Andy

What is the relationship between the pro-life and pro-death penalty and pro-war platforms? How do you feel the possibility of wrongful convictions impacts your beliefs on the death penalty, particularly as it pertains to the sanctity of life?

One is not necessarily related to another.

1) a.Pro-Life - an fetus, embryo, or blastocyst is a human life and deserves to be treated as such, it's mere inconvenient existance shouldn't be cause for destruction. In that there is no doubt in the innocence of an unborn child, rational human beings should protect such life, because it, in and of itself, is precious. How depraved are we as a culture when we assign value or worth to a human based based upon how a person, or large group, subjectively feels about another? (Yes, IVF is out there, and to me, it ranks up there with selfish and expensive things people do, while never considering the thousands of children remaining in foster homes. The birthright organizations do a good job of unexpected pregnancy support, and other organzations do a great job placing adoptions.)

b.As unrelated as it is, what kind of culture are we if the most heinus crime of murder is not worthy of the most harsh penalty of death? Had the VT shooter lived, would it truly be just to allow him to live out his days, even if deprived of his freedom?

Granted, it is understandable to be against the death penalty as certain kinds of executions are deemed not swift enough, and more painful that necessary, and the addage that it is better to let 1,000 guilty go free than 1 innocent man be wrongly imprisioned/executed holds true.

Keep in mind that the appeals process for a death penalty conviction is immense and can be drawn out for decades - all at government expense if need be and often is to ensure that we are a society that does not wrongly kill the innocent.

In fact, there are non-profit organizations whose sole mission is to exonerate the innocent - death penalty and otherwise.

Key point here between pro-death and pro-life is guilt and innocence.

Being opposed to the death penalty is understandable - it's easy to support if the assumption that every death sentence carried out is 100% accurate in guilt. So few executions occur now, that I think it approches more now than in any other era.

c.I doubt anyone is ever really pro-war as you simply put it. The question as it stands now is not whether the intelligence was confirmed by several different nations, or not - we are there. Right now it's a matter of following through. It's downright irresponsible to de-stabilize a nation's goverment and leave them to fend for themselves. It is now a matter of follow-through. As far as sanctitiy of life - considering the number of mass graves that have been unearthed, the smuggled videos of mass executions in a football fields, I do not doubt that lives have been saved, but won't disagree that many have been disrupted.

The inefficiency of government drives many conservative policies. When you oppose a government plan to aid a large group of disadvantaged people, how do you believe that those people should or will get the help they need? This question assumes that the people in question are universally agreed to be disadvantaged in some way.

2) Sheesh, your hypothetical question makes it sound like conservatives hate disadvantaged people. In terms of tax cuts to benefit disadvanged people - we're all for it. In honesty, the belief is the best way to help people is to allow them to be the masters of their own fate by keeping what they have earned. Actually, I can recommend a good book that goes into the minutia of the argument that you're looking for.

The question of that help for the disadvantaged is all about the outcome - will this help foster independence and self-reliance or foster dependance? Will this help foster individual freedom or limit choice? Will this help unencumber the individual from the government or enslave and obligate the individual to it (and the bill's sponsors and supports) with far fewer choice than they had on their own? Is this help going to result in more goverment for government's sake looking out for goverment's best interests? What is will the individual really be surrendering of themselves to receive this help?

I would much favor the government giving a grant to an organization that is set up and has proven that it can give the kind of help these disadvantaged need, rather create more government to do it, private non profit organizations are well scrutinized, have far fewer administrative costs, and in many cases have much more oversight than the goverment and has no interest in perpetuating itself for the sake of power.
(I think I'm strolling into libertarian territory so I'll stop now.)

What is the basis for your strong support of the 2nd amendment and how do you explain your opposition to the "assault weapons ban"? Why do you feel this terminology is inappropriate?

3) 2nd amendment - a person must be able to defend oneself, one's family, and one's country...here's the kicker - and if our own government goes awry - we must be able to defend ourselves against it. Illegal guns aren't going away - taking away all legal ones won't help the situation - see crime rate in DC that has the most stringent gun laws around.

