Reidmarr von Brugge
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:09:21 +0000
Defenestrate This
Abortion.
Abortion is wrong in many cases. However, it is a choice. It is a right, in my opinion, to make choices regardless of how horrible the outcome of those choices may be. The right to choose, to me, is one of the most important rights in the United States of America, and while I personally believe that having an abortion is wrong in most cases, I believe that taking that choice away from someone else is not my right, nor should it ever be my right to decide what choices you are allowed to make. I am against abortion in most cases, excluding rape and the medical well-being of the mother or potential child. However, it is not my right to take that choice from anyone who chooses to disagree with me. Therefore, though I am against abortion personally, I am for choice above all else.
Alright
Quote:
Gay Marriage.
It is my belief that now, more than ever, gays have the right to do anything that straits should have the right to do. Marriage is no longer simply a religious practice as it is a federally protected and recognized action. For those that say that letting gays marry is against religious beliefs, I say; does it really matter so much to you what anyone else does? Does it matter so much to you what other people do that it affects your life and well-being? If it does, then in my opinion, you're wasting the life you've been given on worrying about what someone else does. It is my belief that marriage is a federally protected tax-benefit, regardless of age, sex, religion, or any other discriminating factor. I believe that marriage should occur, at least on a legal level, between two consenting adults. I believe that unless a minor has been emancipated, that even with parental consent, it is not legal for a minor to be married and therefore not legally recognized. I believe that marriage is something that happens between two consenting adults and should not be a public matter unless they so choose to make it so. My stance on gay marriage is simple. Let any two consenting adults do as they wish. It is not my place to stop them. Again, I am pro-choice.
It is my belief that now, more than ever, gays have the right to do anything that straits should have the right to do. Marriage is no longer simply a religious practice as it is a federally protected and recognized action. For those that say that letting gays marry is against religious beliefs, I say; does it really matter so much to you what anyone else does? Does it matter so much to you what other people do that it affects your life and well-being? If it does, then in my opinion, you're wasting the life you've been given on worrying about what someone else does. It is my belief that marriage is a federally protected tax-benefit, regardless of age, sex, religion, or any other discriminating factor. I believe that marriage should occur, at least on a legal level, between two consenting adults. I believe that unless a minor has been emancipated, that even with parental consent, it is not legal for a minor to be married and therefore not legally recognized. I believe that marriage is something that happens between two consenting adults and should not be a public matter unless they so choose to make it so. My stance on gay marriage is simple. Let any two consenting adults do as they wish. It is not my place to stop them. Again, I am pro-choice.
Alright
Quote:
Gays in the Military.
It has been a controversial matter for some many years to have gays in the military. Many male and female officers make the argument that their comrades should be watching their backs and not their back-sides. I make this argument. Men and women are allowed in the military. It is a crime to fraternize while in the military. Period. Whether it's two males, two females, or a male and a female. If you are unprofessional enough to fraternize, it doesn't matter if you're strait or gay. If you cannot handle the idea that not everyone in the military is strait, don't join. This country was founded on the idea of freedom. It is not my right to take away a man or woman's ability to keep our country safe because of their sexuality. If we are to limit the military, then it must be to strait men only. No women, and no gays, or else it must be open to all men and all women regardless of sexuality. If it is truly uncomfortable for the soldiers, I propose that we separate bunks into four categories instead of the standard two(usually male and female). If we separate the bunks into strait and gay, male and females, then there should be no issue. If this policy makes you uncomfortable, then I suggest you don't join the military.
It has been a controversial matter for some many years to have gays in the military. Many male and female officers make the argument that their comrades should be watching their backs and not their back-sides. I make this argument. Men and women are allowed in the military. It is a crime to fraternize while in the military. Period. Whether it's two males, two females, or a male and a female. If you are unprofessional enough to fraternize, it doesn't matter if you're strait or gay. If you cannot handle the idea that not everyone in the military is strait, don't join. This country was founded on the idea of freedom. It is not my right to take away a man or woman's ability to keep our country safe because of their sexuality. If we are to limit the military, then it must be to strait men only. No women, and no gays, or else it must be open to all men and all women regardless of sexuality. If it is truly uncomfortable for the soldiers, I propose that we separate bunks into four categories instead of the standard two(usually male and female). If we separate the bunks into strait and gay, male and females, then there should be no issue. If this policy makes you uncomfortable, then I suggest you don't join the military.
