Do you agree with the following? I think the federal government should allow the states that think it is appropriate to enact the abortion policy that the citizens and legislators think is proper for their communities.
No, because abortion is a question of privacy, a right that is guaranteed by the bill of rights and not subject to be overridden by the states.
You say you haven't voted democrat in over a decade. Do you vote republican in general? If so, it would seem odd since two issues you are extremely vocal about are the right to an abortion and regulating/legalizing some drugs which are two issues the republican platform is strongly against, yet democrats seem to endorse. I would think you would want to empower folks who agree with your views (perhaps you are voting for non-republican candidates that support your views). While you say that you are more conservative than the people you encounter, based on your two vocal views, it doesn't appear you are a conservative in general.
I don't vote based on party, I vote based on how good a job I think a candidate will do at the job s/he is running for. You might want to read the party platforms before you go making these statements. The Democrats toe the line on prohibition just as the Republicans do because there is big money for politicians in prohibition. The alcohol and pharmaceutical industries as well as the cotton and oil industries don't want it regulated for their own profit motives. Then you need to look up the definition of a conservative. Conservatives used to mean someone who wants the government to spend as little money as possible (the GOP doesn't seem to share this belief anymore) and is a proponent os states' rights (something also not espoused by card carrying Republicans these days).
Wouldn't you agree that a candidate that defines himself as liberal (generally democratic) would better represent your vocal views on the legalization/regulation of mar1juana and the right for a woman to choose to kill her unborn child? Wouldn't you agree that a democratic (or non-republican) speaker of the house would be more apt to get a medicinal mar1juana bill moving thus possibly leading the way for more lax mar1juana laws? Wouldn't you agree that a non-republican president (and non-republican congress) would be more apt to appoint judges that would support the roe v. wade decision? By the way, you misconstrued by post. I never said that the democratic 'platform' endorsed legalization/regulation of some drugs, I stated that 'democrats' seem to endorse (e.g. medicinal mar1juana). I agree that conservatives are for less government and for more states rights. You seem to have two very vocal/personal views that conflict with the GOP (traditionally considered the 'conservative' party).
Actually, Republicans from Gary Johnson (ex-Governor of New Mexico) to Professor Crouch, a Republican with the UCSB Economics Dept. have begun to call for decrim, legalization, and regulation. While I agree that more Dems probably support it now, the GOP is starting to come along. First of all, medical mar1juana is much more than a movement to begin weakening the mar1juana laws. Personally, I think that medical mar1juana is a states rights issue and would fall closer to the Republican views. Sure, but there are PLENTY of Republicans who are strongly pro-choice (I know a half dozen of them myself). Again, I think that it is about equal right now. If there is a leftward lean, it is very slight. If I was FORCED to claim allegiance to a party, the only one that comes close for me right now is the Libertarians, although they even have some parts of their platform that give me the willies. Libertarians can also be considered conservative.
I mean honestly - why the hell are people up in other people's business. Judge NOT, lest ye be judged. Or just SHUT THE **** UP AND MIND YOUR OWN DAMNED BUSINESS. DD