If you know anything about assault weapons, the only difference between an assault weapon and a normal weapon is purely cosmetic - certain grips and attachments and such - none of which either improve or hamper the function of the gun itself. So, why bother banning something if what you're banning is just for show - then the legislation is just for show, too.
What is it that makes John McCain so loathsome to the conservative base?

John McCain - as a legislator - is not a pleasant fellow and is known to be rather hot-headed (Anyone who would wrestle with old Strom Thurman is more worrisome than GWB internationally), and his treatment of his peers (name-calling on the floor) and his staff is less than what I'd want for a President. McCain-Feingold was a piece of a number between 1 and 3 - that accomplished nothing it intended and very may well violate the first amendment in some sections. His amnesty plan was ill-conceived and unpopular to most of his constituants. Every politician that wants amnesty is specifically hoping to pull it off before 2010 and the next census when the congressional districts get redrawn. Whichever party's name is on it will presumably get the new now-legal (formerly-illegal) immigrant vote which, by all accounts, is enough to tip the scales of power for the next decade.

...now lemme read the rest of your post.

Gun Control . . .

Everybody knows that criminals always find ways to beat the system. Drug dealing, dog fighting, gun wielding . . . if there is a way around the law, a criminal will find it. Cities like Baltimore, Detroit and NY are synonymous with crime. Why? One word . . . POVERTY. Here is the real problem: GLORIFIED POVERTY. Today populations embrace and even flaunt their "ghetto / gangster" way of life. We live in a world where pop-culture endorses irresponsibility and disrespect. Rap "musicians" are hailed as kings among inner-city youth. These "artists" preach about shooting cops, getting high & "banging hos". And so, it is no wonder we have a violence problem in our inner-cities. Will restrictions on semi-automatics stop this problem? Probably not. But apply this restriction to other parts of the country where underground dealing is not so prevalent and we may just have something! Picture a midwestern suburban kid fed up with being an outcast at school. The story is all too familiar. That being said, why shouldn't the government endorse such restrictions? Besides, do people really need an assault weapon to defend their houses. I certainly hope not. Wouldn't dad's good ol' shot gun do just fine?

It would be great to live in a world where everybody was a responsible individual. Unfortunately, people have proven themselves incapable of using better judgement. I have and will continue to care for patients who have taken a bullet to the head and consider it a "rite of passage". Since the government cannot mandate or regulate common sense, perhaps it should do its best at limiting the amount of stupid options people have available to them. Semi-assault weapons included.

Andy,

Awesome post! I've thought about some of the exact same political contradictions. I look forward to seeing what other people have to say.

My answer to all your questions is this: we are human. There is no black and white answer.

Politics can be, and has been over thousands of years, a dangerous alchemy of self-serving beliefs, religious influence and a true, root desire to make the world a better place. We can see examples of this dangerous mix in wars around the globe over time: Alexander the Great's wars, Hitler's "Final Solution" and the battle for the West Bank.

In each instance, each side believed they were right (in many cases despite hard data to support that we are wrong...like claiming the difference between an assault weapon and a legal weapon is 'cosmetic'). American conflict, though political, is no different. The issues Americans face today are not exempt from the naive belief that, no matter your party affiliation, YOU are right.

So, with a broad brush, you ask presumptuous questions that, for one random example, assume all conservatives draw a relationship between the pro-life stance, pro-death penalty and pro-war platforms?

The truth, without appearing cowardice in not answering these questions directly, is that each issue -- in some way -- begets the other. Often times, without a direct obvious connection. Like:

-Taxes should not be raised to help the poor because 'we should all be held accountable for our actions.'

or,

-Smaller government allows small business to better enjoy the fruits of their labor without the need for regulatory oversight.

What is lost in these seemingly logical arguments is the pervasive influence of humanity. The unfortunate truth in life is that for every good act, there is always a bad (often times unintentional).