Okay
Quote:
Gambling.
I believe that it is wrong to make gambling illegal, since it is a wonderful source of taxes that can be enjoyed by any state. I will hereby work to make gambling legal in all fifty states of the U.S and taxed appropriately to fund our education systems.
I believe that it is wrong to make gambling illegal, since it is a wonderful source of taxes that can be enjoyed by any state. I will hereby work to make gambling legal in all fifty states of the U.S and taxed appropriately to fund our education systems.
Okay
Quote:
Prostitution.
The typical prostitute is unprotected by the United States government. While I do not support this practice, I do believe that it will continue whether or not it is legal. My stance on prostitution is very simple. Street-corner hookering will still be considered illegal in all fifty states. However, we will establish background-checked facilities where each prostitute will receive medical treatment on a weekly basis and each customer will be screened for venereal diseases. These Whore-houses will be federally taxed and may be taxed at a state level to support our government in whatever way is most needed, though I hope the benefits will go to our schools.
The typical prostitute is unprotected by the United States government. While I do not support this practice, I do believe that it will continue whether or not it is legal. My stance on prostitution is very simple. Street-corner hookering will still be considered illegal in all fifty states. However, we will establish background-checked facilities where each prostitute will receive medical treatment on a weekly basis and each customer will be screened for venereal diseases. These Whore-houses will be federally taxed and may be taxed at a state level to support our government in whatever way is most needed, though I hope the benefits will go to our schools.
Wait, you wanna tax whore houses to help schools? ******** no.
Quote:
Marijuana.
Drugs have been a very big part of our criminal system for many decades. And as anyone can see, the 'War on Drugs' is failing, and has been for generations. I propose that Marijuana be legalized and taxed, just as alcohol has been for well over a century. Several studies have shown that marijuana has medical benefits, and causes less harm than tobacco or alcohol. Furthermore, marijuana impairs driving far less than alcohol. If we legalize and tax marijuana, the federal taxes as well as state taxes can be used to fund our prison and law-enforcement systems to better thwart true criminals such as rapists and murderers. Now, just as with alcohol, marijuana causes intoxication, and just like alcohol, it should be illegal to drive or be in public while under such effects. So public intoxication is still a crime with marijuana. But having a blunt in your home after work should be no more of a crime than throwing back a beer after work and the taxes collected would be put to good use. People are going to use marijuana whether we like it or not, it's better to accept the use and tax it for our benefits than to waste tax dollars putting people behind bars for such a petty offense.
Drugs have been a very big part of our criminal system for many decades. And as anyone can see, the 'War on Drugs' is failing, and has been for generations. I propose that Marijuana be legalized and taxed, just as alcohol has been for well over a century. Several studies have shown that marijuana has medical benefits, and causes less harm than tobacco or alcohol. Furthermore, marijuana impairs driving far less than alcohol. If we legalize and tax marijuana, the federal taxes as well as state taxes can be used to fund our prison and law-enforcement systems to better thwart true criminals such as rapists and murderers. Now, just as with alcohol, marijuana causes intoxication, and just like alcohol, it should be illegal to drive or be in public while under such effects. So public intoxication is still a crime with marijuana. But having a blunt in your home after work should be no more of a crime than throwing back a beer after work and the taxes collected would be put to good use. People are going to use marijuana whether we like it or not, it's better to accept the use and tax it for our benefits than to waste tax dollars putting people behind bars for such a petty offense.
Okay
Quote:
Foreign Policy.
