Originally posted by ferrellj:
Buttercup, the whole debate on spanking can produce polls and studies on both sides. I was spanked as a kid and at the time hated it of course. But when my dad was dying 4 years ago in his last days I thanked him for those spankings. I can count on one hand the number of times I have used spanking as a method of discipline. I personally think this country needs more spaniking based on the behavior of kids today, but that's just my opinion. The main argument people on here have is personal freedom. Progressives want to take away our personal freedom because in their eyes we don't have enough sense to think for ourselves. I don't want government to tell me how to raise my child, what foods I can eat, what medical care I can use, what light bulbs I can burn, etc. I'm for limited government and states rights. You have a right to discipline your child in your manner. I want to keep the right to do the same.
It's funny how some of you want gov't out of every aspect of your lives but at the same time are okay with the Supreme Court making decisions for people, like overturning Roe v Wade. Interesting.
The gov't has to regulate certain things. You can trust some things to privately-owned enterprise, but not everything, simply because businesses only care about profits, not people. At least I can have a reasonable expectation that gov't is looking out for me, if only slightly more than a business would.
You want to talk about the ability to think for yourself and make your own choices? You want to talk about the fear of gov't controlling your life?
Well, I don't want to be part of an insurance pool where other people on the plan are fat smokers because they run up my premiums and co-pays when they go to the doctor for their maladies over and over again. I don't want MY insurance company - who I pay monthly premiums to - telling me when I can and can't have procedures and surgeries when my doctor suggests otherwise. You say "gov't run" healthcare will do this when insurance companies ALREADY do it all the time.
The right-wingers don't seem to care very much about earth's limited resources, either (your light bulb comment). You think it's fine to buy and drive the biggest gas-guzzling SUVs and sneer at people who want to conserve. You think corporations should have the right to pollute all they want without gov't restrictions as long as they are making money. No thoughts about the cancers all this polluting causes. As long as there's a profit to be made, it's okay.
You've got me pegged as a progressive just because all my views don't fit into a neat little box like yours do. My political beliefs are actually complex and I would certainly not consider some of them "progressive" - in the way you mean the word.
I believe we should have done something about illegal immigration a long time ago, which doesn't include amnesty for those who broke the law to get here. Having said that, I don't blame the illegals who only want to find work - specifically, I am talking about illegals from Mexico; if I lived there, I'd try to come here too.
Their gov't is so corrupted by things like drug cartels that it's not possible at this time for them to take care of their own citizens. Is that our problem? No. I would suggest a revolution to the citizens of Mexico to change things and make their own country inhabitable.
I am not pro-union for the most part because the need for unions has come and gone, except for very dangerous industries like coal mining and oil refinery jobs. Why am I pro-union in those circumstances? Because if you work in these jobs and speak up about additional dangers, you are likely to be fired. Businesses understand money. The bottom line is their bottom line. Improvements cost and bosses don't like complainers. As an example, you need to look no further than the recent loss of life at the coal mine in W Virginia. These people need someone looking out for them.
Conversely, I know people who have worked in management positions in a union environment. I've seen how their hands are tied in terms of what disciplinary measures they can take; problems with absenteeism; having to fill out endless reports - on top of their already busy schedules.
I know someone in management, for example, who's had to deal with a nearly sixty-year-old, 400 pound, heavy smoker who (surprise!) had a heart attack. Not only did he try to file for workman's comp, but also hired an attorney. That's pretty ridiculous and it costs a business a lot of money to deal with it and, in turn, costs customers more.
This man's weight, eating and smoking habits were pretty ridiculous too. Do I want government telling me what I should eat? No. At the same time, people aren't getting the message that eating right and staying somewhat active is the only way to prevent health problems. So the gov't tries to do things like limit the salt added to processed foods, and Michelle Obama asks cereal makers to give parents a little help and limit the amount of sugar in cereals, and the right screams, "Get out of my personal business!" But we can't go on like this, it's too expensive and is costing too many lives.
I've made it pretty clear that I was not for the wars, but THAT DOESN'T MEAN I don't agree there are terrorists who are a threat to our freedom who need to be dealt with. I just believe there are less expensive ways to do it than these wars.
So, ferrellj, I actually see both sides of the issues.