And because were are human, and because our parents make mistakes, and because we make mistakes, not every American child starts the game of life at the same place collecting $200. We must be smart and selfless to recognize that others need help in areas that we, who are privileged, may not.

One of your earlier posts -- I'm not sure if the person was being sarcastic and having fun with you -- attempted to conclude that a couple unable to conceive a child is irrational and downright selfish to attempt in vetro fertilization because they chose not to attempt to adopt from an orphanage. In the same breath, they argue that, while each life is 'precious' from embryo to deathbed, killing a criminal is 'okay,' so long as they are guilty.

This is nothing short of religious influence, where the church pronounces that life begins at conception and should not be aborted. But if you take the life of another, it's 'an eye for an eye,' so let's end his life for him.

It's these 'my God is better than your God' arguments that our founding fathers knew would erode the foundation of the new American government, just as they have other governments throughout the course of history. It's why they wrote into the Constitution the need to separate church and state.

The issues in modern America represent the slow blending of religious beliefs into our government to such a degree that, for example, we have chosen to retard scientific research by claiming that stem cells are also people so we're all murderers if we use them. We have cultures that are pro-life but anti-birth control because they believe that wearing a condom is playing God. Yet, those same people are all for the death penalty, as if that's a less obvious way of playing God.

In the end, the answer to your questions are that we are humans, dependent on the approval and validation of groups that share our common, fundamental beliefs. When the political game clock starts and a strong leader emerges, we buy into their dogmas, regardless of how illogical or counter to our core self they are. We do this because they validate what we believe is right, because they want the best for the most important person in the country: me.

I'm not going to get into this too much until more people have chimed in or finished their posts, but the reason I ask these questions is that the parties themselves are very rigid on supporting the very specific issues I put forth, and I find that most individuals I know tend to agree with their respective parties on these issues. It isn't universally true, but that isn't the point of this post. These questions are supposed to bother you a bit, with the intent being that you can clarify why that is for the other side to see.

AO, while it is true that the current Republican stance on the war is about following through, isn't it a bit of a cop-out to remove all of the history from the argument? There are reasons behind the war for good or ill that appeal to the sensibilities of conservatives. What I'm asking is how it all ties together, because I know many liberals do not understand this at all. National security is or was one of them, but I feel like this misses the mark in terms of accurately explaining this relationship. I hope that makes sense.

Chris, AO's innocence vs. guilt explanation for that particular question has less to do with religion and more to do with innocence or guilt. It isn't very fair to attack that position without providing any position if your own, or any rationale for how the concepts of innocence or guilt are based strictly on religion. I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, but more information is needed. If it is inappropriate to take the political stances on which you disagree here specifically, how does someone of a religious persuasion address the issues they care about? Where is the line separating appropriate from inappropriate political involvement? How is it different for an evangelical Christian in America to lobby for something they believe in as opposed any other individual that forms an ideology based on other experiences and sources?

For both of you, can you provide a specific example for why you are right on assault weapons? More to the point, is there a general type or purpose for guns in this country upon which you could both agree?

I actually feel we have reached a reasonable consensus nationally on the stem cell issue. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe there has been any legislation considered to actually outlaw embryonic stem cell research. The only issue at present is whether or not the government has a role in funding it. Does this not provide pro-lifers with some peace of mind while still allowing embryonic stem-cell research advocates plenty of leeway to make it a reality via donations and private institutions? I doubt either side is particularly happy with this arrangement, but to my mind this is where we generally need to be on the most divisive issues we face as a nation.

I'm looking forward to seeing more feedback.

First off, I really want to say that Chris's comment was so so well written.

