Walking the Path of Heaven, Throwing Away My Vote [POLITICS]

[Andy Waltfeld offline]

Topic title brought to you by Cassius, who recently exposed his (her?) Kamen Rider obsession. 'cept I'm citing Kabuto rather than Decade, but that's beside the point.

So I've been doing a little soul-searching in the wake of my various posts in General Discussion's "Obama Peace Prize" topic and a long history of politically-themed journal entries on deviantART. And in the end, I've compiled a demographic summary of myself pursuant to a variety of major and minor issues in American poilitics:

- I am in the Male 18-35 demographic, and generally identify as "Asian or Pacific Islander."
- I oppose government-provided healthcare whose purchase is a prerequisite for national citizenship.
- I support gay marriage on a state-by-state basis, so long as full faith and credit is afforded such marriages per the relevant articles of the Constitution.
- I oppose energy regulations (cap-and-trade, among others) due to their tendency to bring people down rather than raise them up in a clean manner.
- I oppose the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, as it rewards international media producers for ignoring global markets, consumer demand, and media obsolescence.
- I support the ethical treatment of animals, but not the people who bomb research facilities and kill innocent people in the name of that cause.
- I support the Armed Forces of the United States, and believe in achieving victory in any conflict to which their force is projected within reasonable cost.
- I oppose companies sidestepping bankruptcy by receiving taxpayer-funded grants from the government.
- I oppose the government using taxpayer money to invest in private companies for the purpose of maintaining a majority share.
- I recognize that violence in the name of God is violence nonetheless, and must be punished as such under all laws pursuant to the severity of the deed.

When all is said and done, I recognize that I am more or less IRREVOCABLY (BKO'D) as far as the American electorate is concerned, thanks to moronic polarization within the two-party system. So how does the rest of LF stack up?

[SearchingLyoko offline]

I have NO SAY officially, not even voting power... but I know people who know people.

You know that "Pen is mightier then the sword" and the thing where a lot of people together can make a difference... I tend to exploit those a lot. (I'm about to exploit them in a non-government way)

I currently believe the world is in a state of Idiocracy, especially when it comes to way of living and moral values... and needs a major reform.

I also believe that we should try to balance ecologically-friendly lifestyle with comfortable lifestyle... if only for the benefit of not breathing Smog.

I also believe that technological advance should be embraced, but you have to draw the line somewhere (like, for instance, I embrace using genetic-alterations to make babies immune to disease, cancer, etc.... but allowing the rich to have "designer babies" which can be genetically modified to be a great athlete, a genius, etc. is a BIG no-no.)

[TheLQ offline]

I'll probably turn this into a bloodbath, but its a forum.

- I oppose government-provided healthcare whose purchase is a prerequisite for national citizenship.

But then what happens when they die?

- I support gay marriage on a state-by-state basis, so long as full faith and credit is afforded such marriages per the relevant articles of the Constitution.

While i'm with you in gay marrage, state by state is not a good idea. Remember black civil rights? A national law needs to be set to end controversy and make sure they get to excersise their rights.

- I oppose the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, as it rewards international media producers for ignoring global markets, consumer demand, and media obsolescence.

I sorta have issue with the act. But i'm not getting your reason. All copyrights are handled by the creator, and when they die, their manager/company/family. If they want to be stingy, then let them, its their money that they might be loosing.

- I support the Armed Forces of the United States, and believe in achieving victory in any conflict to which their force is projected within reasonable cost.

Big issue i know. My take on our power is that we should intervien only when it threatens a large group of people. In the middle east, we should of removed Sadamn Hussein as a dictator. We should of helped them back up (since we practically destroyed their country). We should of established a government. But once it was setup, Leave. We shouldn't intervene in a war thats been going on for hundreds of years. Were just more people to shoot at.

However don't think that i hate our armed forces. They signed a contract and unless they wan't an dishonorable discharge (which screws you for the rest of your life), then they have to fight.

- I oppose companies sidestepping bankruptcy by receiving taxpayer-funded grants from the government.
- I oppose the government using taxpayer money to invest in private companies for the purpose of maintaining a majority share.

