldn't you like to see repeat abortions happen? I'm really puzzled why you seem to think that that's an easy call to make. I've never had an abortion, but have helped friends going through theirs, and it was not "so easy". I agree with your sentiments against forced births, but why are repeated abortions such a bad thing to your mind?

[javafriend]

"anyway, I remember thinking "what kind of messed up system punishes the children?"

Ours. Or, at least, we seem to be heading that way.

I am pretty liberal and one thing that really makes me angry is when politicians rant about welfare abuse and people taking advantage of the system. I'm sure there are some people who do abuse the system - although I believe most people use welfare for its intended purpose. If we take away funding from adults in poverty, even those who may be misusing it, their children are the ones who will really suffer. Children can't make their parents get a job, use birth control or stop using drugs. Will taking away assistance teach the parent a lesson? Doubtful - and the cost - more children living in horrendous situations - is far too high. I have yet to hear any politician or political pundit address this issue in any meaningful way.

I work in schools that serve a large number of low income families. I see kids who are doing the best they can but the realities of drug abuse, violence, grinding poverty and poor decision making, create huge hurdles - even to getting to school regularly. There are already too many kids who don't have a safety net. We can't afford to add more.

[smiley mcgee]

With regards to how some (US style) conservatives can be anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment: they genuinely don't see that as a conflict of logic. The unborn babies are seen as innocent life, while the people convicted of crimes are not seen as innocent life. My parents have this viewpoint and consider it an apples-to-oranges argument. If they want to see it that way, fine. That's their right. But I think they shouldn't claim the title pro-life. That just asinine.

I was raised with that point of view and while I'm still working out my beliefs about abortion, I would definitely say that I'm against capital punishment, if only for the reason that I don't think the government should be deciding who dies for what reason. That in itself can be a tough position to figure out since it also applies to healthcare and abortion in some ways.

I would say I'm moderate on guns. We have a rifle and a pistol, keep them properly secured and my husband has extensive training and experience with them. (I know the basics but I don't mess with them.) But I don't think the second amendment guarantees that everyone who wants a gun can have as many as they want. People have to display competence in driving. That should be expected of gun owners also, at the very least.

I grew up fundie lite and would have never dreamed I'd be anything other than über conservative. Now, here I am, a liberal by my family's standards (except they don't know it because I refuse to argue with them), a moderate by most others. I only hope as much can be said for other fundies someday.

[karismanic]

Bolded: QFT

My issue with vouchers and charter schools is the taking of tax payer funds to fund essentially religious or private enterprises. Many charter schools are overseen/managed by private management companies. Many private schools are religious. I do not think the tax payer should fund private or for profit education.. Both vouchers and charter schools drain tax payer money away from the public schools. I don't think defunding the publc school system in the United States is the answer to the the problems found in education.

I've seen a couple charter schools do well (as measured by standardized test scores, parental involvement, friends' opinions) in the places I've lived, so my view on them is probably influenced by those successes. Both had oversight by the local public school system, so I was thinking of those type of partnerships -- not necessarily private, religious-affiliated schools.

I agree these schools look better "on paper" based on their test scores and the type of student they attract -- they are setup for success in many ways. However, I believe giving parents options outside their geographical attendance zone is a good thing. It helps families in under-performing areas (many who can't afford to move to a better school zone) gain access to better schools for their children. It also can lead to greater cultural diversity in schools. It also leads to schools specializing in certain areas -- arts or STEM or vocational training -- to attract students. Having these programs within a school district or through vouchers makes it possible for low-income families to have options other than their local, and possibly failing, school.

I don't pretend to know the answers about diverting tax-payer funds from the public school system to a private and/or religious enterprise. It could -- well, would -- mean less funding for public schools. But I believe financial obstacles are a primary factor in some families being trapped in a failing, public school. Lifting those burdens -- whether through a voucher or a tax credit of some sort -- would eliminate barriers to better education for kids.

Nevertheless, students willing to learn can learn in any environment -- I'm a testament to that, having grown up in poor-quality schools all my life.

edited for typos

[karismanic]

"anyway, I remember thinking "what kind of messed up system punishes the children?"

Ours. Or, at least, we seem to be heading that way.

I am pretty liberal and one thing that really makes me angry is when politicians rant about welfare abuse and people taking advantage of the system. I'm sure there are some people who do abuse the system - although I believe most people use welfare for its intended purpose. If we take away funding from adults in poverty, even those who may be misusing it, their children are the ones who will really suffer. Children can't make their parents get a job, use birth control or stop using drugs. Will taking away assistance teach the parent a lesson? Doubtful - and the cost - more children living in horrendous situations - is far too high. I have yet to hear any politician or political pundit address this issue in any meaningful way.

