politics
This'll go over well.
http://glassbooth.org/quiz/results/1739748/c1e168550e413cbf87b33aa6b1c6e2a9
Summary: On issues that matter most to me (chosen by assigning 20 points to various categories, such as taxes/bduget, science, Iraq, trade, gay rights, etc), it rated my opinions on various issues as compared to the candidates, and gives a percentage based on their alignment with my views.
60% Cynthia McKinney, Green Party
56% Barack Obama, Democrat
55% Bob Barr, Libertarian
54% Nader, Consumer Advocate
45% John McCain, Republican.
I honestly though Libertarian would be higher.
I think that Bob Barr's opposite views on Abortion really swing it.
While Iraq is a big issue for me conceptually, I don't feel that it's a deal breaker that Bob wants to pull out immediately, while I feel that we have an obligation to be there until the job is done (Iraq is stabalized). Yes, this means it's going to take 10-15 years. It's shitty, but we can't go back in time to stop it. We can only deal with the here and now.
Abortion, for me, is an absolute right of the person. I'll concede the point if it is a state decided issue. In a perfect world, we'd have mandatory IQ tests to breed, failing that, I'd like to see a more pro-abortion stance. Failing that, of course, I'll take pro-choice. If it's not viable, it's not "alive," IMO.
I would like to see some requirements for both parties involved in the creation of a child have input on the abortion/adoption/whatever issue. Right now, it bothers me that men have no rights to the child. If I want to keep my child, but the mother wants an abortion, that baby is aborted. That's bullshit. Likewise, if the mother wants the baby, but the father wants an abortion, the father is fucked paying child support. That's also bullshit (in some ways). I don't have an answer for it. I just see it as a problem. I'm not saying that there is even a _good_ solution out there, or that it's a solvable problem. Abstinence would solve it, I guess. Yeah, right. Like that'd work.
Anyone have any thoughts?
http://glassbooth.org/quiz/results/1739748/c1e168550e413cbf87b33aa6b1c6e2a9
Summary: On issues that matter most to me (chosen by assigning 20 points to various categories, such as taxes/bduget, science, Iraq, trade, gay rights, etc), it rated my opinions on various issues as compared to the candidates, and gives a percentage based on their alignment with my views.
60% Cynthia McKinney, Green Party
56% Barack Obama, Democrat
55% Bob Barr, Libertarian
54% Nader, Consumer Advocate
45% John McCain, Republican.
I honestly though Libertarian would be higher.
I think that Bob Barr's opposite views on Abortion really swing it.
While Iraq is a big issue for me conceptually, I don't feel that it's a deal breaker that Bob wants to pull out immediately, while I feel that we have an obligation to be there until the job is done (Iraq is stabalized). Yes, this means it's going to take 10-15 years. It's shitty, but we can't go back in time to stop it. We can only deal with the here and now.
Abortion, for me, is an absolute right of the person. I'll concede the point if it is a state decided issue. In a perfect world, we'd have mandatory IQ tests to breed, failing that, I'd like to see a more pro-abortion stance. Failing that, of course, I'll take pro-choice. If it's not viable, it's not "alive," IMO.
I would like to see some requirements for both parties involved in the creation of a child have input on the abortion/adoption/whatever issue. Right now, it bothers me that men have no rights to the child. If I want to keep my child, but the mother wants an abortion, that baby is aborted. That's bullshit. Likewise, if the mother wants the baby, but the father wants an abortion, the father is fucked paying child support. That's also bullshit (in some ways). I don't have an answer for it. I just see it as a problem. I'm not saying that there is even a _good_ solution out there, or that it's a solvable problem. Abstinence would solve it, I guess. Yeah, right. Like that'd work.
Anyone have any thoughts?