I'm pretty sure Republicans have moved very far to the left over the past few decades on LGBT issues. I mean, the central controversy right now is about people of the same sex marrying. That is a gigantic shift.
It's hard to believe that the policies you favor aren't the best path to national wealth and greatness. If they aren't, why do you favor them? Do you hate America?
As to the "This is what Candidate X should come out in favor of to win" thing, maybe that's just an easy conceit for a pundit to use and get his thoughts published. It certainly sounds better than "This is what Minor Pundit Y thinks would improve the nation."
Peremptory challenges should be eliminated.
I don't see any contradiction in conservative support for the death penalty, or even libertarian support for it since that seems to be more what you mean by "conservative." Most people believe that the State should have at least some ability to choose to make war, and to send its Citizens to die.
Life without parole should not exist as a possible sentence. The choice should be between a 30 year sentence, with the possibility of parole after 15 years, and execution. If they are so dangerous that we do not think they can safely rejoin society at any age, then it's a good bet that they will be a threat to the safety of their fellow prisoners.
Also, immediately after posting this, I did in fact begin playing Dark Side of the Moon. When I was in high school I often went to sleep listening to this album. That might explain some things about me.
"Yet no matter how desperately we dash toward the future, the horizon never draws nearer."
I would also have accepted, "So you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking; racing around to come up behind you again. The sun is the same, in a relative way, but you're older; shorter of breath, and one day closer to death."
If an important moment in your life is the release of a new version of a product produced by a profit-seeking corporation, you probably have a pretty pathetic life. But in the grand scheme of things, we all have pretty pathetic lives, so at least there's that. Still though, new-version-chasers, your lives are more pathetic.
There are a lot of law professors spending a lot of time thinking and writing about these important cosmic issues, so that their vital musings can then be edited by law students on some journal somewhere, and read in their final form by upwards of 20 people.
Anyone who relies on the Court to protect their liberty is bound to be disappointed when they are arrested for failure to fasten their seat belt (See Atwater) and then told to strip, squat, and cough before being tossed in the general population of the local jail (See Florence).
I had a thought recently: if the alternative is illegality, maybe we just need to make all contested individual rights qualification-based. If you score high enough on a given test and have other specified qualifications, you can have a firearm. Score high enough on another, you can legally possess drugs.
As long as I'd qualify for both, this sounds like a good enough system to me.
China (or whoever) is not a direct military threat in the near term. It is only over the course of decades that it might match the U.S. in military prowess.
If hawks are truly worried about the future China threat, the best way to deal with it is to greatly reduce current procurement and personnel expenditures (while keeping military R&D steady, or even increasing it), and to instead use that money to strengthen our economy through improved infrastructure and human capital, or through decreased reliance on external financing. Alternatively, for those skeptical of increased spending in other areas, we could use those savings to lower taxes and allow the private sector to grow.
Buying thousands of fighters today does little to prepare our military for a hypothetical conflict 30 years hence. But draining these resources from investments in physical and human capital, or from the private sector, will lead to a weaker nation - and military - in 30 years.
The problem with legalized prostitution could just be that the regulatory structure created for it was too strict, so that a black market continued to operate alongside the legal market. Where there are black markets and actors operating outside the legal system, there will be corruption, violence, and exploitation.
Within a few blocks in every direction of me are places where I can get publicly, blackout drunk any night of the week. This is socially acceptable, if not encouraged. But God forbid I buy some psychedelic mushrooms to use at home.
Do and believe what you like, just don't try to force me or anyone else to live what you consider to be the virtuous life. That really isn't so hard.
If you want to discuss your faith with me, or why you believe the virtues you cherish are worth living by, I'll listen as long as you reciprocate.
But this sort of open and respectful discourse is not how things have tended to work. Religious majorities tend to use the power of the State to force others to live according to their professed virtue. That's why those of us in the (ir)religious minority get a little worried about this kind of talk.
In a little over a month, my graduate degree will qualify me for the Presidency. The only remaining obstacles will be age and getting people to vote for me.
Also, witches are stupid. I invite them to use their magic powers to teach me otherwise.
He should have said that he will crucify them on a cross of oil.
I'm pretty sure Republicans have moved very far to the left over the past few decades on LGBT issues. I mean, the central controversy right now is about people of the same sex marrying. That is a gigantic shift.
It's hard to believe that the policies you favor aren't the best path to national wealth and greatness. If they aren't, why do you favor them? Do you hate America?
