[djtiesto]

Pyro1588, on Jul 14 2005, 02:48 AM, said:

Quote

(preaching abstinence from sex is one of the most pointless things you can do)

why? what makes you say it's pointless? it seems like the most logical way to avoid stds. but perhaps you are talking about total and complete abstinence. if that's the case, then i've never heard anyone talk about that.

Because sex is a natural instinct. If you are dating a cute girl for a while you're definitely gonna want some action, don't kid yourself and say you don't (you're probably just one of those bitter people who can't get any). People are gonna have sex, regardless of how much dogma others feed them about abstinence and "saving yourself for the right person". The most realistic way of cutting back on the number of unwanted pregnancies and STDs (and ironically enough - decrease abortion! yet the Republicans who want to ban abortion preach abstinence. This logic does not compute.) - is to provide safe sex education and provide free condoms.

[Bramble]

(I don't know if I should say this, and it's sort of sick, though I found it a little strange and funny, wondering about the story of how it got there, but concerning your last comment, Luke, I found an open box of those on the sidewalk near a busy road one time. It must've been there for a couple weeks. Heh, oh my wow. Sorry, carry on with the discussion.)

[Terryn]

rrrrgrrrrl.

-Abstinence pledges are broken at a very high rate (~90%) and those who do such pledges are less likely to use protection as well as less likely to visit a doctor regarding STD symptoms or concerns. In theory and in practice abstinence pledges are completely different.

-Try renting a home with a minimum-wage job. Housing prices are ludicrous, and the real-value of the minimum wage is the lowest it's been in decades. It a huge factor in why "holding three jobs is uniquely American" as Bush puts it.

-Unfortunately McCain is about the only one who rants about pork now. Republicans are fond of inserting pork now that they run the place. What was said in 1994 stays in 1994, eh?

-The rationale behind the USA PATRIOT Act bothers me. Look up the Libel and Sedition Acts if you haven't heard of them; and yes, a Democrat did sign those into law. What would life be like if those were extended permanently, as Bush is asking of the USA PATRIOT Act (not to mention its upcoming sequel)? Cosnidering the size of the USA PATRIOT Act and the time after introduction it was passed, I'm sure most lawmakers didn't get a chance to fully comb through it. Ben Franklin was right when he said that those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither.

-Regarding the definition (and sanctity, if you swing that way) of marriage, you're 100 years too late. It's already bespoiled. Darn women's lib and industrialisation, killing traditional reasons and roles for marriage! Also, associations like the below are just depressing:
"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle,? he [John Conryn, R-TX] told an audience. ?But that does not mean it is right.... Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."

-The war on drugs... well, possession and sale should be less harsly punished. Manufacture and smuggling, however....

-The most common artificial food source (high-fructose corn syrup) is backed by one of the biggest pieces of pork legislation. Corn syrup is no more cost-efficient to use. Cut, even outside of the obvious link to obesity.

-Universal health care will be a "big-government" concern, but guess what? Firstly, the cost of health care adds a lot of money to American-made items. For example, every GM motor car has $1,500 added to it because of healthcare costs. GM had to go to junk bond status very recently; far from a hippie company, GM's heavily advocating universal health care because it'd save them FIVE BILLION PLUS a year. Secondly, some harsher companies find the most profitable ways of insuring few people altogether. The venerable Wal-Mart is an expert on paying employees so poorly that they have to go on Medicaid (at the states' expense). Oh, by the way, you know how much of my family's income goes towards health care? ~21% of ~60k a year. AND we're insured.

-States that have adapted Kyoto-like provisions have shown a benefit to their economies. The US as a whole probably won't go for it because statements about the current effects of global warming were cut out of government reports.... and beacause Bush doesn't do reciprococity. Sorry, Blair. No tradesies!

[Dr Lancer-X]

Quote

dude, pre-college education is FREE. what more do you want? free college? just get motivated and get some scholarships. personal initiative is almost always better than government intervention.

Australia used to have free tertiary (university and college) education--unfortunately, we don't have that any more. Real pity there.

