StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've often struggled with this.

I was wondering if you guys could help me out by asking questions about certain topics that could help narrow down what I am. I don't necessarily need to define myself, but I wonder where I fall in our and other countries political spectrums and if there is already a party that I would line up with.

To start with some 'hot bed' issues.:
Guns: I think the right to bear arms is a necessity, yet I am strongly for control of not only distribution of weapons and ammunition but of licenses and that they should only be granted after a thorough physical and psychiatric screening process. Concealed or not doesn't matter to me.

Equal Rights: Yes, all the way across the board. Straight, Gay, black, white, male, female. Marriage, pay whatever. Everyone should be treated the same. That said, I don't always agree with policies that favor certain groups because of there past statuses either. Also things like alimony in most instances, I absolutely disagree with.

Healthcare: I think everyone in our country that is a citizen should be able to get the best healthcare reasonable for free at all times in all circumstances.

Military: I've always felt that one of the things that should be demanded of our country and our chosen system of federal republic and our 'democratic" way of life is that we defend it with one hand tied behind our back. We should never be the aggressor and we should never be over aggressive in our retaliations. We also should never be so concerned about what 'may' happen that we compromise and bend to to the threats out there.

I'm going to stop there because I hope you guys will ask me different questions that I can answer and clarify my positions on, which I find, helps me more than just trying to think of the scenarios myself and answering them. You can ask about the initial topics too.

Thanks in advance for any participation in this little en devour.

According to some, you'd be a libtard Muslim-loving communist who hates America.

Truthfully, you sound like a moderate-left to me. You are pro guns but favor reasonable controls. You are pro civil rights and equal protection but you don't believe in going overboard trying to compensate for past treatment. You are pro-universal healthcare. You are pro-military but believe they should be reigned in to avoid unnecessary death and destruction.

Some other questions to answer - do you believe in social services such as welfare? How do you feel regarding environmental protection? Abortion? Financial and Industrial regulation?

Congratulations your a radical independent like myself Havok because you hold believes that are anethama to all major parties. Your guns stance puts you out of both Republican and Democratic circles not to mention the Green's and Communists or the Third Way movement. Military both parties are the same these days.

Twenty years ago you might have been a Regan Democratic but without a few more views I can't peg you as anything because thanks to guns alone your out of most major parties.

Borgholio wrote:Some other questions to answer - do you believe in social services such as welfare?

I was recently introduced to the idea of the universal minimum wage, I think on Mike's Facebook feed, and I found it intriguing. Basically everyone in the country 18 and over gets a paycheck (I think you forfeit if you have an actual job) and you use it for whatever you need. No more welfare you have to sign up for, no more social services. It seems like a reasonable idea and with our wealth, I see no reason it wouldn't work. It's also then left up to the individual to be responsible with that money.

How do you feel regarding environmental protection?

It isn't about how I feel. It is a necessity. We aren't going anywhere anytime soon. I've flirted with the idea of actually arming the EPA in my head a few times, but every day we inch closer to massive climate change, it seems like a better idea. I mean, if we are going to throw our military weight around, lets do it for the one entity that can not protect itself from anyone.

Abortion?

COME ON DOWN TO KRAZY HAVOK'S FOR ALL YOUR ABORTION NEEDS! FIRST TERM? LATE TERM? 5 YEARS? 15? WE'LL KILL 'EM ALL!
I hate kids.

Seriously though, I honestly don't really have an opinion other than each woman should decide what is best for her in the context of the situation.

Financial and Industrial regulation?

This is my Achilles Heal of political discussion. I really have no idea what is good or bad. What I know is that through all the years I have been a legal adult the only real financial effect I felt was the housing bubble burst which led to a huge downturn in consumer spending and that the owner of the dealership I worked at in Oakland sold, somewhat, because of it.

Mr Bean wrote:Congratulations your a radical independent like myself Havok because you hold believes that are anethama to all major parties. Your guns stance puts you out of both Republican and Democratic circles not to mention the Green's and Communists or the Third Way movement. Military both parties are the same these days.

