Multani's Political Corner: 3

[Gryphonclaw]

(first 2 cents) Wow, this is some pretty mature stuff for the stereotypical magic player to be thinking of. I'm impressed. Apparently we have some exceptions to the rule.

(the rest)
I can't and won't comment much on the Bush/Gore thing other than to say that my political view is liberal and thus if I were to vote, it would be for Gore, as the lesser of two evils. (Though not a lot lesser)

However, abortion and death penalty are subjects that I can comment on.

First off, abortion.
There are several aspects to this topic, from family values to sexual mores to right to life and so on.
For the moment I'll just stick with abortion itself. We have a case of an unwanted pregnancy, should the mother be allowed to abort.

Subject: Right to life
There are many people who believe that the baby inside the mother has a right to live, and that the mother does not have a right to end it's life. I agree that the mother does not have the right to end the baby's life, anymore than anyone else has the right to end the life of another.
Killing is not a right, it is a priviledge.
People kill other creatures all the time, we kill for the priviledge to eat meat, we kill in the name of justice, we kill for patriotism, in short, death happens. Nobody has an inherent 'right to life'.
On the flip side, nobody has an inherent 'right to kill'. In short, the 'right to life' aspect of abortion is not relevant. Whether or not an abortion should be allowed should be considered solely on the basis of the consequences of having the birth or not.

Perhaps I should clarify.
Death happens. In the real world, death is just as necessary as life. There is no inherent 'goodness' or 'badness' in either. Creatures of all sorts die all the time for much more minor reasons than an unwanted pregnancy.
There is not a single human on this planet over the age of 10 who is not responsible for the death of another animal or plant. After all, if you eat, you are a killer. Even if you state that plants have less of a right to life, being simpler creatures, we kill other animals all the time.
Some cases to think about:
Omnivores, animals died that you can eat.
Trapping mice, animals died that you can live free from disease.
Slapping mosquitos, well, maybe a bit far fetched, but still, a death that you are responsible for.

The fact remains, maybe in a perfect world we could live without any sort of animal death, but the world isn't perfect, so creatures die.

Now many who read this will be thinking that humans are superior to other creatures. To those I ask how. What makes us so special? The only reason we care, at the root, is self interest.

This is getting really long, and less coherent, so I'll stop for now and see what sort of flames crop up. I know that it's not as eloquent as it might be, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

 

[Ransac]

Just out of curiousity, who would you vote for president? Bush, Gore, Ransac, or no one? No long explantations please.

Ransac, the guy with no pants

Ransac/Monkey 2000

 

[Namielus]

I don't think that we are the average magic players. I happen to me one of the more mature players in our group (well at least when cerberus doesn't bother me). But I would say that at least 75% of magic players can't handle seriously taking about sex. 90% can't handle the word penis.

Back on to topic, Death Penalty. What happens if I kill someone. Do you just care that the another person is dead? Do you care if I would do it again. Do you care if I say I'm the spawn of Satan and I will devour the world in flames?

Yes, you should be bi-est in cases with murder. The people of the jury (his peers), will have to be willing to walk down the street knowing that could be someone that has taken a life. They would have to be willing to say that man can live by a school were my child attens.

Almost no person would say that they wanted that killer to be able to kill again. You could always lock them up in prison? That will teach them right? Yes, there is many people that would be controled there and would be safe away from the rest of society. But at the same time no, what about the person that gets perolled in a few years. Ohh you were caught, but you haven't killed enought people/brutally yet to warnet you sticking in jail.

I think that we should force incredible harsh pushishment for crimes. For some people they would rather sit in jail and not have to work for their board, food, and cable TV.

I'm not sure how fast things scale up just I would say that anything that scars someone for life mean would have at least a 50% chance of the death penatly and otherwise life inprisonment.

Take this case for example(this is a true story):
At a hocky game, 5 minutes till the game is over a player (lets call his Ross 18, I don't know there real names), is body checked against the wall. It doesn't really hurts him but it was completely untention on the part of another player (James 17). Ross is angered by this, very angry. About 2 minutes later Ross comes right up to James and goes around him. Ross body checks James from behind. James falls to the ground.

After the EMT arrive they look at James, he has a broken back. They take him off to a hospitle. James will never be able to feel anything below his armpits. For the rest of his life he will be completely disabled.

What should happen to Ross?

Is that such an easy question to answer?

 

[Baskil]

Originally posted by Namielus
Yes, you should be bi-est in cases with murder. The people of the jury (his peers), will have to be willing to walk down the street knowing that could be someone that has taken a life. They would have to be willing to say that man can live by a school were my child attens.