I work in schools that serve a large number of low income families. I see kids who are doing the best they can but the realities of drug abuse, violence, grinding poverty and poor decision making, create huge hurdles - even to getting to school regularly. There are already too many kids who don't have a safety net. We can't afford to add more.

I haven't thought about welfare reform from the angle of recipients' children before -- thank you for giving me more to consider. :think:

[Tangy Bee]

Sorry folks, but I would like to keep my pistol in purse please. Thank u for your understanding.

[Wolfie]

I've seen a couple charter schools do well (as measured by standardized test scores, parental involvement, friends' opinions) in the places I've lived, so my view on them is probably influenced by those successes. Both had oversight by the local public school system, so I was thinking of those type of partnerships -- not necessarily private, religious-affiliated schools.

High test scores don't mean that it's a "better" school. There is no measurement of how far students have come in a year, and as I said before, they can kick out students that they don't want.

I agree these schools look better "on paper" based on their test scores and the type of student they attract -- they are setup for success in many ways. However, I believe giving parents options outside their geographical attendance zone is a good thing. It helps families in under-performing areas (many who can't afford to move to a better school zone) gain access to better schools for their children. It also can lead to greater cultural diversity in schools. It also leads to schools specializing in certain areas -- arts or STEM or vocational training -- to attract students. Having these programs within a school district or through vouchers makes it possible for low-income families to have options other than their local, and possibly failing, school.

I don't pretend to know the answers about diverting tax-payer funds from the public school system to a private and/or religious enterprise. It could -- well, would -- mean less funding for public schools. But I believe financial obstacles are a primary factor in some families being trapped in a failing, public school. Lifting those burdens -- whether through a voucher or a tax credit of some sort -- would eliminate barriers to better education for kids.

Nevertheless, students willing to learn can learn in any environment -- I'm a testament to that, having grown up in poor-quality schools all my life.

edited for typos

Parents already can get permits to put students into schools outside of their attendence zone- there are transfers available within the district and out of the district, though you have to jump through some hoops in some areas, but other districts will allow any student to go to any school in a district as long as there is room at that school after all the students who want to attend it from the attendance area are given a chance.

[Wolfie]

"anyway, I remember thinking "what kind of messed up system punishes the children?"

Ours. Or, at least, we seem to be heading that way.

I am pretty liberal and one thing that really makes me angry is when politicians rant about welfare abuse and people taking advantage of the system. I'm sure there are some people who do abuse the system - although I believe most people use welfare for its intended purpose. If we take away funding from adults in poverty, even those who may be misusing it, their children are the ones who will really suffer. Children can't make their parents get a job, use birth control or stop using drugs. Will taking away assistance teach the parent a lesson? Doubtful - and the cost - more children living in horrendous situations - is far too high. I have yet to hear any politician or political pundit address this issue in any meaningful way.

I work in schools that serve a large number of low income families. I see kids who are doing the best they can but the realities of drug abuse, violence, grinding poverty and poor decision making, create huge hurdles - even to getting to school regularly. There are already too many kids who don't have a safety net. We can't afford to add more.

As my dad said, who was an appointed politician, who tried to reform welfare in the 1980's, you can't eliminate all fraud without hurting the children in the system. It's a catch 22, because you can only go so far.

[Wolfie]

Sorry folks, but I would like to keep my pistol in purse please. Thank u for your understanding.

You sound like a troll, but really? I don't want pistols in purses, as it's way too easy for a criminal to steal your purse. Or as a friend had a problem with- her jumpy stepmom pulled a gun on her once when she forgot that her stepdaughter was in the house. Her dad actually shot somebody when he was spooked.

[javafriend]

"I don't pretend to know the answers about diverting tax-payer funds from the public school system to a private and/or religious enterprise. It could -- well, would -- mean less funding for public schools. But I believe financial obstacles are a primary factor in some families being trapped in a failing, public school. Lifting those burdens -- whether through a voucher or a tax credit of some sort -- would eliminate barriers to better education for kids."

There is a lot of talk about the importance of education and platitudes about children being our greatest resource. But the reality is that if politicians really meant those things, there would be a great deal more money going into improving public education. And then there would be no need to create charter schools.

[JenniferJuniper]

Sorry folks, but I would like to keep my pistol in purse please. Thank u for your understanding.

Why in ur purse??? How r u gonna get it out when u need to shoot the bad guys? Shouldn't u get a holster?

[lilith]

Snip

There is no abortion here. There is pretty equal support for legislating for it and for keeping Ireland abortion free. The pro choice lobby have not been very vocal until recently. Honestly, I am not sure where I stand on it. I have no strong feelings either way. It's still something I'm working out. I probably see it case by case and I find it tricky to form a definite opinion either way. I would not like to see repeat abortions happening because its just so easy. But at the same time, I wouldn't like to see any woman forced to give birth.

Snip

.

I have had "repeat" abortions. Two, to be exact. I can assure you that neither was an easy thing to do, physically, emotionally or financially, and that the second was just as difficult as the first. Neither were "just so easy".