I'm going to make this short because I'm tired and busy but I wanted to add my two cents on the abortion vs. death penalty issue:

I don't see the two as interrelated really. A lot of people like to bring the two issues up in tandem, but I truly don't see the baby (and I did use the word baby intentionally) as an independent being until it is out of a mother's body. When it is inside of the mother, it is as much of a part of her as a kidney, a lung, or another organ that you wouldn't naturally want to rip out-- unless it were absolutely necessary. Now who decides what is necessary? I don't feel comfortable with a doctor or a government deciding what is necessary for my body as a woman. I am in no way an advocate of abortion; I don't believe such a decision should be taken lightly or be abused as birth control. I'm not too sure how much the average woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant would really consider abortion as a viable means of birth control, since it's actually pretty expensive and the side effects can be traumatic. There will always be some nutjobs who abuse any freedom, but I argue the world is better off without their spawn anyways... My point is, most of us women aren't going around thinking warm and fuzzy thoughts about abortion (what do you want to do today, Sally? I think I'll go get an abortion!) No. Us pro-choicers are not all a bunch of baby-hating family- destroying bra-burners (okay, maybe some of us are?) This one just believes that if faced with a very serious dilemma, a woman should have options about what to do with her body. I stress "her body" because a lot of people seem to ignore the fact that the baby is actually within the woman's body, you know, in her domain. Also, I want to stress that if we shifted the focus to providing the public with more contraception awareness, such as advocating emergency contraception, less abortions would need to occur at all. Studies have actually proven that there's a correlation between a decline in abortion rates with an increase in use of emergency contraception.
I think we need to focus more on levelling out the burden of reproduction on women-- for example, what about efforts to make the Pill for men? what about strengthening deadbeat dad laws, making the choice to have a baby more economically feasible for women?

I think I can agree with those of you who believe that abortion is not a good thing. I'm not going to mince words and call a fetus inhuman or not alive or anything like that (except that before those cells actually have a nervous system, the baby won't have any kind of consciousness). I think I can agree that abortion is not the ideal-- but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.

And the death penalty... well there's a whole 'nother can of worms that I'm not going into tonight. Just suffice to say that those people convicted are adults that are clearly outside of another person's body. I could be pro-death penalty were the justice system not flawed and it was proven to be effective in deterring crime. Give me those two factors and then we can talk.

Some interesting thoughts here. Eloquent and thoughtful. As the particular form of mania I exhibit tends to land me on many sides of an issue, I'll answer the best I can.

1. a) Pro choice all the way. so I'll answer from that side. I believe that the human body is the domain of the person living in it. Having faced the decision to abort with my (now) wife, I can tell you first hand that it was one of the hardest decisions of our lives. As far as I'm concerned, an unexpected growth in your body is yours to do with as you please. You can let it grow and see what comes of it, or you can have it removed. Had we let the cluster of cells form and become a human, I would not have been able to put the child up for adoption. As a side not here, let me just say that euthanasia should be legal as well. People should have sole domain over their own bodies when it does not affect anyone else. And no, a cluster of cells that is completely dependent on its host is a parasite, not "someone else".

b) I'm not anti-death penalty, though. AO has the right idea here. (though you may want to check out some of the DNA evidence trials and see how hard these groups are trying to exonerate people who are truly innocent in states where they have been pre-judged and left to hang) I think if you are an admitted, remorseless, individual who has killed without a DAMN good reason then you should be put to death. You are a detriment to society and should be removed from the gene pool. The Malvos (the DC Snipers) are a good example of this.

c) War is too important to be left in the hands of politicians, and war is too important to be left in the hands of generals. I agree we've done something good. But we should have stayed and finished our job in Afghanistan before moving for "regime change" in Iraq. Lack of foresight has caused our current situation. Now instead of a firm foothold in otherwise non-hospitable territory, we are looking at more hatred from many countries ()some of whom liked us beforehand) and an abominable mess that will take decades to clean up whether we are there or not. I'm not anti-war, I would have been a soldier myself if they'd have let me, but I AM anti-bad strategy. This particular morass has been FULL of bad strategy and it stinks of greed and double dealing.