That is by far the scariest thing I have heard anyone say. Justice is supposed to be blind, right???? What about a right to a 'fair' trial??

So answer this.

In the interest in public safety, would you instantly convict *anyone* who is *accused* of a crime???? Should we live a 'normal' life (no violence, no murder, no crime, just everyone happy) at the cost of our universal freedoms????

To quote a couple of Amendments to the Constitution:
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsoryn process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment XIV
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Multani]

Death Penalties are anything but swift.
Also, the constitution was written almost 300 years ago.
The writers could not anticipate every situation. I personally think the right to bear arms is an outdated amendment.
Point is, even after the death penalty is sentenced, there is like a several month's wait, before the prisoner is actually executed. I watch enough Justice Files to know that in modern times, DNA evidence will save any "innocent" people.

 

[Cateran Emperor]

Baskil, the Constitution also contains teh writ of habeas corpus. In laymen's terms, that is the "necessary and proper" clause:

Congress has the power to pass any law deemed necessary and proper

That's not the entire wording, but that is the gist of it. The writ is the reason the country can survive as times change.

As for your question as to how people against abortion can be so "gung-ho" for the death penalty, I'm very glad you asked. A child is inherently innocent, therefore deserving of his right to life. A murderer surrenders his right to life when he violates another's right to life.

Now as for the idea that abortion is not so bad as death is natural, I can't help but wonder why people who think everyone is evil and people suck don't merely commit suicide. After all, in your own opinion you'd be doing the world a favor.

By the way, don't go killing yourself now because I said so, I'm not one of those people who say everyone is evil

 

[terzarima]

Wow a deep discussion on abortion the death penalty and American politics, well being Canadian (go Canada) I actually do follow american politics!! And in my opinion I think that Al Gore should be voted in (and actually polls show him leading) I beleive in many of the things that he does with a couple things I don't (But I live in Canada, so what am I supposed to do?)

About Abortion, I don't find it morally correct but so many people bash it down without giving it a chance, like say someone was raped, would you want your child to be a bastard? I wouldn't expecially if I was raped. Also other things like if you wanted to have a child then ran into problems, would you still want the child? I agree it is a loss of a life, but would you rather have a person that encourages war that kills thousands upon millions or one that supports the right to choose if you want responsibility or not.

About the Death penalty, this I support. Murder in most cases is done knowing all penalties in mind. I think they should be punished to the highest point. But we are talking about a life, and that isn't something to throw around, but the poeple who killed were taking away lives too. I beleive that the death penalty should be inforced.

By the way Canada is thinking about the death Penalty as well. And soon we will be having a Federal election. Maybe I can have a political corner for all us Canadians out there

 

[mogg bomber]

I am very much against abortion, but it's not enough to change my opinion of Bush because regardless of what the President feels about abortion, it will be very hard for abortion law changes to get through congress. Also, there are cases where abortion is the right thing to do(when the mother is danger of dying, etc.)

Now the important stuff: why Bush is defineately the wrong choice. First of all, the last thing we need is more money going to the military. Why would Bush want this? The US is pretty much unopposed as far as military strength, and enough is already spent on it(if not too much).

I also don't agree with the way Bush is going about this election. Instead of focusing on issues, he's worried about looking credible and more trustworthy. Who cares if the President is trustworthy as long as he does his job well? Clinton did one of the stupidest things possible, but he still ran the country well.

And the numbers speak for themselves. Here are statistics of Texas, with Bush as governer:

#1 in state executions(I'm very much against the death penalty)
#1 in air and water pollution(Another of Bush's major mistakes. We must worry about the future, and Bush really doesn't seem to care. I suppose he has some reason for wanting to use up what few natural resources we have left, but whatever his reason is I can't see it.)
49th in money spent on the environment(see above)
#1 in percentage of working parents without insurance
#1 in percentage of school children without health insurance
50th in the amount spent on public teachers' salaries(you think the public education system is bad now? Watch what happens if Bush is elected. And I don't think anyone doubts the importance of education.)

I could go on, but I really don't need to and it's late.

 

[Baskil]

Let me clarify my stance on the death penalty so everone knows what I mean by what I say.

The current state of the country right now prejudges people based on the fact that they are accused of a crime. It is human nature that if an authoritative source says something, people start to believe it. However, I can't help but wonder how many people are being played by a corrupt judicial system like the one that is in place right now. The fact that over 150 death row inmates have had their sentences repealed sort of sheds light on that fact. And not just because of DNA evidence. There is also the factor of forced confessions, 'planted' evidence, misrepresentation of facts, etc. Therefore, some people who very well may not have committed the crimes that they have been convicted of are being wrongly killed by our system. How anyone can support this, I can not see.