[Skylark]

<3 ABORTION

[scorch3000]

If i was president, one thing i would do. Declair war on tobbaco (sorry for the shitty spelling, in Northeast england we just call is baccy). I would call my soldiers up to action, and drop napalm on all baccy fields. Burn them, and the world will hail me a hero (well, the non smokers would). Sure, we'll have the problem of black market dealing in baccy, but it'll just be like dope. Easy for the copdogs to sniff out. Then i'll execute the dealers. All drug dealers will be executed, depending on what they're supplying, class A will be death, class b will be prison and a large fine, and class C will be a slap on the wrist. Baccy would be class A, it's addictive, and it kills slowly. Dope would replace baccy, but only in designated chillout areas.

[asgromo]

Quote

-Initiate "smart growth" plans for cities and their suburbs
not sure what you mean by this. perhaps you could elaborate?

Are you familiar with suburban sprawl? Builders are building poorly planned out subdivisions ever so far from the city core. This stretches out the cities infrastructure - they need to build roads, sewers, phone lines, power cables, drainage systems to reach out there. Not to mention that there is no downtown usually in these suburbs, so most of them are isolated and have to drive for 10 minutes just to hit a mall or supermarket. And they have to drive even further to their jobs (usually in the city downtown), which means even more traffic. A smart growth plan (look up "New Urbanism") will provide more walkable communities, closer to schools and commerce, provide stable mass transit, and will (hopefully) rise from the ashes of burnt out inner cities or first-ring suburbs.

Jesus Christ, do I know it. The closest "downtown" where I live would be Jacksonville, Florida- geographically the largest city in the contiguous states, at 841 square miles. Downtown Jacksonville is fifteen miles away, in another county (At least I'm less than a mile from the county border). Duval County- that is, Jacksonville, is for the most part a confusing and randomly planned criss-cross of highways and suburbs. Since Jacksonville is also the only major city for about sixty miles, its modest center serves as the only downtown for several surrounding counties (including mine, St. Johns, a criss cross of highways only occasionally populated by suburbs). The grotesque city planning in this area is reflected in the fact that major municipal facilities are often more than ten miles away and the construction of new ones is often impossible. (My bus ride is forty minutes long, and takes me somewhere between fifteen and twenty miles from home, approximately into the middle of nowhere). The only mass transit is provided by a meager bus system, and walking is mostly ridiculous if you want to actually get anywhere.

Anyway, Jacksonville is basically northeast Florida, and I'm very happy you brought this up, djtiesto.

EDIT: Dammit, why can't I still live in New York...

This post has been edited by asgromo: 14 July 2005 - 12:19 PM

[Dr Lancer-X]

scorch3000, on Jul 14 2005, 07:00 AM, said:

If i was president, one thing i would do. Declair war on tobbaco (sorry for the shitty spelling, in Northeast england we just call is baccy). I would call my soldiers up to action, and drop napalm on all baccy fields. Burn them, and the world will hail me a hero (well, the non smokers would). Sure, we'll have the problem of black market dealing in baccy, but it'll just be like dope. Easy for the copdogs to sniff out. Then i'll execute the dealers. All drug dealers will be executed, depending on what they're supplying, class A will be death, class b will be prison and a large fine, and class C will be a slap on the wrist. Baccy would be class A, it's addictive, and it kills slowly. Dope would replace baccy, but only in designated chillout areas.

Could you shorten that to one line so I can put it in my signature? If you can't, that's okay- I'm still printing it out and framing it.

[scorch3000]

Lancer-X, on Jul 14 2005, 12:40 PM, said:

scorch3000, on Jul 14 2005, 07:00 AM, said:

If i was president, one thing i would do. Declair war on tobbaco (sorry for the shitty spelling, in Northeast england we just call is baccy). I would call my soldiers up to action, and drop napalm on all baccy fields. Burn them, and the world will hail me a hero (well, the non smokers would). Sure, we'll have the problem of black market dealing in baccy, but it'll just be like dope. Easy for the copdogs to sniff out. Then i'll execute the dealers. All drug dealers will be executed, depending on what they're supplying, class A will be death, class b will be prison and a large fine, and class C will be a slap on the wrist. Baccy would be class A, it's addictive, and it kills slowly. Dope would replace baccy, but only in designated chillout areas.