This is a sorta-ish for me. I think that in some cases goverment money is needed so half the banks in the world don't fail. Car makers is a diffrent story. The reason that we threw money at car makers is that they have alot of jobs; so much that if they failed, the unemployment rate would jump a few percentage points. In desperate (and ONLY desperate) times radical decisions are needed.

--

And thats my take on some of the issues.

[Andy Waltfeld offline]

- I oppose government-provided healthcare whose purchase is a prerequisite for national citizenship.

But then what happens when they die?

Think you're missing the point on this one. As the current healthcare bill stands, those who do not purchase healthcare through either the government's public option or private policies will be fined or sent to jail. Ergo, the government is requiring you to pay a continual fee to be a citizen of the United States. And the cost of that required coverage will be a major hurdle for not only the elderly, but also working students, the homeless, and others drawing little to no income.

- I support gay marriage on a state-by-state basis, so long as full faith and credit is afforded such marriages per the relevant articles of the Constitution.

While i'm with you in gay marrage, state by state is not a good idea. Remember black civil rights? A national law needs to be set to end controversy and make sure they get to excersise their rights.

Duly noted, but the more militant portions of the homosexual community have a nasty habit of infiltrating schools and petitioning them to teach about alternative gender roles and lifestyles at far too early ages (like, K-5). You don't have African-Americans becoming teachers for the sake of teaching little kids how to be gangsta; they use the media like anyone else who wants to encourage people to make poor lifestyle choices.

(Not trying to rag on gays here, but when the Safe School Czar is ex-NAMBLA, I suggest everyone in the alternative sexuality community check themselves before they wreck themselves.)

- I oppose the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, as it rewards international media producers for ignoring global markets, consumer demand, and media obsolescence.

I sorta have issue with the act. But i'm not getting your reason. All copyrights are handled by the creator, and when they die, their manager/company/family. If they want to be stingy, then let them, its their money that they might be loosing.

My stance here is more or less indefensible, this is my anime fandom/Super Robot Wars player butthurt talking.

- I support the Armed Forces of the United States, and believe in achieving victory in any conflict to which their force is projected within reasonable cost.

Big issue i know. My take on our power is that we should intervien only when it threatens a large group of people. In the middle east, we should of removed Sadamn Hussein as a dictator. We should of helped them back up (since we practically destroyed their country). We should of established a government. But once it was setup, Leave. We shouldn't intervene in a war thats been going on for hundreds of years. Were just more people to shoot at.

However don't think that i hate our armed forces. They signed a contract and unless they wan't an dishonorable discharge (which screws you for the rest of your life), then they have to fight.

I have no problem with whether or not they fight. My problem is with whether or not their employers (i.e. Congress) allow them to complete their objective. Rest assured, I don't like interminable military involvement either. Look at Vietnam and how LBJ and McNamara were fighting not to win, but merely to not lose.

- I oppose companies sidestepping bankruptcy by receiving taxpayer-funded grants from the government.
- I oppose the government using taxpayer money to invest in private companies for the purpose of maintaining a majority share.

This is a sorta-ish for me. I think that in some cases goverment money is needed so half the banks in the world don't fail. Car makers is a diffrent story. The reason that we threw money at car makers is that they have alot of jobs; so much that if they failed, the unemployment rate would jump a few percentage points. In desperate (and ONLY desperate) times radical decisions are needed.

We have Chapter 11 and other bankruptcies to protect employees' ability to work for failing companies while they reconsolidate their assets. The whole point of losing profit is that you've lost touch with your consumer base, and have to reconnect with what they demand in a product in order to regain profit. GM and Chrysler chose instead to pander to their union bosses, and thus drove themselves into a position to be assimilated by the government via TARP funding.

[SearchingLyoko offline]

I think we should go with Jamie Hyneman's (from Mythbusters) idea:

Send most of the world's politicians to Pig Farms.

[Mewberries151]

- I oppose government-provided healthcare whose purchase is a prerequisite for national citizenship.

But then what happens when they die?