I personally would love to see abortion easier to access for all women for all reasons. Easy is good regarding bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, in my opinion.

[BravaAmica]

There is no abortion here. There is pretty equal support for legislating for it and for keeping Ireland abortion free. The pro choice lobby have not been very vocal until recently. Honestly, I am not sure where I stand on it. I have no strong feelings either way. It's still something I'm working out. I probably see it case by case and I find it tricky to form a definite opinion either way. I would not like to see repeat abortions happening because its just so easy. But at the same time, I wouldn't like to see any woman forced to give birth.

Snip

.

Choosing to have an abortion is just so easy? :angry-cussingblack: Do you speak from experience? Perhaps you know someone who knows someone who has a cousin that flies to the UK from Ireland every six months for a yet another abortion? Someone over there has thousands of extra Euros a year to spend getting abortions because she can't be arsed to get and use the free birth control?

As someone who chose to have an abortion, I find your opinion that abortion is an "easy option" offensive and ignorant.

[SamuraiKatz]

SamuraiKatz mentioned: "I think that all financial institutions should be heavily regulated. There is no such thing is as 'too big to fail'"

Well, is it just me or does it seem as we dismantled regulation for financial institutions and other large corporations, we forced more regulations on workers and employees? Or am I crazy?

Our employers have forced more regulations upon workers-- out sourcing, moving jobs out of the country, gutted benefits and job security to add to their already large profits... I'm still hoping someone besides Bernie Madoff ends up in prison for his or her criminal decisions...

[Carla Bruni]

I actually voted for Gary Johnson because I live in DC and it didn't matter ;), but most importantly, because his views align almost ideally with mine. Like the OP, I'm pretty "conservative" when it comes to education, and I've seen so many instances of welfare abuse that it's hard for me to reconcile my desire to give everyone a chance with my shock at how some of these chances are being squandered. I believe in providing training over handouts ("smart aid") and don't think healthcare should be totally free (but I firmly believe it's in severe need of reform). That said, I'm hugely pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-immigration, pro-drug liberalization, and pro-gun control.

Also, I don't know if this counts (this might make me more of a leftist instead), but what's up with the Obamacare provision that'll only mandate full insurance coverage for birth control if the method chosen MUST be administered by a doctor? If it must be administered by a doctor, it's by definition something only a doctor can stop administering, which means it's temporary sterilization... so temporary sterilization is the only thing for which you're going to *mandate* 100% coverage in a reform package aimed at supporting low-income citizens? Is that not horrendously morally wrong? :evil:

[BravaAmica]

I actually voted for Gary Johnson because I live in DC and it didn't matter ;), but most importantly, because his views align almost ideally with mine. Like the OP, I'm pretty "conservative" when it comes to education, and I've seen so many instances of welfare abuse that it's hard for me to reconcile my desire to give everyone a chance with my shock at how some of these chances are being squandered. I believe in providing training over handouts ("smart aid") and don't think healthcare should be totally free (but I firmly believe it's in severe need of reform). That said, I'm hugely pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-immigration, pro-drug liberalization, and pro-gun control.

Also, I don't know if this counts (this might make me more of a leftist instead), butwhat's up with the Obamacare provision that'll only mandate full insurance coverage for birth control if the method chosen MUST be administered by a doctor? If it must be administered by a doctor, it's by definition something only a doctor can stop administering, which means it's temporary sterilization... so temporary sterilization is the only thing for which you're going to *mandate* 100% coverage in a reform package aimed at supporting low-income citizens? Is that not horrendously morally wrong? :evil:

That means it covers BCP, IUDs, cervical cap, diaphragm, implant or NuvaRing. That is birth control supplied/administered by a doctor, i.e., a prescription (BCP, NuvaRing), getting fitted for a barrier method (diaphragm, cap) or outpatient surgery (IUD, implant). It does not cover condoms or spermacide (which are available over the counter). The idea that birth control prescribed or administered by a doctor is temporary sterlization sounds rather paranoid since most birth control is already administered by a doctor. How is free birth control morally wrong?!

[wtfrenchtoast]

I'm very, very liberal with one exception: I think English should be made the official language of the U.S. If you cannot read, write, and speak (unless there's a physical issue) standard American English after three years of residence then, sorry, you're going back where you came from. You are free to speak your native tongue in your home, when you're out with your friends, standing in line to vote, whatever. But all signs, gov't. documents, all job applications, every everything will be in English and you will conduct your business in English. Period. Your native tongue will not be accommodated. Also, in that three years, I'm asking for competency, not fluency. Fluency takes more time, but I would expect people to constantly be striving for it.

