Are you political beliefs out of convenience?

[Bluerobin]

Safe, as far as I am concerned, "I vote with my wallet" is an answer. I reject your reality. If it will not benefit me, I do not support it.

[Bluerobin]

Snerd, what is right for my wallet is right for me. I stopped voting the rightous route years ago. Ideals are costly.

[mmhmm]

Each to his/her own. I can certainly understand individuals, or families who vote with their wallets. If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck, it's going to be pretty difficult to do otherwise, I'd think. For me, however, what I do on the political front must be consistent with what I feel is right from a philosophical standpoint. Like Snerd, I don't know any other way.

[Bluerobin]

mmhmm, I have never lived pay check to pay check. But, what a law is going to do to my finances is important to me.

[mmhmm]

It is to many, Robin. I think it's probably more important to some than to others, however. If it's going to impact your ability to buy food, or pay your housing costs, that gives it a lot of leverage, I would think. That doesn't mean these are the only people who put their wallets first, and it doesn't mean doing so is wrong. It's just a different way of looking at it.

[Bluerobin]

mmhmm, I used to be Republican, until the party changed into what it is today. I am not liberal enough to be a Dem, so I stay in the Rep party. However, I am embarassed by what they expouse. Therefore, I no longer exclusively support their stance. I look at how it will affect me. For example, Everyone is screaming for intervention in Libya - this will only increase my taxes if the US takes the lead, so I am opposed to a US led intervention. Let those who backed outta Iraq and Afganistan lead in Libya. We should pass on this one.

[mmhmm]

I'm an Independent, Robin. In a vote, I could go either way, or with a dark-horse candidate. It just depends on what I find to be the major issues and what I believe the stances of the various candidates to be on those issues. I'm against our interference in the Libyan situation not because of its economic effects, but because we're not the worlds cop; nor, should we try to be the world's conscience. We ain't the be-all-end-all and everyone doesn't have to do what we believe is correct. So, our vote on that issue, were one to come to pass, would be the same ... just for different reasons.

[deziloooooo]

Mar 13, 2011 9:31:01 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

mmhmm, I used to be Republican, until the party changed into what it is today. I am not liberal enough to be a Dem, so I stay in the Rep party. However, I am embarrassed by what they espouse. Therefore, I no longer exclusively support their stance. I look at how it will affect me. For example, Everyone is screaming for intervention in Libya - this will only increase my taxes if the US takes the lead, so I am opposed to a US led intervention. Let those who backed outta Iraq and Afghanistan lead in Libya. We should pass on this one.

I don't know if we will stay out of this but so far the POTUS definitely has come down hard on Gaddafi having to go, as has just about every other country and leader less Chavas . Now what do we and the rest of these countries do. It seems that Gadafis forces, two sons leading his Brigades have the fire power to crush this rebellion, then there will be a lot of killing, payback to make sure it does not happen again for a long, long time.
The nations of the world do not want to get involved beyond the shouting and talking and the freezing of asserts. United , he could have been removed quickly, this is not a strong force who is supporting him, they are basically a hired mercenary group, man power beyond special forces of nations , air power to keep his air force on the ground, possible some air strikes , the Libyans themselves would have been the grunts, it would have been over.
Now with the disaster in Japan, the worlds eyes are going to be turned else where as he finishes off crushing the uprising.

[Bluerobin]

Dezi, it is not up to the US. Let someone else lead the effort.

[deziloooooo]

Mar 13, 2011 10:02:24 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Dezi, it is not up to the US. Let someone else lead the effort.

I agree, but as you can see, it is always no one else to even commit. IF there was a agreement to take action, even not the UN, Russia, China would most likely veto such a UN vote, if NATO decided to take action with say a invite from the Arab League, it is their playground and they have agreed that Gaddafi has to go, then I would have no problem with us participating in such a action.
Even with a overall military leader from another country. I know many feel the only good commanders are Americans, however that is not so, there are some fine Generals, Marshall's from other nations and if there was a foreign leader{Military } , that doesn't mean they take over command of our ships, air force , carriers. It has been done before with foreign commanders in charge and here we would just be a supporting force, granted a major one, but still , supporting.
In this one, I think the POTUS has done it correctly even though many here will criticize just because...well, three guesses why.

[marjar]

Mar 13, 2011 7:44:40 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

I cannot seperate my political beliefs from my personal beliefs. And, I cannot only vote with my wallet. I have to vote for what I believe is right even if it would adversly affect my wallet. That is the only way I know how to function in the world. My wallet is not the be all and end all and purpose of my life. It is much more important for me to vote for what is right, honorable, dutiful, etc even if it personally would destroy my finances.