When does one life become so insignificant that we accept that, in the interest of puplic safety, people can be killed indiscrimately.

"When all think alike, none think at all"

I agree, that if the judicial system were inpenetrable and always correct in it's judgement, the death penalty is not necessarily a 'bad thing'. As a matter of fact, it is a good deterrent for people (well, except for the fact that sometimes emotion negates rationality).

Still, the fact remains that our judicial system is wrong, a lot. And I can not support an idea such as killing one's citizens, unless it is proven without a shadow of a doubt (an ideal trown out the window long ago) that it is the right thing to do.

Cost is also a factor

"For the states which employ the death penalty, this luxury comes at a high price. In Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. [3] In Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million. [4] In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment. [5] The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million annually. [6]"

"It costs six times more to execute a person in Florida than to incarcerate a prisoner for life with no parole."

Just some things to consider. Good night.


"

 

[Baskil]

The site I used for the death penalty facts (mostly, I used others) was:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/dpic.r08.html

and

http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/just/death/issues.html

 

[Namielus]

What I was trying to say, looking back on my post, was that nothing is so cut and dry. You can't just say that all americans have inalienible rights, because those were never difined by the people.

And I think that "freedom should have limits" (LOL), I don't like bush BTW. I don't think that the way our current jusitice system is set up, that it can handle some of the crimes out there.

In american we hold double standerd on everything, We need to choose; either we need to say, This isn't freedom. Or we need to make EVERYTHING FREE, no doing it halfassed.

Look at the right to speak. You have the right to speak unless someone doesn't want there childern to hear it, therefore you can't really voice your opinion to everyone.

It is more than aparent in the right to bear arms, it is so incredible outdated. But does that mean that you should be able to own and assault weapon or semi-automatic? Where is the line?

We show stick to the standard, "We are all equal, some are just more equal that others."

 

[manchot_13]

"This race is most interesting because it has proven that there is no real intellegence necessary to be the most powerful man in the world."

-Newsweek (i think)

Whichever of the candidates is elected, I will be unhappy. I am neither conservative nor liberal, so I always get the shaft in this type of thing.

I, however, if i was old enough to vote, would vote for the lying political scumbag Gore.

But this is only because it is relative to Bush, who actually has no real issues. Bush is yet to actually do anywork himself, he did not write his plan, and it was not he who prepared material for the debates. Gore has done all of this himself. So, if nothing else, Bush is a puppet of the Republican party, not an individual. But, relative to his intellegence (as seen in the debates and his college GPA) i'm sure the Republican Party telling him what to do is much better.

Another quarrel I have with Bush is his feelings against homosexuals and homosexual marriges. Me being gay (like 1 in 6 of the male population), i strongly disagree with his view here. Plus, Bush is uncertain as to whether or not he would pass a law that would make it illegal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation.

So, as much as it pains me to say this:

Go Gore!

 

[Riva Iron-Grip]

Originally posted by manchot_13
[BAnother quarrel I have with Bush is his feelings against homosexuals and homosexual marriges. Me being gay (like 1 in 6 of the male population), i strongly disagree with his view here. Plus, Bush is uncertain as to whether or not he would pass a law that would make it illegal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation.
[/B]

manchot i didn't know you were gay?! and yes i definitely agree with you on that. I'm not gay, but i think that if we can allow, how do you say this, different sex marriages, then why can't we allow same sex marriages? If they love each other, and they're gay, then why not? It's not like they're going to become straight just to get married.

Another thing, when you are talking about government do not bring religion into this. It just doesn't work, mainly inpart because if you are, lets say Catholic, then the mormons, jews and protestants aren't going to like you. Mainly inpart because of your views on certain issues, and what you would do with them(not the people). I'm not saying that everyone who is a different religion is like that, but most are.

Now if we can allow the death penalty, then why can't we allow abortions? It is the womans right to choose to have an abortion. The child is a product of her body, and her lovers. Why not let them decide on whether or not to have an abortion?

Someone said something about leting the palestinians go to war. If we let them go to war then that whole part of the world will collapse. Now i do not particularly agree with the U.S.'s world police issue, but there is a certain point in time when we need to step in and stop a fight. Have you ever seen someone getting beaten up at school?And if you did, did help them, or tell someone about it? now why can't we do that? But not only that, but what if they ask for help and we don't give it?What are we saying about our countries morals?

