Multani's Political Corner: 3

[Ristik]

"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." -Riva Iron-Grip

This is the biggest load of bull#$^# I have EVER heard in my life, and living in Michigan, I've heard a lot. (John Engler and Michael Moore's entire careers, to start.) The idea of people disliking others because of their religions is absurd. I am Catholic, and I have NEVER met a Jew or Mormon I didn't get along AND who I didn't enjoy political and religious discourse with. And I've met quite a few of each. My roommate is Jewish, and he's one of the best friends I've ever had (except when the Oakland A's are on TV). The only Protestant I met who I didn't at least get along with decently is an ex-girlfriend who dumped me because of my religion. In fact, the majority of people I don't get along with are OTHER CATHOLICS, particularly a couple ones in my church. These facts by themselves proves that people do not judge others by religious pretexts. I think that a FAR better way to put that paragraph would be as follows:

"Another thing, please do not bring religion into this. Doing so implies that religion has a major influence in politics, which is something that the Founding Fathers went out of their way to avoid. It's fine to have your views influenced by religion, but you should have other reasons to believe what you believe as well. Additionally, it doesn't work because many people are idiots and use religion as, to use the words the media have been using to describe Supreme Court nominations, a "litmus test" and an acceptable form of complete judgement. Most people are not like that concerning religion, but a few select morons are."

That sound any better to anybody?

**Prepares for the flames to begin.

 

[Spiderman]

Wow, this picked up...

Concerning abortion: It would be nice to hear from the female point of view (I can't remember if Almindhra spoke about it and she's the only one that I can remember who's posted here).

Concerning the death penalty: I agree with both sides here: I think there needs to be one but the justice system is not infallible so it makes sense to have the appeals process in place to make sure the right person is getting executed (unfortunately long as it is). DNA technology is also helping to declare whether the person is guilty or not (false planting of evidence notwithstanding).

Concerning social security and military (mostly towards Riva): A lot of money already goes into social security now as it is and I believe it is not up to the government to put more in. Frankly, it is up to the individual to plan ahead and save for his/her retirement needs. As they always say, Social Security was meant as a supplement to your retirement income, not to BE it. And there is less money going into the military right now, that's why the Pentagon is saying the US ability to fight a two-front war (if that aim is misguided that can be another debate) is weakened. And there are already cutbacks going on... if you want more money in the budget for things, fight against pork-barrelling.

Concerning the Middle East: It is not as easy as it seems to say "let them fight it out". It would basically be Israeli vs. Arabs and despite countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt and other "friendly" Arab countries, they'd probably at worst unite with the Palestines, at best turn a cold shoulder to the US. Think about why Israel didn't go on to capture/conquer ALL of its Arab enemies in the 6 Days War and other conflicts it has had.

 

[Cateran Emperor]

Yes, it was Almindhra speaking against it.

 

[Riva Iron-Grip]

that sounds a lot better Ristik. and yes spidey, people should plan ahead more, but the people who are on social security right now, probably didn't have a retirement plan when they were working.
and if anyone tried to declare war on us...what would we do to them?we would try to negotiate, and if that didn't work , then we would just nuke them. that's the truth.

 

[Spiderman]

for a retirement plan, technically you don't need anything special. Just put your money in a savings account, at the least.

And as long as the stock market's been around, you have a "retirement fund". So that's no excuse.

Concerning war, are you serious about the US using a nuke? Please... we've been in conflicts COUNTLESS times since the Bomb was invented and probably only seriously considered using it during the Korean War and Cuba (and maybe sometime during the Vietnam War). There ain't NO way the US will be using a nuke anytime soon.

 

[Baskil]

Originally posted by Spiderman
And as long as the stock market's been around, you have a "retirement fund". So that's no excuse.

I'm sure the people of the late 20's and early 30's would disagree with you on that one.

 

[Spiderman]

Social Security was implemented... and any sound financial planner will tell you not to put all of your eggs in one basket...

 

[Baskil]

But what government realises is that most Americans, when it comes to their retirement, are not very well versed. Want to make sure people are investing money for their future? Do a couple of things.

1. Keep Social Security taxes in.
2. In order to allow younger workers to invest money, past their IRA and 401k, set a percentage (like 5% or so) of their income as tax-free as long as they invest it.

To just, as I interpreted GWBush (I may be wrong) during the debates, cut current social security and just plop the money in the workers hands is a bad idea. Remember, "A fool and his money are soon parted"

 

[Spiderman]

Thanks to the demon plastic of credit, Americans just plain SUCK at saving.

I have no idea what the candidates' positions are on retirement.

I do agree with you that because Americans suck at saving, Social Security needs to continue (although perhaps the retirement age needs to be re-visited, among other things.

But people should not expect for S.S. to be ALL of their retirement. They have to plan too (unless it's fine to have their standard of living lowered drastically). That's all.

 

[Riva Iron-Grip]

that's right. you should always plan "for a rainy day". cuz something might happen, like you get in an accident, a family member dies, or your robbed. then you have to spend LOTS of money to help out. andif you didn't save, then your definitely screwed. my mom, in the past year, has been in the hospital 6-7 times because of asthma. i have it to, and it sucks. she was really happythat she saved, cuz i think like the 5th time, i had to call 911 and it cost over 10,000 just for the ride alone. i mean damn that's a lot of money