Twenty years ago you might have been a Regan Democratic but without a few more views I can't peg you as anything because thanks to guns alone your out of most major parties.

Really? I would think that would be a fairly standard stance on guns. It's really a radical viewpoint? And I mean obviously it's a radical viewpoint because it's mine, but you get what I mean.

and Communists

Any Communist who opposes private ownership of guns is clearly not a true Communist.

“… the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
– Karl Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, 1850

Marx says I get cannons, sounds like a good deal to me. Be a Marxist, Hav! You get badass cannons!

More seriously, you sound like some kind of left-leaning moderate, but putting political beliefs on a single axis isn't really a great idea.

Do you believe that a person owns his or her own body, and that whatever s/he chooses to do with it is nobody else's business?
(this covers drug use, abortions, any kind of consensual activity you can think of, implanting a penis on your chest, and so on)

Should you choose to pursue a self-destructive activity such as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, using crystal meth or something along those lines, would you still be eligible for free healthcare for complications related to those activities or should there be a surcharge of some sort?

Public sector unions - explain why you'd want to keep them or kill them

Self-defence laws - What is reasonable? Do you have a duty to retreat and use minimal force or do you go with Texas/Florida style with stand your ground and blow'em away?

Financial & military aid to Israel & other mid-east countries - Should the US be doing it? If so, how much, where, and why?

Havok wrote: Really? I would think that would be a fairly standard stance on guns. It's really a radical viewpoint? And I mean obviously it's a radical viewpoint because it's mine, but you get what I mean.

Gun police leans towards the "slowly work to ban guns" or "guns Guns GUNS" side of the issue. There's nothing inherently to any side on the firearms issues except in a liberty VS protection angle.

Counter question to take further, all of these are yes no, your free to say "but I'd want regulation"
1. Should it be illegal to produce or own a silencer?
2. Should it be legal for a civilian to own a cannon or towed gun? (Anything from a WWII 90mm AA to an 19th century 16 pounder)
3. Should it be legal to own fully automatic weapons?

Foreign Policy

What should the United States' stance be on international terrorism? How should it be responded to?

What should the United States' stance be on dictators and autocrats? How should they be responded to?

What role should NATO play, and what role should the United States play within NATO?

How should the US view Israel?

How should the US view Cuba, Iran, and other states with historically abysmal US relations, particularly concerning trade and diplomatic contact?

How should the US view Russia, particularly in light of recent events in Ukraine?

How should the US view China, given its economic impact on the US' own economy?

I'd say this is a fairly centrist position, probably a center-leaning social democratic one to be more precise.

Not in the US political environment, but as far as the whole world is considered, it is.

Mr Bean wrote:Congratulations your a radical independent like myself Havok because you hold believes that are anethama to all major parties. Your guns stance puts you out of both Republican and Democratic circles not to mention the Green's and Communists or the Third Way movement. Military both parties are the same these days.

Twenty years ago you might have been a Regan Democratic but without a few more views I can't peg you as anything because thanks to guns alone your out of most major parties.

Huh? Every communist I know is strongly supports gun rights and arming the populace. How else do you defend yourself from the police and eventually rise up in a revolution?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Havok wrote:Guns: I think the right to bear arms is a necessity, yet I am strongly for control of not only distribution of weapons and ammunition but of licenses and that they should only be granted after a thorough physical and psychiatric screening process. Concealed or not doesn't matter to me.

What is the purpose of a thorough physical? All you need is an eye test.

muse wrote:Do you believe that a person owns his or her own body, and that whatever s/he chooses to do with it is nobody else's business?
(this covers drug use, abortions, any kind of consensual activity you can think of, implanting a penis on your chest, and so on)

Should you choose to pursue a self-destructive activity such as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, using crystal meth or something along those lines, would you still be eligible for free healthcare for complications related to those activities or should there be a surcharge of some sort?

For the most part yes. Once your activities hurt, damage, injure, endanger other people or property, there should be punishment*.

