|
|
| Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (102183) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by SilverFox on Tue Feb 28 07:08:51 2006, in response to Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by aem7ac on Mon Feb 27 09:45:15 2006. Without getting everybody's BVDs into a bunch, and not really caring anymore what anybody thinks of what I say, here is my latest contribution to the ankle-biter brigade's jihad against me:Stem Cell Research: For it. Until God starts creating cures for the ailments He hath wrought upon us, we only have ourselves and our intellect to work with. Gun Control: This should read "Gun ELIMINATION laws," and for that I would be Against. Outlaws don't follow existing gun control laws when procuring their weapons, leaving the law-abiding public nigh defenseless except for a thin blue line that may or may not be there in time when you call them. Guns should be "controlled" the same way the DMV "controls" the privilege of driving; and the Buildings Department and other departments "control" their jurisdictions through permits and fitness statutes. Anybody operating outside gun "control" statutes thus promulgated should face definite felony charges with guaranteed prison time if found guilty. Abortion Choice: For. In a perfect world there would be no need for abortions as everybody would have the discipline, self-respect, and value for life to think twice and three times before engaging in wanton sex; and then to take many levels of precaution against pregnancy so that life won't be sacrificed unnecessarily. But I concede that this is not a perfect world, and am not pro-choice for womens' rights reasons as much as for pragmatic reasons: I am not someone who is pro-life until the baby squirts out of the womb and then abandons the baby and the mother to the vagaries of governmental social services or the families' own inability to care for it. The baby would likely lead a miserable life; its chances for adoption are less than certain (moreso if it was disabled); and will in turn burden society. Better for the mother to live with her choice alone than for society to live with it in perpetuity. Federal[ized] Healthcare: Against. The Government can't be trusted to run anything without massive inefficiency, waste, corruption, and bureaucracy. Health staff will be hired by affirmative action quota instead of overall competence. Nobody will be able to be fired without (literally) a Federal case being made out of it. I hazard that jokes will be made, such as, "Did you hear about the American abortion clinic? There's a year-long waiting list, haw haw haw." Is that the kind of Rube-Goldberg healthcare you want? Port Sale [To any Muslim or Arab nation]: Against. Hell, why don't we outsource the Pentagon, or the Pentagon's loading docks, or whatever portion of the Pentagon that would be synonymous with this selling of our sovereignty? And as for any aspect of our ports to be handled by any foreign company as did the British until this latest contract, well shame on our Government for allowing it. Now is the time for it to contract only to American companies. Rational? Probably not. Prudent? Moreso than the present arrangement. Social Security Reform: For. At present, our FICA taxes are NOT being used to fund Social Security, for Social Security monies were never segregated from the General Fund of the Government. This allows the Government to raid the SocSec Trust Fund at whim, replacing it with Government "paper" that must be repaid with interest at some point in the future. In essence, we are paying two income taxes for much the same purposes, and at the same time, increasing our Federal deficit, without helping the aged one whit with our "contributions" to the Federal system. And what does SocSec pay as a "pension" to retirees? Enough to live on? Think again. Although retirees are probably getting out twice as much (or more) as they've paid into the system, their benefits do not allow them to live anywhere near comfortably. If the money were not plundered to "reduce" (when in fact it is contributing to) the Federal deficit, there would be enough of a surplus to comfortably accommodate the retiring Boomers now coming online to the system without raising the [mandatory] "contribution" levels. Instead, we will probably endlessly raise the ceiling on FICA-eligible income, increase the "contribution" percentage and not call it a "tax hike," which in fact it is, and continue to provide a marginal existence to the elderly as "thanks" for their contributions when they were younger. [Source: Martin L. Gross, The Tax Racket, and The Government Racket: Washington Waste from A to Z] Hitler called the aged, "Useless Eaters," and had a "solution" for them. I guess our Government is implying the same by the insult of a "pension" they receive, since they are receiving one in the first place. Should SocSec have even been created . . . well, that's another debate beyond the scope of the question, and one with deep philosophical implications. And no, Mr. BIE, reforming SocSec doesn't necessarily mean having to let Wall Street in to fix it. It just needs our elected representatives to respect our money as they would respect their own. But investing in Fannie Maes or other governmental securities to help propagate the income derived from FICA taxes instead of just letting it languish would require Wall Street's intercession only minimally, and produce a better return on our contributions than we are now getting, with nary a risk to the principal [Ibid.]. Morning After: Very much in favor. It seems harmless, and acts before the egg is even fertilized, much less mitosis and other actions take place to form the fetus. If not abortion, then definitely this, in order to keep our sexual sanity. Gay Marriage Ambivalent. Something tells me that this is not the Nation's most pressing issue at the moment. But there are some problems I have with the concept: It starts a slippery slope as to what else can be considered eligible for "marriage." What about incest? What about pedophilia? What about bestiality? What about any number of other less-politically-correct perversions that will, probably within our lifetimes at the rate we are going, belly up to the Federal bar for recognition, and even legitimacy? I feel that homosexuals are co-opting the issue as a front for the legitimization of the "lifestyle." Although I couldn't care less what they do in the privacy of their own domiciles and would never condone assaulting or other bias crimes against them, I do not feel that homosexuality is a "legitimate" "alternative lifestyle" worthy of mainstreaming. Simple as that. Nobody will change my mind on it. I subscribe to the Chris R16/R2730 argument that there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is inborn, or at the very least, cannot be controlled or treated as any other mental or hormonal deficiency. In the end (pardon the pun), I feel that if they love each other, and apparently most of them do, it won't do any more damage to the fabric of marriage as a 50% divorce rate among straight couples is already doing. If forced to give an opinion, my mind would be 51% against, 49% in favor, for the reasons I have stated above. It isn't as cut-and-dried as many would think, given my sociopolitical track record on here. Public Smoking Ban: Against. Although I think that smoking is a filthy, disgusting habit for the most part (although a cigar every few months is a civil pleasure I take), it goes too far when my choice to engage in a legal activity is artificially being limited for no good reason except some nebulous "greater good," or because some have considered me too stupid to make my mind up for myself what is good for me. Patriot Act: For. I might be naive, but when the going gets tough, the tough have to rein in their population a bit. Terrorism prevention is still a nascent science, and until its methods can be refined and standardized, we have to start somewhere. This doesn't mean that the Act's tenets shouldn't be questioned or constantly discussed; or reviewed for currency every so often. We should all participate in formulating a Constitutional and functional Act to protect us all. Creation in Schools: Against. I don't want to start disrespecting the Believers among us. Motorcycle Helmet [Laws]: Against. For the same reasons I am against the smoking ban and seat belt laws. But there should be increased insurance rates if it can be conclusively proven that un-belted or un-helmeted people face greater risk in a majority of common accident situations than the more conservative in the insurance pool. You wanna play, you should pay. In the end, the choice should be yours. |
|
|
|