Think you're missing the point on this one. As the current healthcare bill stands, those who do not purchase healthcare through either the government's public option or private policies will be fined or sent to jail. Ergo, the government is requiring you to pay a continual fee to be a citizen of the United States. And the cost of that required coverage will be a major hurdle for not only the elderly, but also working students, the homeless, and others drawing little to no income.

Links please as to where you've heard this and/or gotten this information from, thanks. I've yet to read anywhere that having health insurance will be a requirement (and honestly, it may as already be one seeing as how there are so many consequences presently for not having any.)

<b>Edit</b>: Upon doing some researching of my own, it seems there is some discrepancy about this subject. Some resources say it is actually a tax and not a fine, and a similar such situation that already currently exists in Massachusetts. Also, it seems that the jail punishment is only an implied further punishment of not paying said "fine", which if it actually is a tax, makes sense...because that's tax evasion.

As to the fine (those saying it is, indeed, a fine) itself, it seems the idea behind this is that it's being put into place to keep people from "free-riding" the system in various ways (ie. only signing up when they're very sick for example). Also, it is only in the House's version of the bill. The Senate removed it from their own version during their Finance Committee.

- I support gay marriage on a state-by-state basis, so long as full faith and credit is afforded such marriages per the relevant articles of the Constitution.

While i'm with you in gay marrage, state by state is not a good idea. Remember black civil rights? A national law needs to be set to end controversy and make sure they get to excersise their rights.

Duly noted, but the more militant portions of the homosexual community have a nasty habit of infiltrating schools and petitioning them to teach about alternative gender roles and lifestyles at far too early ages (like, K-5). You don't have African-Americans becoming teachers for the sake of teaching little kids how to be gangsta; they use the media like anyone else who wants to encourage people to make poor lifestyle choices.

(Not trying to rag on gays here, but when the Safe School Czar is ex-NAMBLA, I suggest everyone in the alternative sexuality community check themselves before they wreck themselves.)

Wait...what? 8\ Did you just call homosexuality a "poor lifestyle choice" (I was going to italicize one of those words for emphasis but the whole phrase is just...*no words*) or am I mis-reading your post?


I'll be posting my own Political views a little later when I can narrow them down to just a few...otherwise my post'd go on forever. ^^;

[Andy Waltfeld offline]

Duly noted, but the more militant portions of the homosexual community have a nasty habit of infiltrating schools and petitioning them to teach about alternative gender roles and lifestyles at far too early ages (like, K-5). You don't have African-Americans becoming teachers for the sake of teaching little kids how to be gangsta; they use the media like anyone else who wants to encourage people to make poor lifestyle choices.

(Not trying to rag on gays here, but when the Safe School Czar is ex-NAMBLA, I suggest everyone in the alternative sexuality community check themselves before they wreck themselves.)

Wait...what? 8\ Did you just call homosexuality a "poor lifestyle choice" (I was going to italicize one of those words for emphasis but the whole phrase is just...*no words*) or am I mis-reading your post?


I'll be posting my own Political views a little later when I can narrow them down to just a few...otherwise my post'd go on forever. ^^;

Totally didn't mean to say homosexuality was a poor lifestyle choice. But teaching young children about homosexuality at an age where they ought to be focusing on reading, writing, and arithmetic just seems like a waste of school resources. Doubly so if the people teaching them have a history of far more dangerous forms of sexual deviancy such as pedophilia. (And no, I don't subscribe to the theory that homosexuality is a gateway drug for other off-standard sexual practices, either.)

Yes, our students will wind up knowing tolerance for all people and things. But how will they answer questions requiring logic and exact answers when they've been raised that every answer is right? If you really need to explore gender roles in an academic setting, start in sixth grade when half of everybody is hitting puberty and the curriculum starts shifting more towards social sciences anyway, not bleedin' KINDERGARTEN.

[SilverPrince offline]

Duly noted, but the more militant portions of the homosexual community have a nasty habit of infiltrating schools and petitioning them to teach about alternative gender roles and lifestyles at far too early ages (like, K-5). You don't have African-Americans becoming teachers for the sake of teaching little kids how to be gangsta; they use the media like anyone else who wants to encourage people to make poor lifestyle choices.