As for drugs, I personally think it is fucking stupid to have illegal drugs anyways. The money we spend fighting the "war" on drugs is practically the same amount we spend on drugs. "Control" them like alcohol, which is just as bad as any other drug out there, it is just socially acceptable to drink something, whereas snorting, shooting or smoking something is considered dirty.

However, free healthcare is free healthcare. That said, there should be a limit to what you get IF a person refuses to get, accept and use help to get themselves right. Adding additional charges to a drug user that is at the point that he needs repeat medical attention is probably a waste of time as you won't get the money and forcing doctors to not treat someone isn't acceptable either, so I don't know what else to do other to say, it should apply regardless of situation.

*I know that that gets into a very touchy and sticky situation for abortion, but as I previously said, that should be solely up to the woman based on the context of her situation.

aerius wrote:Public sector unions - explain why you'd want to keep them or kill them

I honestly am not well versed enough to have a valid opinion. I do know that I seem to be repulsed by teachers unions.

Self-defence laws - What is reasonable? Do you have a duty to retreat and use minimal force or do you go with Texas/Florida style with stand your ground and blow'em away?

Stand Your Ground laws are fucking ridiculous. I literally have been in fights for my life and I was still able to enact self control and not go too far once I had the upper hand even though I would have been WELL within my rights to do so. Now if in the course of getting the upper hand the aggressor should get severely hurt or die, well you roll the dice and take your chances, but there better be a damn valid reason for you capping a guy that YOU are holding a gun on.
This bullshit in the news recently is just that, absolute bullshit and most of the people that were 'defending' themselves need to be charged and tried.

Financial & military aid to Israel & other mid-east countries - Should the US be doing it? If so, how much, where, and why?

I'm of two minds about this. We should always defend and help our allies and even our enemies when it is called for. That said, a re-evaluation of our allies and what an "ally" is, is needed. There should be mutual benefits to having an ally. If all we are doing is protecting you, then you are just that, a protectorate and should be considered part of the United States and subject to our laws and taxes etc.. If that is a status other countries want, then fine, otherwise, there needs to be valid reasons to use our resources and lives helping you out.
Religious differences, land disputes, and things of that nature shouldn't be under our purvey or what we involve ourselves in. If asked, or if obviously needed, we shouldn't hesitate to step in and stop things like ethnic cleansing, invasions, oppression etc., when those in that situation have absolutely no way to defend themselves or no other recourse.

Mr Bean wrote:Counter question to take further, all of these are yes no, your free to say "but I'd want regulation"
1. Should it be illegal to produce or own a silencer?

No, licensed.

2. Should it be legal for a civilian to own a cannon or towed gun? (Anything from a WWII 90mm AA to an 19th century 16 pounder)

Yes, Documented and non-functioning

3. Should it be legal to own fully automatic weapons?

No, again licensed as such.

Honestly, I don't see much problem with having these things, but if through your incompetence any laws are broken with them, where it can be proven that the owner was negligent in storage, safety or usage, they should share in the punishment of what may come.

Havok wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:3. Should it be legal to own fully automatic weapons?

No, again licensed as such.

If I may expand on Mr. Bean's question. Should it be legal to produce fully automatic weapons for civilian use?

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:Foreign Policy

What should the United States' stance be on international terrorism? How should it be responded to?

Reasonably. George W. Bush? Not Reasonable. Not that I don't think there should have been retaliation, it's just that it should have all been focused on the correct targets.

What should the United States' stance be on dictators and autocrats? How should they be responded to?

Dictators and autocrats are tricky. Most of the time they are violent and pretty much ridiculous. Sometimes though, they can serve a purpose or function. There are lines however that we can not let be crossed if they want to work with us. Granted most come to power hop scotching right across those lines so it can become a clouded issue. As for response, I don't like being the World Police. Intervention should come from a global consensus of nations from NATO and other countries.

What role should NATO play, and what role should the United States play within NATO?