2. I'm liberal with conservative overtones here. People need healthcare and it is unaffordable. Get a plan in place that allows everyone to be able to see a doctor in a decent amount of time and get people the care they need to survive without having to go into insane amounts of debt or forgoing necessities such as shelter or food. Couple this with severe tort reform so that our doctors, surgeons and other medical professionals aren't spending half their income on malpractice insurance due to ridiculous claims. Put healthcare decisions back in the hands of patients and caregivers, criminalize insurance companies that are detrimental to care, and make them unable to refuse to cover someone for ANY reason at a truly reasonable price (I'm talking 5% of patient income, MAX). As for other programs, I'm a lot more conservative. Where I do believe that people need social security and welfare, these things need to be better regulated. No getting on welfare and having more babies. Abort or give them up for adoption, but welfare should be there to help get you back on your feet. Social security should TOTALLY be invested in private markets. It is about the only thing that "W" put out there that made me think he had a brain cell in his body.

3. Full nutjob on this one I'm afraid. People need access to (and EDUCATION on) weapons. All kinds of weapons. Assault weapons, hand grenades, etc. Wanna learn how to drive a tank? Sweet, step up and let the army show you. We are a nation founded on being able to stand up for ourselves. Hard to do that when only one side has the guns. Criminals will get guns, it's as easy as that. I want a criminal to know that if they are trying to take something from me, that I more than likely have at least a pistol and know how to use it. I want open carry laws in all 50 states. If (goodness forbid) someone decided that they want to take over this country (from outside OR inside,) I want them to know that our population has the tools it needs to at least give them a good fight. When people are comfortable with firearms and know how to use them, they become less afraid of them.

4. There was a time when I actually wanted John McCain to become the next president of the united States. That time has long passed since he showed his true colors as a puppet of the republican party.

5. Liberal here I think. Companies and corporations are NOT people. They are money-fueled entities. They will take every opportunity they can to short change the individual and curtail their freedom of choice to benefit the few a tthe top of the chain. This is why they need some form of regulation. Individuals should be free to do whatever they want as long as they do not interfere with the equal rights of others. That is how innovation happens.

Liberal questions:

2. the evangelical movement as far as I can see is all about forcing its ideas onto people with little to no regard for personal preference. Anything that preaches loss of individuality and one belief in one humanoid and judging god really needs to be not part of an organization that is in charge of how people live their daily lives. Brick walls built of air that are unassailable because of a 1,954 year old book, premeditated ignorance of scientific evidence, and the inability to adapt to modern thought are ALL very good reasons to keep them out of our government. Sing God's praises (whatever that is to you) but don't think for a minute that my idea of a god is anything like your idea of it.

3. This adds a dimension to my earlier answer. Goverments are supposed to be elected by the populace. That gives them a vested interest in doing what the population wants them to do. Their power, their money, everything that a government is is held at the behest of the people. This is all in an ideal, world of course. Whereas companies are fed by money, governments are fed by individuals. The more individuals agree with a government, the better for it. I actually would love to be able to dissolve all political parties so that people REALLY had to decide who to vote for and why.

4. I just don't like the guy because he's with Hillary on the violence in media issue. Freedom of expression is just that. FREEDOM.

Conservatives and Liberals:
1. I think I've answered this as well as I can in previous answers.

2. Charities are great for SPECIFIC things. Governments should focus on the infrastructure to get these charities to the people they can best serve.

3. The ACLU is a great organization. I may not agree with them on everything, but I've been impressed with them so far.

4. Don't think they should. See my opinion on political parties above. I vote for an individual, or at worst the lesser of 2 evils.

5. Abdication of executive power, healthcare, individual freedom, trust in the people.

Alright, I think that's plenty. Interesting discussion and I think I need to go back and respond to some of the other posts. Perhaps later.

First, some disambiguation on Assualt Weapons: I think what many of you are missing here is the difference between the MILITARY usage for the term which refers to weapons designed for and used in assault operations, and the LEGISLATIVE term which refers to some semi-automatic pistols with specific grips and other accessories and many automatic assault rifles (different, well defined term). Banning "assault weapons" sounds alot more proactive than banning "some pistols" and alot of politicians hide behind that.