(Not trying to rag on gays here, but when the Safe School Czar is ex-NAMBLA, I suggest everyone in the alternative sexuality community check themselves before they wreck themselves.)

<s>As Mew said, be careful in your wording. It sounds very much like you just called homosexuality a "poor lifestyle choice". If it were a choice, I certainly wouldn't have picked it. Furthermore, "alternative sexuality community" has a bit of a negative connotation. I'm not personally offended, but just be aware that there are those who could be. I tend to stick with "LGBT community."

That being said, I'm not one for teaching kindergarteners about sexuality/gender roles either. That's a bit extreme. I think middle school is perhaps a good time to start saying things like "There are people out there who like the same gender, and it is not OK to beat them up for it." Especially now that it's a hate crime.</s>

Nevermind.

Think you're missing the point on this one. As the current healthcare bill stands, those who do not purchase healthcare through either the government's public option or private policies will be fined or sent to jail. Ergo, the government is requiring you to pay a continual fee to be a citizen of the United States. And the cost of that required coverage will be a major hurdle for not only the elderly, but also working students, the homeless, and others drawing little to no income.

Aren't taxes also a fee for citizenship, then? If you don't pay them, you go to jail. And while I'm nowhere near an expert in the healthcare plan, there would be subsidies for families who couldn't afford the plan. If it ends up being included.

- I oppose companies sidestepping bankruptcy by receiving taxpayer-funded grants from the government.
- I oppose the government using taxpayer money to invest in private companies for the purpose of maintaining a majority share.

There are companies that are simply too integrated in the economy to let fail. Take the Big Three Automakers, GM, Ford and Chrysler. I live in Michigan, this is close to heart. We need the Big Three. Manufacturing is the dirty, rusty lifeblood of this state. Poor economic planning, yes. But it's the truth. We're trying to transition but it's going to take a while, and in the meantime, we need GM. We need Chrysler. We need Ford. Had the government allowed them to simply fail, I assure you the unemployment rate here would be far worse than it already is, and it's already 15.3% and rising. Heck, losing the Big Three would have destroyed the already crippled Rust Belt. We have put too many of our eggs in one basket, and now it's going to take some money to get some new baskets and move the eggs. This is just one of those times where you have to hold your nose and swallow the medicine. I don't like it either.

- I support the Armed Forces of the United States, and believe in achieving victory in any conflict to which their force is projected within reasonable cost.

I support our soldiers, but I don't support the policy of the United States running around, acting as the police force of the world. If we are attacked, by all means, we need to defeat the attackers. But Iraq did nothing to us. Frankly, we simply cannot afford to keep this up. We cannot afford war.

[SearchingLyoko offline]

Can't we just all live in peace?

Everyone: No.

[Andy Waltfeld offline]

Can't we just all live in peace?

Everyone: No.

Man said to God/the world/the president (circle one), "Sir, I exist!"
"However," said God/the world/the president (circle same), "That has not inspired in me any sense of obligation."

[SearchingLyoko offline]

Interesante.

[Mewberries151]

Can't we just all live in peace?

Everyone: No.

Man said to God/the world/the president (circle one), "Sir, I exist!"
"However," said God/the world/the president (circle same), "That has not inspired in me any sense of obligation."

I've personally always seen that quote use the phrase "The Universe" in the place of God or World or what have you, but I suppose it can be modified to fit one's own feelings.

That said, that quote used to annoy the heck out of me, but then again I was in an Existentialism class at the time I first heard it. Now when I hear it, I kind of get where the Universe is coming from. >_>;

[SearchingLyoko offline]

You know... except when speaking religiously, I always use the word "god" meaning "The universe"... "existance", etc....

I promote this... for one... because it ends the religious debate over things like "Oh... I'm not saying the pledge of allegiance, I don't believe in god!"

Having it mean a higher being for religious people and Universe for non-religious people solves a lot of problems.