Log In

Actually I was the guest at that time -- I had made breakfast while visiting her, and everyone else loved it, but she wouldn't even try it.

Salone, you're young enough to have escaped being raised that way. ml, it's not so much Americans in general as it is socially-conservative (independent of fiscal or political views) Americans over the age of 40 or so, with the specifics of the age range varying by region. (Alaska, for what it's worth, is actually a lot more like the south than people think; it attracts the same kind of people who would live on ten acres of land in an area loosely called a "city" than in an actual city.)

It's a culture of resistance to change. The way they know is the way things ought to be. If it's different from that, it's wrong.

Fortunately, social connectivity in the 80s and later has meant that my generation has started moving away from that legacy, and the generations after me moreso.

I don't doubt any of that.

I live in a very liberal state (Washington) and grew up in Oregon. The western side of the states host the left side, free thinking, independent people...while the more conservative leaning people sort of move to the eastern side of the states. It's a lot less populated in the desert, and it seems that attracts people that like to make bunkers and stock pile weapons.
Though northern Idaho is way worse. >___>

My background/environment is a mishmash of...kind of everything, really.

Grew up (aka spent the first eighteen years of my life) in the Silicon Valley/Bay Area. We've got huge corporations, lots of conservative folk, an area know as Los Altos Hills which is home to some really, really rich people...and then Berkeley and San Francisco.

My hometown/neighborhood's probably 95% old Caucasian couples who are the first or second owners of the 50+ year old houses. My parents are...pretty conservative, too, I guess?

I go to college in Pittsburgh, which nowadays is actually pretty damn liberal. It's a refreshing change from the Bay Area, to be honest...though that's already far from being conservative, itself.

My parents aren't exactly liberal, and we're kind of...at odds on...many subjects.

My dad is a democrat and my mom is a registered republican - though I think, though conservative in her leanings, is more independent now a days...what with her party being full of crazies. X3 She said that she's embarrassed to be part of the GOP right now.

I'm very liberal myself, but fall more in the Independent area of things.

I can't really stand either party, to be honest.

Neither of them are super awesome. Politics in general are crap.

yeah...I hate politics. Bleh! >.<

I'm not particularly fond of any of the US parties either, and my opinions are pretty scattered between them. If I had to pick one I'm closest to, it's probably libertarian, but (1) odds of a libertarian holding office are pretty low, and (2) I still don't agree with them across the board.

Fiscally I'm pretty moderate -- I think that taxes should be raised, especially for households that make more than their local standard of living, in order to pay for government programs, but I think that a lot of government programs should be scaled back so that the budget can focus on taking care of people.

Which means that in terms of government responsibilities, I'm fairly liberal -- the government should spend more on education and more on health care in order to provide for the less-fortunate, more on domestic energy research, and less on military and luxury. (IMO: The President and Congress should enjoy a standard of living that matches the majority of the population instead of the upper class.)

But in terms of social policy, I'm solidly libertarian. Protecting the rights of citizens to the fullest possible extent is paramount, and the government should minimize interference in individual lifestyle except where necessary to protect public health and education. The only major exception I have here is gun control; I think that the right-wing stance of ready access and the left-wing stance of prohibition are both unrealistic and misguided, and the solution is going to require careful consideration of who's simply going to ignore the laws because of cultural history.

I think the government should exist for two purposes only: national infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.) and protecting the rights of the people. Since I believe that human rights should include access to food, water, healthcare, education, and shelter, I believe the government is responsible for those as well.

when the citizens of a nation are starving, living on the streets, or dying of preventable causes due to inadequate healthcare, I deem that a failure of the government to properly take care of its citizens. There's no excuse for that.

I essentially agree, but it's hard to concretely define what right would be being invoked to have the government get involved in protecting the people from such threats as monopolistic businesses, and assuming the right to own property and the right to live are among the rights that need protected that means there needs to be a police force and a military as well.

I made taco meat and tuna casserole yesterday so that is what we are going to be having for dinner. Leftovers. 8D

Now that the cooking is out of the way, today is going to be baking day!

police yes, military no. Militaries don't protect the right to life, they violate it.

Then either your police will also BE the military, or you're going to have to demand that every able-bodied citizen take up arms and fight as a militia, or you're going to lose your beloved government the first time there's an uprising or a foreign threat.

I don't LIKE the necessity of a military, and I think that the one that we have right now is most certainly excessive and misapplied, but you HAVE to have one.

either the police could serve as a self-defense force, or there could be a separate reserve force/militia to protect against invasion. In any case, the defining features of a military are its capacity to invade other nations, which is not something I believe the government should be doing.

The defining characteristic of a military is SUPPOSED to be its ability to protect the citizens from outside threats. The word is derived from militia, which was historically considered to be three or more citizens coming together to protect their country. In fact, the US Constitution explicitly calls out that the federal government is given the responsibility to "provide for the common defense."

Less enlightened governments have used their military for aggressive purposes. That doesn't change the intended purpose of a military in general.

that might be what it's SUPPOSED to be, but historically and presently that has never been true.