“what about strengthening deadbeat dad laws, making the choice to have a baby more economically feasible for women?”

I was with you up to this point, Heather. If one part of the couple wants to have an abortion and the other does not, things need to be a little different. The woman should always have the right to TERMINATE the pregnancy with no adverse effect, since, as I said, it IS her body and the man can, at that point, just decide to move on from the relationship. If the woman WANTS the child and the man does NOT, then there needs to be legal recourse in place for the man to not have to support the child.

“That being said, why shouldn't the government endorse such restrictions? Besides, do people really need an assault weapon to defend their houses? I certainly hope not. Wouldn't dad's good ol' shot gun do just fine?”

Because the government is TECHNICALLY what the second amendment is there to protect us against. Corrupted authority is really what the second amendment is all about. That is why each state is supposed to have its own standing militia. In case the federal government decides to overstep its bounds and try to FORCE something on the states that the elected representatives did not okay by the established rules. You’re supposed to be able to fight on a somewhat even playing field if the unbelievable should ever occur. Also it’s there for us to be trained and able to fight off any other internal or external armed insurgency, but now that is basically what the National Guard is supposed to be.

AO: Wrestling with Strom Thurmond (everyone should have beaten on this ancient lunatic until he left office) and his willingness to take on debate head first was why I liked McCain so much. The man had principles and a willingness to fight for them. Until I found out that half of his ideas were oh so wrong.

I'm answering these off the top of my head, so I'm not going to be through well-researched links at you or anything.

How do you relate pro-choice beliefs with opposition to the death penalty?

Well... first, I suppose in my mind abortion issues and death penalty issues are touched strongly by issues of racial and economic justice. Abortions are often had by women who are poor and/or a minority race, who have trouble seeking out proper care, and often lack the education to prevent pregnancy in the first place (and I don't even mean education about contraceptives... I mean education that when he sticks his part A into your part B, you could get pregnant). The needs of the poor and of poor minorities are still overlooked--OR handled in a very handwavey way with things like mismanaged welfare--that if better health care and assistance were offered to these often poor, young would-be mothers, they'd probably either feel safer to have their baby or at least seriously explore other alternatives before seeking out an abortion.

As for the death penalty in terms of racial and economic justice, again mostly the poor and members of minority races end up on death row (c.f. a book called "The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison."). Whether you think killing a murderer is wrong or not, there are issues of injustice that greatly taint the death penalty system--often people on death row are those who couldn't afford a good legal defender (and in at least some cases, actually be innocent) and statistically, poor persons of color tend to get harsher judgements in murder trials.

Ultimately, a long hard look into how we work with our poor populations would save lives in either case.

But I guess what your question was, how can you let people kill unborn babies and yet protest the death of criminals? I'll answer after I answer your question below.

Where specifically does truly human life begin in your estimation?

In my mind, personally, I align with a very ancient view that life doesn't truly begin until a baby takes its first breath. There's a huge difference between a being who has interacted with and brought its light to the world and simply a potential being still in development and shut off from the rest of existence. HOWEVER, I still mourn the loss of a potential human life. It isn't the same to me as a born human being dying, let alone a human being who has developed thoughts and opinions and experiences and truly has a developed soul, but it's still utterly tragic for someone to feel they need to end a potential life inside themselves, and I think when possible, abortion should be avoided at all costs.

I do consider myself pro-choice (and mind, not all liberals do) because abortion is a complicated thing--I get very angry when women who get abortions are depicted as irresposible spoiled children who cut off a life because they don't want to deal with what happened to them. A lot of people who get abortions are victims of rape, or victims of circumstances where they truly cannot afford, literally or figuratively, to have a child, and these people are often hard put to find resources to help them. In other case, a woman's life is at stake. One has to look at these situations and wonder what is more harmful--saving the life of a living, breathing adult woman, or saving the life of something that doesn't really exist yet? Of course, we hope that we don't have to make that choice, but life is not always that kind. In a case where a woman is in danger or truly cannot have a child, I think it is important to provide a safe, legal way to provide an abortion.