I hate to say this, but I think the US should basically serve as the military arm of NATO. Obviously we should have say, but I think the rest of the world should decide where best to deploy us into them.

How should the US view Israel?

I would certainly need to delve deeper into the history of the situation, but as I said previous, an ally should benefit you as you benefit them. This could be a fairly ignorant thought, but I haven't heard of how being allies with Israel benefits us.

How should the US view Cuba, Iran, and other states with historically abysmal US relations, particularly concerning trade and diplomatic contact?

Each situation needs to be viewed in it's own context. I think, in the case of Cuba and other sanctioned countries, once our sanctions start hurting the people of the country to the point of causing a very negative change in their well being, we should back off, and probably before then.

I have a hard time formulating opinions about theocracies because is it really just the crazy head priest or is it all the crazy followers too? I have such a negative view on religion that it clouds my judgement and I lose my objectivity because I know they are fucking idiots.

How should the US view Russia, particularly in light of recent events in Ukraine?

How should the US view China, given its economic impact on the US' own economy?

I need to actually read about the situations first. I'm pretty poorly informed or up to date on either of these them.

TimothyC wrote:

Havok wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:3. Should it be legal to own fully automatic weapons?

No, again licensed as such.

If I may expand on Mr. Bean's question. Should it be legal to produce fully automatic weapons for civilian use?

I don't see why not. A determined criminal is going to get whatever he needs. I can go buy a fully auto military assault rifle right now. They aren't hard to get. And really all fully auto does in the hand of most criminals (and most trained soldiers) is allow them to go through the clip quicker with less accuracy.

There is no reason for a civilian to really have full auto, but there is no real reason for them not to either.

Were the flying swordsmen and Shaolin monks seen in kungfu movies descended from Jedi masters who came to Earth a long time ago? Do the children of the Jedi still walk among us?

Mr Bean wrote:Congratulations your a radical independent like myself Havok because you hold believes that are anethama to all major parties. Your guns stance puts you out of both Republican and Democratic circles not to mention the Green's and Communists or the Third Way movement. Military both parties are the same these days.

Twenty years ago you might have been a Regan Democratic but without a few more views I can't peg you as anything because thanks to guns alone your out of most major parties.

Wanting guns to be available with heavy regulation doesn't disqualify anybody from membership in the Democratic party that I know and am registered with. I probably find guns more distasteful than anybody I know, and even I don't want to ban them, and some of my Democrat friends are enthusiastic hunters. What Hav is proposing (especially the full physical - there are plenty of safe disabled target shooters including at least one guy on this board whose name escapes me at the moment) would be seen as a little heavy-handed in most states, or extremely heavy-handed in southwestern ones, and would probably get him declared a pacifist hippie in a few, but it's not too radical for the moderate left.

J wrote:Were the flying swordsmen and Shaolin monks seen in kungfu movies descended from Jedi masters who came to Earth a long time ago? Do the children of the Jedi still walk among us?

Yes.

So, is there party or alignment that anyone thinks I fall into?

Havok wrote:So, is there party or alignment that anyone thinks I fall into?

Mostly straight-ticket Democrat who probably reads candidate's platforms and abstains from supporting a specific guy over a specific issue occasionally but has no particular reason to support anybody else, same as me.

Havok wrote:So, is there party or alignment that anyone thinks I fall into?

For the most part you're fairly left-leaning, though as mentioned the single-axis left/right thing isn't a great metric.

Your answers to the foreign policy questions demonstrate nuance rather than blanket ideology, which certainly puts you a cut above the average American voter. Anything less than mindless 110% support of Israel will brand you a radical in the eyes of mainstream American politics, however, and you'd take a lot of flak for it at the federal level of politics.

Because of the nature of the American two-party system, you're best-aligned with the Democrats, but you're in the same boat as a lot of people: voting Democrat mostly because the Republicans are worse. On a local level where other parties are more viable, you might better align with left-libertarian or other liberal parties.

There was a political alignment test that floated around this forum a few years ago which scored people on two axes. I'm going to see if I can dig it up.