I agree to point. I think most of us have a price, in that there is an amount of money or an intangible asset for which we would sell out. It would be a different value for different people.

An example might be a person opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells. If they were faced with their child's life being dependent on using that research, or the product from those cells, they might acquiesce to doing so. I think there are extreme circumstances which might make any of us alter our values or ideals.

[Deleted]

But that's Snerd's point... if you are only opposed to something for everyone else... and not for yourself... then you really aren't opposed to it... or you are a hypocrit...

And i agree.. there are people who never think through the implications of their beliefs until it impacts them or someone they know personally...

[marjar]

Mar 13, 2011 11:08:01 GMT -5 oped said:

But that's Snerd's point... if you are only opposed to something for everyone else... and not for yourself... then you really aren't opposed to it... or you are a hypocrit...

Yes and no. Some folks have not reached a point where they find something of such great importance, or such dire consequences, they are willing to sacrifice their ideals for it, or because of it. Also, we think we may know how we will react to a situation, but when reality plays out we find our assumptions were incorrect. I hold fast to my ideals, but I also believe situations can arise that might cause me to act against them. Not many things are set in stone forever.

And i agree.. there are people who never think through the implications of their beliefs until it impacts them or someone they know personally...

There is that.

[Deleted]

Yes, like i said, we do evolve... i guess it isn't hypocritical (as hypocritical?) if you then stop advocating for the opposite of what you decided to do...

And yes, most people would abandon ideals, say, to save their children. But i guess those are the 'mental anguish' moments, when your actions and ideals are not consistent...

[marjar]

Mar 13, 2011 11:30:13 GMT -5 oped said:

Yes, like i said, we do evolve... i guess it isn't hypocritical (as hypocritical?) if you then stop advocating for the opposite of what you decided to do...

In some situations that could be considered enlightenment.

And yes, most people would abandon ideals, say, to save their children. But i guess those are the 'mental anguish' moments, when your actions and ideals are not consistent...

An uncle was 18 years old, new to the AF, and stationed at Hickam Field when Pearl Harbor was bombed. When he returned home, he hated everything and everyone Asian. Nothing would alter his feelings. His son served in Vietnam and returned to that part of the world after his discharge. He returned to the US with a wife who was Thai. Uncle almost bought the farm over that. Soon, he was a grandfather to a child who was half Thai, and over time, his feelings about Asians mellowed, greatly.

[Bluerobin]

I just don't think the US should be the world's police force. Let the slacker nations foot the bill and bear the burden. If something happens in our back yard, then we can think about getting involved. I don't even think we should send troops if someone else leads the effort.

[Deleted]

So his convictions changed. Again, i think that's more like not dealing with implications until you are faced with them. ie. not all asian people are THEM (the ones who bombed Pearl Harbor).

I know lots of people who know the odd gay or muslim or whoever person ... and excuse their larger bias against the group by saying 'oh, but this person is not like THEM'... when in fact if we know THEM, most of THEM are not THEM either, but pretty much just another, close, version of US... (if that made any sense...)

I was thinking more towards, i don't know, i kill someone or let someone starve in order to save/feed my child... I still don't think its right, it causes me pain, but i do it anyway...

Not that this has/is likely to happen... but i was thinking of extreme situation where the basic conviction doesn't change, but situations make it such that you overlook it for a 'greater good'...

ETA: perhaps a better way to say that would be overlook for a conviction which is of greater importance (protecting your child in this case).

[Bluerobin]

The greater good should not be achieved through an evil means!

[marjar]

I think life has taught me to never say never. Things may arise, which we've not previously encountered or envisioned, that could alter our perceptions.

[Deleted]

Right... we should just let mentally ill people have guns so you don't have to fill out some paperwork... ?

[Bluerobin]

oped, wrong thread.

[Cookies Galore]

Mar 12, 2011 20:40:38 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

When you go to the polls to vote, do you vote the party line or do you vote for the candidate who best serves your interests?

If you're white and you live in Philadelphia, that's a very important question...life or death in fact...

Silly me for never fearing for my life at the polls...
This "issue" is pretty benign; I see worse everyday and never blink an eye.

[ed1066]

I see worse everyday and never blink an eye.

Maybe you should. It's acceptance of this type of thing that allows it to happen. Now that the Obama administration has officially sanctioned this behavior by refusing to prosecute it, I guess we should all learn to live with it?