Could you shorten that to one line so I can put it in my signature? If you can't, that's okay- I'm still printing it out and framing it.

do with it whetever you want.

[Pyro1588]

Quote

"-More taxes for the upper income bracket ($200,000+), tax money goes into education, infrastructure rebuilding"
i have an idea. instead of trying to tax successful people into oblivion, how about we cut down on unneccesary government programs?

What do you deem unnecessary? Research into the sciences to better mankind? Welfare for those who are disabled or unable to work for other reasons? Universal healthcare?

well, the first thing that comes to mind is subsidies. besides the obvious violation of free trade ideals (note: ideals, not neccissarily current practices,) it costs a lot of money. and yes, i don't like the idea of universal healthcare. i'm afraid that i have to go back to the role of government.
welfare is a touchy issue that i'm not prepared to discuss yet. "Better to close your mouth and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Quote

-Legalize medical marijuana and cut back on some minor drug offenses
i've never really cared for this idea. heck, they've managed to extract the beneficial chemicals from marijuana, but people still aren't satisfied. it's always seemed like an excuse for a first step to legalize it completely. and why would you cut down on minor drug offenses?

Minor drug offenses fill up prisons (which we, the taxpayers pay for) with people who probably shouldn't be in there. The "War On Drugs" initiated in the Reagan era has wasted tons of government money and put many people in jail (cocaine dealers serve more jail time than murderers! unbelievable), mostly from minorities.

um, i thought that we want to punish drug offenses and that's why they're in prison. but of course, i'm mostly ignoring this response because of the "mostly from minorities" thing from the same guy that gave us " Sadly, I'm white, but that doesn't mean I'm as self-centered and racist as 99% of other white americans".

Quote

-Increase in the minimum wage
nope. i don't think it's a good idea. is it the government's job to guarentee money to everyone?

Yes, are you familiar with the concept of a "welfare state"? The government's job is to better the lives of its citizens by doing what's best for the population as a whole. You can't trust big corporations to do everything, in fact many of them have been shipping jobs overseas to try and find the cheapest people to do the labor

so if i want frdd cupcakes, then it's the government's role to provide me with free cupcakes? goody!
and yes, i don't like outsourcing, but if a company wants to do that, then it's their decision.

Quote

-Increase supply of affordable housing, especially making it easier for first time buyers to purchase
once again, i don't really see how this is within the role of the government.

See above - the government should better the lives of its citizens. What do you think the role of the government is? And right now we're in a housing bubble, which is extremely detrimental to first time buyers. I have a feeling you're still rather young but you'll soon learn the difficulty of financing a house.

oh boy! so if i want a free mustang, the government should give me one to better my life?

Quote

-Repeal Patriot Act
why? why repeal something that was passed in the interest of national security?

Because the national security in question infringes on the rights of innocent citizens. Under the Patriot Act, ANYBODY who the government suspects, could have their private phone convos tapped. I'm actually surprised you're in favor of this, especially after quoting PJ O'Rourke and reciting some other Libertarian style principles.

i quoted o'rourke on food, not on the patriot act.
anyway, this is another thing that i'm not quite prepared to discuss. i kinda jumped the gun up there when i should've kept my mouth shut.

Quote

-Initiate "smart growth" plans for cities and their suburbs
not sure what you mean by this. perhaps you could elaborate?

Are you familiar with suburban sprawl? Builders are building poorly planned out subdivisions ever so far from the city core. This stretches out the cities infrastructure - they need to build roads, sewers, phone lines, power cables, drainage systems to reach out there. Not to mention that there is no downtown usually in these suburbs, so most of them are isolated and have to drive for 10 minutes just to hit a mall or supermarket. And they have to drive even further to their jobs (usually in the city downtown), which means even more traffic. A smart growth plan (look up "New Urbanism") will provide more walkable communities, closer to schools and commerce, provide stable mass transit, and will (hopefully) rise from the ashes of burnt out inner cities or first-ring suburbs.

well, my initial reaction was "yeah, i have to drive 15 minutes just to get to town" but that's because i live in the middle of nowhere, so nevermind.
anyway, i don't see any real problems with this, but i haven't heard a whole lot about it. i guess i should do a little research.

