What I believe - Comment to Brave Humans

Here is a post based upon a comment I left over at Brave Humans the other day, and I thought I would share it with you and it should give you a small taste of what I believe ideologically speaking:

...the media only sees black or white (or red and blue as the case may be) and the talk show hosts need to consider their audience and ratings. I honestly believe that the Ann Coulters and Al Frankens (or whoever the left equivalent pig is) only says the most outrageous things because it gets them publicity and ratings.

I believe we as citizens should not be grouped directly for demographic purposes since we all have varying and often different opinions even within our own parties or ideologies. Since the media only wants to provide sound bites, rather than real news it is just easier to group us together like lemmings or cattle.

I believe a 3rd party could come out of no where and potentially steal or spoil the 2008 presidential election since most people are not enamoured with the status quo of business as usual and the dead end political rhetoric coming out of Washington. I am hoping that Joe Lieberman is no where near this 3rd party initiative but I know that slime bastard will probably be in the center of this new party. I hope this 3rd party can last longer than the Ross Perot and his Reform Party of 1992 and 1996.

I believe the 2008 campaign is already costing the economy too much time and money that can be better spent helping our community and citizens. It seems that at least $100-150 Million was spent in the first quarter alone to support the top candidates. This money could have been better spent feeding the homeless, or providing more money for the local schools, or to find a cure for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's or some other deadly disease, instead of being pissed away via the political process. What a waste!!!

I myself am a social libertarian, who believes in a solid Jeffersonian model of government. In other words the fed has no role or responsibility to do anything not explicitly laid out in the constitution. If it ain't in the Constitution then it is the states role to deal with it. This means smaller more efficient federal government that is able to provide national security for defensive purposes.

This means leaving a decision on a woman's body and health in her hands, not in the hands of some men who have chosen a different path. Yes I believe that pro-life individuals have in fact chosen to be that way, and that is fine. They need to recognize their choice and allow other individuals to make their own choice regarding their bodies. Preventing unwanted pregnancies through birth control is a much better way of avoiding this situation, but accidents happen and sexual education needs not to be taboo in the home and in the schools.

This means keeping their hands and regulations off our scientific community, so that we can again become a power in this arena.

This means allowing the states the freedom to set laws that they see fit for their citizens, and having the other states respect those laws, since isn't it easier to appease and provide for 50 individual heads instead of one 50 headed monster.

I believe our troops would be much better served here working to prevent terrorist activities at our ports and borders, not fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan where it seems we can accomplish very little in the big picture. (the big picture either bringing democracy to the middle east or the overall war on terrorism)

I believe the 2nd amendment has significant value, but the sale of automatic assault rifles serves no purpose for home protection or hunting wildlife. Nothing wrong with a .22 or good old fashioned shotgun.

I could go on, but hopefully you get my point of view. What do you believe?