4470 Shares

Politically, what would I be?

Politically, what would I be? Topic: Saudi arabia research
June 17, 2019 / By Cooper
Question: I am against everything in the public health care plan, I support teachers and am against the plan to fire so many different educators and eliminate collective bargaining (in some states). I am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage. I think the U.S. should help the people of Libya. I also think alternative energy should be heavily investigated and researched, and our own oil reserves should be used meanwhile to reduce the high gas cost in this economy. I think we need to stop being close allies with Saudi Arabia (another reason why we need to have alternative energy), especially since many of the people involved with 9/11 were from there. I think people should be allowed to possess guns, but certain types of guns that are unnecessary should not be allowed (like AK-47s). I also think there should be a screening process to obtain a gun, such as for psychiatric disorders or certain criminal records. Oops, not everything in the public health care plan, but a good portion. I do not support affirmative action.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Politically, what would I be?

Arron Arron | 8 days ago
You are certainly a mix of political beliefs, but before you ever vote, weigh up the good and bad of all parties and tick the box of the one which makes the most sense overall, even where there are weaknesses in their policies.
👍 104 | 👎 8
Did you like the answer? Politically, what would I be? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Saudi arabia research


Arron Originally Answered: Are Americans politically naive?
Overall, yes, in my observation, I do feel Americans are politically naive. It comes down to many factors. Th US has a history of avoiding a true debate. This sounds quite foolish to say, but think about it. We allow speakers to give a long, well orchestrated speech concerning their view, and maybe we'll get an opposing view which is another long, well orchestrated speech. It's hard for anyone to make heads or tails of it because it all sounds good at the time. Contrast this with the British Parliament who has the Prime Minister stand up for a short snippet and sit back down for immediate feedback. The opposing side gets to say what they disagree with specifically and then sit. The Prime Minister gets up again, only to talk directly against the point of contention. This goes on back and forth and one can easily see which is the stronger argument. Some of the current press conferences make the attempt to fill this void, but those behind the mike have the choice as to how many questions to take, whether they will answer them, and who asks the question. By having these controls, you stifle dissent. Another problem is the choice of political news. Let's face it, the news media can at times be a little biased, CNN, FOX, MS NBC, Reuters, the whole lot. But what's fascinating is that those who are the greatest criticizers of this keep going to the greatest polar side (e.g. MS NBC or FOX) and don't diversify their news coverage. Those in my state keep the TV on FOX news and fill their entire evening with their programs. When you fill your lives with one side of the argument, you can't see the full picture nor come up with the right answer. Imagine a judge who heard only the testimony from the prosecution. If you were a defendant, you'd be in real trouble. Likewise, by doing this you are naive to the full implications of your point of view. Last and maybe most importantly is the American's world view. As you are an American like me you are well aware of American pride. What I mean is the general feeling of pride for being at the top of the global economic food chain, top GDP, highest income earners globally, Cold War, strongest military, world's police, etc. As American for years we have felt near invincible when it comes to the powerful countries of the world. Where we falter is when we take a stance of not listening to other countries and points of view on issues. To often we think that the world needs an American answer to solve a problem. While sometimes we may be correct, other times we may not be. In some of the best corporations in the world, the CEO can be a great leader, but he/she usually has a board to discuss strategy with. These decisions are a unified decision with input from all members. On the world front, political association boards are a perfect place to discuss certain political problems. Oddly enough, many Americans feel that political association boards such as NATO don't work or are irrevocably bound to be powerless to do anything. Because of this Americans certainly naive to the full extent of their views on the world's political canvas.
Arron Originally Answered: Are Americans politically naive?
I don't know that Americans are politically naive so much as they are politically optimistic. Optimism is a cornerstone of the American way of life (true pessimists would never buy into the concept of the people having the wisdom to make political choices), and this translates directly into people expecting things like honest politicians and rules in politics.
Arron Originally Answered: Are Americans politically naive?
Many are addicted to FOX. those human beings have given their believe to a community that went to courtroom to win the impressive to misinform them. Governments under no circumstances did that. FOX did. ABC under no circumstances did that. FOX did. NBC under no circumstances did that. FOX did. CBS under no circumstances did that. FOX did. you spot - the FOX Addicts have become so inured to lies - that I could chuckle while they whine - - "government LIES" I advise - how might they be attentive to? If the government easily DID misinform them - - - do not you think of that Righties might then LOVE the government? after all - it somewhat is why they love FOX! by ability of how - - - it grew to become into made public right this moment that Murdoch and his group hacked into the indoors maximum telephone traces of diverse electorate in great Britain. So - FOX lies - - - and that they hear in on your conversations. NOW - who do you think of is naive? LOL ... Righties ..... LOL ...... LOL .......