Our country is in serious debt. Every year the value of the dollar decreases and the national debt continues to rise uncontrollably. If this country is to survive and get back on its feet again, I see only one true problem that we have. We don't take care of our own. We do take care of everyone else. It is not our job, nor is it our problem if North Korea invades South Korea. It is not our job to protect Thailand from China. It is not our problem unless a threat is expressed against our country. For this reason, it is my opinion that our aid to other countries should cease. We should not be worrying about the homeless children of Africa until the homeless children in America have a safe and warm shelter of their own. I will not take away the right of private organizations to help those that they feel need our support, but I will not willingly allow our federal funds to help others without first helping ourselves. Furthermore, our country holds enough oil to last us for the next 500 years. While I do wish our children the brightest future possible, I do hope that in the next 500 years, we manage to find an alternative to oil, just as we found an alternative to steam and just as we found an alternative to horse-power, and just as we found an alternative to man-power, we will assuredly find an alternative to oil-power in 500 years. It will be my policy to use american oil until we've run the wells dry. This will drop gas prices, and raise local jobs in america, further helping our country to get out of debt and back on its feet again.
It is unfortunate, but the world will always have wars and will always have someone wanting to be on top. This is not our problem. Unless there is an impending threat on our country, there is no need for our country to become involved in a war that does not belong to us. We will honor our treaties and do our best to help our existing alliances to do well, but it will no longer be our policy to grant aid to new countries. It is my belief that if a country threatens our well-being, then war is inevitable, but to threaten others needlessly is not the way I would have our country stand. I will not apologize for what our country has done. I had no say or control of other mens' actions. I will not say that we always have done the right thing, but I will say that our country is where it is today due to every single action in its past.
Our country is in serious debt. Every year the value of the dollar decreases and the national debt continues to rise uncontrollably. If this country is to survive and get back on its feet again, I see only one true problem that we have. We don't take care of our own. We do take care of everyone else. It is not our job, nor is it our problem if North Korea invades South Korea. It is not our job to protect Thailand from China. It is not our problem unless a threat is expressed against our country. For this reason, it is my opinion that our aid to other countries should cease. We should not be worrying about the homeless children of Africa until the homeless children in America have a safe and warm shelter of their own. I will not take away the right of private organizations to help those that they feel need our support, but I will not willingly allow our federal funds to help others without first helping ourselves. Furthermore, our country holds enough oil to last us for the next 500 years. While I do wish our children the brightest future possible, I do hope that in the next 500 years, we manage to find an alternative to oil, just as we found an alternative to steam and just as we found an alternative to horse-power, and just as we found an alternative to man-power, we will assuredly find an alternative to oil-power in 500 years. It will be my policy to use american oil until we've run the wells dry. This will drop gas prices, and raise local jobs in america, further helping our country to get out of debt and back on its feet again.
It is unfortunate, but the world will always have wars and will always have someone wanting to be on top. This is not our problem. Unless there is an impending threat on our country, there is no need for our country to become involved in a war that does not belong to us. We will honor our treaties and do our best to help our existing alliances to do well, but it will no longer be our policy to grant aid to new countries. It is my belief that if a country threatens our well-being, then war is inevitable, but to threaten others needlessly is not the way I would have our country stand. I will not apologize for what our country has done. I had no say or control of other mens' actions. I will not say that we always have done the right thing, but I will say that our country is where it is today due to every single action in its past.
Cut aid to Israel, and we're okay.
Quote:
Gun-Control.
Our country did not defeat the British by using our right to free speech. That's almost enough to say on the subject, but I will elaborate on my views of gun-control. I believe that having weapons registered is a good idea. It helps us to identify which gun did what in criminal cases. However, while it is legal to own a gun for hunting or target-shooting, or even home-defense, criminals use guns to commit crimes. Let's think this over for just a few moments. CRIMINALS(people who commit CRIMES or participate in ILLEGAL activities) use guns in many cases. Now let us assume that I make it illegal for CRIMINALS to purchase a gun. Does it seem likely that the legality of such a thing will bother someone who wishes to pursue CRIME? I seriously doubt it. Now let's look at our law-abiding citizens. A criminal robs a bank at gun-point and takes hostages. How will police officers handle such a threat? By using a stun gun? First, let's assume that the officer gets close enough to stun a criminal. This criminal will tighten his grip and fire the weapon while spasming due to the electricity coursing through his body. Now let's say the same police officer shoots this criminal in the knee. The criminal will fall to the ground and more than likely drop said weapon. What if a home-invader has a family at gun-point. The home-owner has no means of protecting himself from this criminal without risking being shot. A bullet is a fast and decisive means of neutralizing nearly any threat in most cases. If we take away guns, the law-abiding citizens will be defenseless against criminals who will likely have illegally acquired guns themselves.