And of course the truth some folks don't want to hear is, that even if abortion is illegal, it will not go away. It may make it easier to ignore, but as long as conditions exist where women feel they must abort their child, they will seek out these abortions whether it is legal or not. If you want to bring an end to abortion, you need to bring about many changes that have nothing to do with abortion law.

To be truly "pro-life"--and by that I mean anyone who wants to see abortion, not just abortion laws, a thing of the past, and I think that crosses liberal/conservative lines--one must support women's educational and health services, support REAL aid for the poor (helping them get education and jobs, not just giving welfare monies), and, among other things, push solidly and stubbornly for adoption reform.

Yes, adoption... here's a whole other thing. Adoption is wonderful when it works out, but most people who adopt are well-off (Because adoption is expensive) and most people want completely healthy babies. Many unwanted children are not healthy--including many born addicted to drugs or HIV positive, and so on. A large number of would-be adopters are white and want white children; a large number of unwanted babies are black and hispanic. If white people choose to adopt a non-white child, it's usually to adopt a foreign born child, leaving the unwanted children in our own countries left to rot in state facilities.

If we want adoption to serve as a viable alternative to abortion, it needs to be made easier for parents to adopt and for mothers to give up their children, and would be adopters need to be encouraged to help out needy American children who have no homes and probably otherwise never will.

Why do you believe that the Evangelical movement within the Republican party is harmful to our nation? What specifically have Evangelicals done already that lead you to believe that such influence should be opposed?

There are certain groups of Christian extremists (are they even all Evangelists) that insist on trying to force their very radical religious views on American politics. According to our Constitution, we live in a secular nation. NO religion should be influencing our politics any more than any other.

What's particularly frustrating is I think these extremists are probably actually in a minority, but somehow they manage to keep and maintain media attention, which gives them undue recognition and clout in politics which is not right. Meanwhile, most normal Christian groups, liberal or conservatives, go on serving their communities and do their charity work and go unnoticed and their opinions uncounted. Not to mention any number of other members of religions, who are even that much more ignored by the media and by our government.

Also, I personally get angry when I see someone claiming to be Christian in the same sentence they are spewing hatred for other human beings, let alone trying to influence the politics of my country. I am a Christian, and these people do not speak for me.

What leads you to generally support government controls on big businesses? What about businesses makes them less trustworthy than governments? What is the relationship between implementing controls on businesses and helping lower class citizens who are often employed by those businesses given that such controls presumably increase the costs of doing business?

The government is something I participate in; I elect officials; my tax money pays for things that serve me and my community. The government represents me and my fellow Americans. If I find I do not trust the government for some reason, then it is up to me to push for change, and the laws of my government allow for me to do so peacefully without being threatened. And even if my government makes a decision I do not agree with, I know they are still making that decision with the best interests of my nation in mind.

Businesses make decisions with their own interests in mind, and their interest is profit. Period. They are not accountable to me or anyone except their private stockholders. And yet, successful businesses hold a great deal of wealth and with wealth comes power--and thus I can find businesses instigating changes and economic forces I cannot vote for or against, I cannot make my voice heard against them.

Therefore it is up to my government, which does represent me, to protect me from private businesses from misusing its wealth against me.

And where businesses are themselves contributors to our democracy, they should not be exempt from paying their fair share to be part of that system.

What is it that makes Joe Lieberman so unappealing?

I don't know. I honestly haven't paid much attention to him in awhile.

Why is it necessary to have social freedom while imposing limits on economic freedom? What is the relationship between these core elements?

Have no idea what you mean by "economic freedom." As for social freedom, Civil rights are civil rights. Everyone should have access to them.

Why is economic liberalism a core conservative value? Why is economic conservatism a core liberal value?