Now if you are going to get religious in this debate, then here you go. I am a catholic, and i believe in same sex marriages, abortion, birth control. If you are going to say that noone has the right to take the life of another person, then we cannot allow the death penalty. Now it is the church's veiw, that a person can repent their sins and be washed away of anything that they have done in their lives. Now why can't we allow abortions, but we CAN allow the death penalty? That is just being a hypocrit. You can't say that you can't take the life of someone else, because they have the right to live, and then kill someone because the killed someone else. That is just wrong. I think that for this issue to be resolved, we should let the people decide, since not everyone is of the same religion, or 1 at all. then the issues to one person will effect another person in a different way.

Government payments(or whatever just read)
The government does not spend enough on social security. My mom's friends parent's are on social security, and they barely have enough money to live. They get i believe like 500 a month, maybe more i'm not sure. For some people that's not enough. You have car payments, house payments, electrical bills, gas, phone, garbage, and stuff like that. We need to put more into social security, and less into the military. Think about this. We have the largest military, nuclear armenents, and air support(air force). we really don't need to put more into it, but just enough to keep it running.

Education, and welfare is a big issue in this debate. Some people think that you can be on welfare indefinitely. I'm sorry, but you can only be on welfare for 2 years, only long enough to get a job, and once you get a job, you have 6 months before they cut you off. Once you are off, you cannot get back on. This is a big issue in my mother's magazine. www.singlemommagazine.com. Education needs something big to keep it together. Some people don't have enough money to put their children through private schoool. What we need to do is what Norway has done. Sure they have a 60-70% tax rate, but they all get a pension, you get to go to school, you get health care, and you are gauranteed a job if you go through school. You only get this if you are a citizen. In my opinion this is the best idea of all. There is very little poverty if any, and we you retire, you have enough money to make it through life.You get to go through college for free, and you are gaurenteed a job.
Now in Norway, the people there are happy, and you don't hear them complaining

 

[Cateran Emperor]

For the record, don't assume I like Bush either. I supported McCain. Frankly, I just hate Gore considerably more for reasons I already stated.

 

[Ransac]

How about, instead of giving them the Death Penalty, they get several swift, painful kicks in the nuts?


Ransac, peace for all


Ransac/Monkey 2000

 

[The Magic Jackal]

Honestly, I'm not hugely supportive of either, but I think that, as Gore has less of a chance of screwing up the country, we should put him in.

I agree with this %100. Bush is the stupidest person I have seen in a long time. In my opinion, he has shot himself in the foot so many times, that I'm amazed people consider voting for him. Presidents are suppose to be smart, Bush Is not smart. Can we really trust him for 4 years? Here's some quotes from him:

"The United States has settled the abortion issue."
--This line was taken directly from George W. Bush's campaign literature in 1994


"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?"
--George W. Bush asks a provocative, if not bizarre, question

"Rarely is the question asked:
Is our children learning?"
--George W. Bush is right. That question is rarely asked, probably because most Americans know the difference between the singular and plural forms of a verb.


There is much more of this at http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com

 

[Riva Iron-Grip]

now i agree Emperor. when mccain was in here i was going to vote for him. But he dropped out. he and that other guy should've gone together, pres/vice pres. that would have worked well. but he dropped out.
Magic Jackal
i agree, Bush is extremely stupid. Sure gore is a liar, but he is educated, and is fairly intelligent. Gore is the only logical choice

 

[Namielus]

Bush is a complete moron, and he would be a pawn to the Republican Party and then we really don't know who is president.

Gore is a bad choose but I think he is definitely the better of the bad chooses. And in the "I made the Internet" quote, he was horrible misquoted, he was talking about a government only "Internet II", and he was cut off in the quote that the new used.

About Israel, (I think I talked about that earlier) they should go war. Right now neither side is feeling the losses to there military or to their resources. They don't feel the really effects of what there doing. Both sides have been at this pseudo war since the beginning of time. Either have a winner or a loser. Or have both sides realize how flaming stupid they have been.

 

[Cateran Emperor]

I really disagree that the president is supposed to be intelligent. Heck, the most intelligent president we ever had was Jimmy Carter, and look how HIS presidency turned out...

Something you have to realize is that the president is surrounded by advisors at all times. It's not his own intelligence that matters, it's his decision making ability.

Now Riva, Norway is one of the saddest countries in the world if you were to ask me. Socialism or whatever the hell they call it there call it is only for those who are too weak to be able to make decisions for themselves. I'd never want to live there, nor would I want to subject anyone else to that punishment. The US had the right idea, and I for one liked it the way it was.

 

[Baskil]

You know, from Life Goes On...

Seriously though, I do not want a dumb president. What I want is someone who can pull the wool over my eyes far enough that I can't tell how much they're fleecing me. And Al Gore is that person, GW Bush is not. Actually, Bill Bradley was that person, but we all know what happened to him.