Our country did not defeat the British by using our right to free speech. That's almost enough to say on the subject, but I will elaborate on my views of gun-control. I believe that having weapons registered is a good idea. It helps us to identify which gun did what in criminal cases. However, while it is legal to own a gun for hunting or target-shooting, or even home-defense, criminals use guns to commit crimes. Let's think this over for just a few moments. CRIMINALS(people who commit CRIMES or participate in ILLEGAL activities) use guns in many cases. Now let us assume that I make it illegal for CRIMINALS to purchase a gun. Does it seem likely that the legality of such a thing will bother someone who wishes to pursue CRIME? I seriously doubt it. Now let's look at our law-abiding citizens. A criminal robs a bank at gun-point and takes hostages. How will police officers handle such a threat? By using a stun gun? First, let's assume that the officer gets close enough to stun a criminal. This criminal will tighten his grip and fire the weapon while spasming due to the electricity coursing through his body. Now let's say the same police officer shoots this criminal in the knee. The criminal will fall to the ground and more than likely drop said weapon. What if a home-invader has a family at gun-point. The home-owner has no means of protecting himself from this criminal without risking being shot. A bullet is a fast and decisive means of neutralizing nearly any threat in most cases. If we take away guns, the law-abiding citizens will be defenseless against criminals who will likely have illegally acquired guns themselves.
No registration of guns.
Guns are weapons. The right to keep and bear weapons does carry significant responsibilities. That’s why violations of firearms laws are relatively strict. Discharging a weapon in an irresponsible manner or using one in the commission a crime is usually a felony and rightfully so. However, in their zeal to reduce crime, liberal politicians are fond of making almost all gun law violations felony offenses, especially in states like New Jersey and California. Owning high capacity magazines or ugly rifles (“assault weapons”) also carries felonious weight.
States like to make money from registration schemes. Why else would people have to register their cars and pay a fee EVERY YEAR (in some states)? Why else would relatively stiff financial penalties be assessed for registration failures? If guns get registered, will money hungry state governments let people get away with registering their guns only once? Or will law-abiding citizens have to register and re-register and re-re-register, ad nauseam?
Now being human, people will make mistakes. The requiring of paperwork filing on the part of the state against its citizens on a regular basis increases the chance of mistakes being made on the part of the citizens or the state. While automobile registration violations will get you a traffic ticket or perhaps your car impounded, if a gun owner violates one of the proposed firearms registration laws, there is a good chance that that gun owner will be going to jail for a long time. Gun registration violations will create an entire class of “felons” guilty merely of screwing up paperwork. Even if the “criminal” does not go to jail, the State will probably confiscate their firearms for “safety reasons”. States will also want to make sure that gun owners are abiding by the registration laws. Now that the government knows where they live, what could be better than having the police inspect citizens’ homes to make sure the paperwork is up-to-date? Random checks could be made.
Registration won’t prevent or reduce crime. How does vehicle registration prevent cars from being stolen? How does vehicle registration prevent people from driving like jerks or in a dangerous or reckless manner? How does vehicle registration prevent death or injury of innocent bystanders in auto collisions? How does registration prevent crimes being committed with automobiles?
Gun registration will serve as another check on the freedom of law-abiding citizens. It will be another tax burden on hard working poor and middle-class American families. It will mean more paperwork to fill out. It will create a class of “felons” guilty of only screwing up government paperwork. It will not stop crimes from occurring. It will not prevent gun owners from handling their weapons in a reckless or unsafe manner.