I'm not an expert on economics, but I'd wager socially-focused economics, when well designed, should be important to conservatives in building a strong workforce which then promotes the strength of business and free marketing and all that. If economic conservatism is focusing building the economy by promoting success in private business, it's a liberal value in that individuals are contributing to the better of the whole.

I just pulled that answer completely out of my rear end so I don't expect it to stand up in a court of law.

How do you reconcile the strength of governments to reach the largest groups of people with the strength of charities and individuals to more efficiently impact the lives of smaller groups of people? Do you believe that this premise holds true in the first place?

Not quite sure what you're asking, but I think while private charity needs to be supported, private charities tend to be extremely focused and serve only very certain core constituencies. Government, if it's working right, can reach out to all of its people--and also determine area of greatest need--most effectively because it has the resources to do that.

The two don't have to be exclusive, but it would be easier for the government to initiate work with private charity than the other way around.

Why do you feel that the ACLU is a good or bad organization? Do you believe the opposition's views are valid or invalid? What about those views lead you to dismiss them to some degree?

I have not watched the activities of the ACLU lately in the press... but generally, the ideals of the ACLU are good. Nothing's wrong with the concept of supporting civil liberty--that's right at the heart of what our forefathers fought for. At the same time, any given organization can be corrupted by power or grow heady with its own influence. I think it should do the work it does, but its own members need to take responsibility for its actions and review if the work they do is truly achieving its core mission.

What is it about the various core beliefs of modern conservatism or liberalism that make them all so critical to see at the same time in our leadership? For instance, why must a pro-war conservative candidate also support lower taxes, or why must a liberal candidate who supports stricter gun control also be pro-choice to be viable?

I don't think they must, and I think it's a huge problem in politics today--everyone gets a label slapped on them, everyone has to belong to one camp or another. No one is permitted to simply argue for what they personally believe in; they are expected to hop onto another's bandwagon. Couple that with the fact that most people's views of "liberal" and "conservative" are very simplistic, this creates massive obstacles in communicating any sort of need.

It's so integral to our modern political discourse, but frankly I'd think we'd get a hell of a lot more done if we could do away with parties and the like entirely. Our politicians might some day vote for what they/their constituents think is important, rather than try to kiss up to their party leaders. *dreams*

Faced with sub-optimal choices of candidates, what issue takes precedence for you in the voting booth?

Iraq/war/foreign policy, followed by health care (preferably, someone who pushes for national health care, but the only candidate who currently does that is Hilary, who I don't particularly like her on other issues that as a whole I disregard her).

Hat's off to DQ for in depth answers!

Businesses make decisions with their own interests in mind, and their interest is profit. Period. They are not accountable to me or anyone except their private stockholders. And yet, successful businesses hold a great deal of wealth and with wealth comes power--and thus I can find businesses instigating changes and economic forces I cannot vote for or against, I cannot make my voice heard against them.

Therefore it is up to my government, which does represent me, to protect me from private busnesses from misusing its wealth against me.

DQ, it seems that we both choose to look at two opposite sides of coin with a healthy amount of skepticism, caution and cynicism - you for private business - I for government.

I'm curious - what business has made an economic change that has affected you that you could not escape by merely choosing not to do business with them and encouraging those you know to do the same?

Unless I choose to renounce my citizenship - something I rather value despite any of all of my misgivings about our government itself - I cannot choose not to do business with the goverment.

There are several conservative and libertarian views that have a pretty good argument that it was well-intentioned government regulation of business - or the institution of new government-run processes that prolonged the Great Depression and also spurred on the latest housing problems.

Not to say all regulation is unnecessary - just that a lot of what is in place to day may be excessive. Bad companies cease to exist and (rightly so) corporate wrongdoing is punished.

My healthy skepticism toward government is because I'd be hardpressed to find any successful wealthy company that wields more power over any individual or group of individuals than a Federal, State, or Local government - no matter who or what I vote for - nothing changes this fact.

Please correct me if I have somehow taken you out of context - if I have done so it was never my intent.