As to the "This is what Candidate X should come out in favor of to win" thing, maybe that's just an easy conceit for a pundit to use and get his thoughts published. It certainly sounds better than "This is what Minor Pundit Y thinks would improve the nation."
Peremptory challenges should be eliminated.
I don't see any contradiction in conservative support for the death penalty, or even libertarian support for it since that seems to be more what you mean by "conservative." Most people believe that the State should have at least some ability to choose to make war, and to send its Citizens to die.
Life without parole should not exist as a possible sentence. The choice should be between a 30 year sentence, with the possibility of parole after 15 years, and execution. If they are so dangerous that we do not think they can safely rejoin society at any age, then it's a good bet that they will be a threat to the safety of their fellow prisoners.
Damn, so I guess it's "And you run..." not "So you run..."
Also, immediately after posting this, I did in fact begin playing Dark Side of the Moon. When I was in high school I often went to sleep listening to this album. That might explain some things about me.
"Yet no matter how desperately we dash toward the future, the horizon never draws nearer."
I would also have accepted, "So you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking; racing around to come up behind you again. The sun is the same, in a relative way, but you're older; shorter of breath, and one day closer to death."
If an important moment in your life is the release of a new version of a product produced by a profit-seeking corporation, you probably have a pretty pathetic life. But in the grand scheme of things, we all have pretty pathetic lives, so at least there's that. Still though, new-version-chasers, your lives are more pathetic.
There are a lot of law professors spending a lot of time thinking and writing about these important cosmic issues, so that their vital musings can then be edited by law students on some journal somewhere, and read in their final form by upwards of 20 people.
Anyone who relies on the Court to protect their liberty is bound to be disappointed when they are arrested for failure to fasten their seat belt (See Atwater) and then told to strip, squat, and cough before being tossed in the general population of the local jail (See Florence).
I had a thought recently: if the alternative is illegality, maybe we just need to make all contested individual rights qualification-based. If you score high enough on a given test and have other specified qualifications, you can have a firearm. Score high enough on another, you can legally possess drugs.
As long as I'd qualify for both, this sounds like a good enough system to me.
My taxes should be cut, and the government should spend more on me and things I like.
That's the taxing and spending debate, in a nutshell.
Frame the issue differently.
China (or whoever) is not a direct military threat in the near term. It is only over the course of decades that it might match the U.S. in military prowess.
If hawks are truly worried about the future China threat, the best way to deal with it is to greatly reduce current procurement and personnel expenditures (while keeping military R&D steady, or even increasing it), and to instead use that money to strengthen our economy through improved infrastructure and human capital, or through decreased reliance on external financing. Alternatively, for those skeptical of increased spending in other areas, we could use those savings to lower taxes and allow the private sector to grow.
Buying thousands of fighters today does little to prepare our military for a hypothetical conflict 30 years hence. But draining these resources from investments in physical and human capital, or from the private sector, will lead to a weaker nation - and military - in 30 years.
It depends on your state of mind going in. Or so I hear.
The problem with legalized prostitution could just be that the regulatory structure created for it was too strict, so that a black market continued to operate alongside the legal market. Where there are black markets and actors operating outside the legal system, there will be corruption, violence, and exploitation.
Within a few blocks in every direction of me are places where I can get publicly, blackout drunk any night of the week. This is socially acceptable, if not encouraged. But God forbid I buy some psychedelic mushrooms to use at home.
"I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done."
"Nice going, God!"
"Nobody but You could have done it, God! I certainly couldn't have."
"I feel very unimportant compared to You."
"The only way I can feel the least bit important is to think of all the mud that didn't even get to sit up and look around."
Do and believe what you like, just don't try to force me or anyone else to live what you consider to be the virtuous life. That really isn't so hard.
If you want to discuss your faith with me, or why you believe the virtues you cherish are worth living by, I'll listen as long as you reciprocate.
But this sort of open and respectful discourse is not how things have tended to work. Religious majorities tend to use the power of the State to force others to live according to their professed virtue. That's why those of us in the (ir)religious minority get a little worried about this kind of talk.
Looking at the title more, I wonder: how much would it hurt Romney if he started to pretend to be a lady?
In a little over a month, my graduate degree will qualify me for the Presidency. The only remaining obstacles will be age and getting people to vote for me.
I recommend that any Republican Presidential aspirants currently sitting on the bench not plan on winning in 2020 or 2024.
Point taken, I believe. I will add geographic proximity to the weighted average.