Labels in politics really can pigeon hole us.
I'm likely libertarian - I'm liberal in thinking of individual rights. I believe in less government, especially federal government. But, I believe that we have vulnerable individuals who have served their time for us (elderly) or may need help (short-term welfare programs that require volunteering in exchange if not actively seeking jobs).
[Romney] But I'm conservative in that I don't believe that taxing one person to keep another person buried in the thinking that "government help" as a right is right. I believe we should be able to make choices as families (see my post regarding this), but also believe that life starts at implantation.
[Obama] I'm also for protecting individuals from corporations. Corporations have the ability to buy laws to go their way through marketing, lobbying and getting posts in the government. Government may not need regulation, but they should be forced to tell us what they are doing, the impact and should not be above the laws for basic citizens.
[Tie here, but most think Romney leads here] I'm for less frivolous spending and crazy earmarks.
[Obama] As someone concerned about the environment, my vote should go toward Obama. He believes that what we do today impacts the environment and understands we need to be aware of long-term impact.
[Romney] On the other hand, can I really be pro "rights" and not see that businesses should be able to expand?
[Obama] But, expansion NOW may mean more implications later, meaning need to engineer our way out of a mess. I mean, we allow for basically unregulated use of GMOs (yes, there are some FDA rulings, but come on, what have they truly denied?) and that's something that we see negative repercussions but there's basically no way to undo it.
Politics really can't be just eenie, meanie miny moe. Can it? Right now I almost feel as though it is.
One thing I do know is California HAS to vote yes on GMO labeling! Let companies who create these products wear the label with pride! Vote Yes on Prop 37!
I'm likely libertarian - I'm liberal in thinking of individual rights. I believe in less government, especially federal government. But, I believe that we have vulnerable individuals who have served their time for us (elderly) or may need help (short-term welfare programs that require volunteering in exchange if not actively seeking jobs).
[Romney] But I'm conservative in that I don't believe that taxing one person to keep another person buried in the thinking that "government help" as a right is right. I believe we should be able to make choices as families (see my post regarding this), but also believe that life starts at implantation.
[Obama] I'm also for protecting individuals from corporations. Corporations have the ability to buy laws to go their way through marketing, lobbying and getting posts in the government. Government may not need regulation, but they should be forced to tell us what they are doing, the impact and should not be above the laws for basic citizens.
[Tie here, but most think Romney leads here] I'm for less frivolous spending and crazy earmarks.
[Obama] As someone concerned about the environment, my vote should go toward Obama. He believes that what we do today impacts the environment and understands we need to be aware of long-term impact.
[Romney] On the other hand, can I really be pro "rights" and not see that businesses should be able to expand?
[Obama] But, expansion NOW may mean more implications later, meaning need to engineer our way out of a mess. I mean, we allow for basically unregulated use of GMOs (yes, there are some FDA rulings, but come on, what have they truly denied?) and that's something that we see negative repercussions but there's basically no way to undo it.
Politics really can't be just eenie, meanie miny moe. Can it? Right now I almost feel as though it is.
One thing I do know is California HAS to vote yes on GMO labeling! Let companies who create these products wear the label with pride! Vote Yes on Prop 37!
No comments:
Post a Comment