Urbana Urbana
Much of what you raised shows you're addressing Democrats' LIES about what's going on and not the actual issues. Save yourself the trouble. ALL politics stems from your answer to ONE question: Is the proper role of government to be: a) the people's agent? b) the people's OWNER? If you picked a) you're a conservative/libertarian/Republican. If you picked b) you're a Democrat/fascist/liberal. It really is that simple.
👍 30 | 👎 0

Urbana Originally Answered: Evolution, Politically Appointed World View or Science?
Charles Darwin plagiarized the manuscript that he was given to read, put his own name on it, and called it "Origin of Species". It was not even his work. He learned evolution and his hatred of God, from his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, who hated the Biblical God, and paid lip service to the pantheist god. Evolution first entered a scientific field through geology. By the early 1830s a group of lawyers and professional politicians had taken control of the London Geological Society which had been founded by Sir Humphrey Davy in 1807 as an informal enclave to discuss the politics of geology. Although few professional geologists were in the membership, let alone the leadership of the Society, it nevertheless became a very prestigious group, rivaling the Royal Society. In the fourth decade of the Nineteenth Century the leadership of the Society rested in men like George Poulett Scrope, Charles Lyell and Erasmus Dar­win, (grandfather of Charles Darwin). Hardly one of these men was a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, let alone a geologist; but that did not phase either them nor the world after them. It was in Lyell that the evolutionary myth became wedded to European science. Charles Darwin once wrote: "I have lately read Morley’s Life of Vol­taire and he insists strongly that direct at­tacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks." Lyell took the lesson to heart and came up with a much subtler idea. Rather than directly attacking the Bible, he choose to at­tack it indirectly by maintaining that the Noachic Flood was merely a myth and that maintaining it as fact impeded the “progress” of geology. In his work, Lyell skillfully avoided all evidence for the Flood and, indeed, any form of evidence for catastrophic events in the geological record. Lyell main­tained that “the present is the key to the past” by which he meant that the rock strata could be accounted for by processes which are cur­rently happening on the surface of the earth. This concept is called the uniformitarian principle. What Lyell passed off as pure science ended up being nothing but subtly disguised political propaganda; a deliberate lie.
Urbana Originally Answered: Evolution, Politically Appointed World View or Science?
"is it a worldview matched by powerful naturalists, humanists and atheistic leaders inundating our educational institutions with natural selection and Eugenic propaganda"? No, but that's the sort of language you use if you have been brainwashed by the ID movement. The Discovery Institute has an ideological agenda which is quite brazenly admitted in its Wedge Strategy Document: "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than THE OVERTHROW OF MATERIALISM and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened THE CASE FOR A BROADLY THEISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF NATURE." (block capitals mine) There is nothing improper about Darwinian science; there is plenty amiss with "social Darwinism" and the ID brigade quite cynically confuse the two. We can rely on the checks and balances within the world of professional science to provide the necessary correction; we can rely on the ID mob to fudge the issues in support of their own cause. These people have no integrity.

If you have your own answer to the question saudi arabia research, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.