I think that's complete and utter xenophobic bullshit. The bolded is especially disgusting. I think you forget that this country was built on the backs of immigrants, many who didn't speak "standard American English". There are pockets of the country where concentrations of other ethnic groups live and speak their own languages. They have been there for generations. Like the Dutch or German populations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Cuban population in Florida, or the Asian population in California. I think any businesses in these areas would be smart to have signs and documents and menus or whatever in the predominant language. It's just good business. An immigrant's money isn't worth any less. Not to mention tourism. And what about children who are first generation citizens. Their parents need to be able to read their school paperwork and everything. What are you going to do during your arbitrary three-year period? How are people supposed to even start the citizenship process if they can barely read English? That's ridiculous.

Anyway, in regard to the OP, I am just about as liberal as you can get. I used to claim the "fiscal conservative" label, but then I realized that doesn't really make sense. I think people should be able to marry who they want. I think I and any other woman should be able to have an abortion up to viability, no questions asked. If I could wave a magic wand and make the 2nd Amendment disappear, I would, and gladly. I hate how people bitch about welfare fraud, because at the heart of it, they aren't mad about being cheated. Otherwise they would be complaining about corporate tax fraud and every other kind. It stems from demonization of poor people and the feeling that they're less than, so they don't deserve a decent life. That upsets me, especially coming from conservatives who pretend to be "pro-life". I agree that working hard is important, but then you have posters like someone on the first page of this thread (I forget who), who want people to have to work twice over for their unemployment. People pay into "the system" their whole lives. If someone falls on hard times, they are just taking what they paid for. It's like a government sponsored insurance policy. No one talks about how people who total their cars should volunteer at the dealership to "pay off" a new one. You pay into insurance while hoping that you never need it, but if you do, it's there and you don't have to pay for it again.

[Maggie Mae]

I think that's complete and utter xenophobic bullshit. The bolded is especially disgusting. I think you forget that this country was built on the backs of immigrants, many who didn't speak "standard American English". There are pockets of the country where concentrations of other ethnic groups live and speak their own languages. They have been there for generations. Like the Dutch or German populations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Cuban population in Florida, or the Asian population in California.

I'd like to add that there are people who have been here longer than English speakers. If we want to put forth a national language, how about Yupik or Navajo? We also have native Aleut speakers and inupiaq.

Sorry for the Alaska Centric perspective. I know there are other native languages but I could only think of Navajo and Alaska Native languages. Also Russian, we used to be Russian here. One official language for the US will not work. We are too big and too diverse.

[Coy Koi]

I'm far left on almost every issue, but abortion is a tricky one for me. I used to be really pro-life (like in my teens) but I keep getting more pro-choice as time goes on. However, abortions past about the first trimester just don't sit right with me. I'm undecided on what I think the laws should be, but if someone says they had an abortion at 20 weeks for no medical reason, I just can't help but think WTF.

[Ramona]

I have been so saddened by the number of Christians who support the death penalty. I think all humans are worthy of respect, even those who have treated others with no respect at all. I do totally get the very natural instinct to "blot out" those who are guilty of particularly disgusting crimes, but I think we have to rise above that. In the same way, I don't want to punish women who are pregnant and don't want to be, but my own life story and those of some of my loved ones makes me want to stand up for the lives of the unborn. I think both the expectant woman and the unborn deserve respect and compassion. Maybe the pro-life movement in the UK is "gentler" - most of the pro-life people I know are against war and the death penalty and are not hateful to those who support access to abortion or who have had/who provide abortions, and I think it seems very different in America.

You're touching on the other reasons that I'm against the death penalty there.. I also believe all human life is valuable and I don't believe that we have the right to decide who gets to live and who doesn't. Yes, I make exceptions - if someone is trying to take the life of someone in my family, you're darn right I'm gonna fight back and if that results in the attacking individual's death... well.

Another problem that I have with it (death penalty) is that so many of the people who come into the prisons are coming from a background of abuse, mental illnesses, drug addiction, etc etc... and I see that as a "society problem" - it's OUR problem, all of us... and I can't get behind ending the life of someone who suffered because WE (as a society - as a world, essentially) still have it all buggered up.

And yes, it sounds like a big difference between the way that people on different sides of the issue treat each other... I'm not in the USA (I'm in Canada) but I've seen a lot of the conflict between the "sides" (for lack of a better word) and of course there's conflict here too. It seems that human beings have a great deal of difficulty being in conflict without cruelty. You can be against abortions without bombing clinics and shoving posters of (usually fake) aborted babies in people's faces. Y'know?

[Miss T]

Me too. I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative. My partner is a liberal party member, and if I wasn't already in a relationship I would love to marry Malcolm Turnbull and have his babies. But I've just got home from dinner and cocktails, and an probably revealing more than anyone wants to know....

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool ALP voter with a strong streak of Green protest voting and I would be all over Malcolm Turnbull too! I would seriously consider voting for him (and it would be for him, not the Coalition) if he were leader of the party.