Quote

-Allow for gay marriage
i've never understood why we should change the definition of a word that's been around for thousands of years just because a small group wants us to. why should we? just because gays say so?

Because it's not hurting the population to allow it, except for those so taken in by religious dogma.

so why don't get rid of that whole "indecent exposure" thing. i mean, if someone wants to dance around naked in public, they aren't hurting anyone, right? i mean, besides those religious people who say they shouldn't.

Quote

-Investigate and close tax loopholes for corporations
i'm not sure what loopholes you're talking about here, but please forgive me when i say that this almost sounds like just a standard anti-corporation statement.

I feel corporations have to be responsible community partners, i.e. give back to the community that helped them thrive. (example: the corp I work for has built schools, donated to museums, etc). Why should some corps with their offshore business centers in like Aruba, Bermuda, etc. be excused from taxes? They should have to pay like everybody else.

i still don't understand here. what tax loopholes are we talking about?

Quote

-Force food makers into using less artificial crap in their foods
what's "artificial?" do you mean something that doesn't occur in natural food? if so, then i'd like to point you to this.

Artificial meaning the overly processed food, hi-fructose corn syrup, etc that Americans seem to be so hooked on (that's contributing to their ever-increasing obesity rate). I've had organic vegetables and pesticide-treated vegetables, not only does organic taste fresher and better, but it's not fucking up my body like god knows what pesticide. And don't quote PJ O'Rourke if you want to be taken seriously - libertarians always carry that stigma of being cracked tongue.gif

yeah, i'm in favor of organic food. i like it. it does taste better. however, i don't wee why we need to force food makers to use organic stuff. remember, organic stuff is expensive. conventional pesticide is cheaper and easier than the organic alternative, "surround." surround is expensive.

Quote

-Reinstate the Brady Bill
don't know much about this one. can you please enlighten me?

Ban on all assault weapons. I support the right to own guns, but I think assault weapons are overstepping the bounds of that a little bit.

when you say "assault weapons," i assume that you mean automatics.
why ban them? i guess i have to list off the old "criminals will get them illegaly, anyway, but if we let civilians own them, it will cut down on crime" arguement.

Quote

-Universal healthcare
it sure worked for canada, didn't it? "our healthcare system has determined that you won't need a doctor until, um, 2007. and you're here for a kidney transplant. wait, no, that can't be right..."

Don't you think there's something wrong when us and South Africa are the only 2 first-world nations that don't have universal healthcare? I can't see any reason to not support universal healthcare. What if say, you were a computer programmer that had their job outsourced to India? And you were looking around for another job but nobody was hiring cuz the economy was bad? And your health benefits were terminated when you got fired? And then you break your leg or need surgery or something? YOU'RE FUCKED. I know quite a bit of people off healthcare that needed surgery that put them $20,000+ in the hole. Also, I haven't heard anybody being denied for a kidney transplant in Canada, maybe you can enlighten me?

um, first off, that was a quote from a michael moore movie, "canadian bacon." i only threw it in because, well, because i felt like it.
anyway, i've got to go back to the role of the government there.

Quote

-Stop supporting the illegal terrorist state of Israel
WOAH WOAH WOAH! how is Israel a terrorist state? how many suicide bombers have come out of Israel? how many muslim extremists has Israel harbored. and i'd like to remind you that Israel was created by the UN. i thought that the UN is a good, intelligent orginization and that we should care about what they say. so why would we stop supporting one of their brainchilds?

When did I say the UN was good? I think the UN needs their priorities in order, like they should be doing something about Darfur, since they ignored Rwanda. Israel still ignores UN resolutions. Not to mention Israel frequently retaliates against Palestine and its citizens, whenever a suicide bomber (not supported by the Palestinian Authority) strikes. Israel kills more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israel, and by spending America's money to do it. Give me a valid reason why we SHOULD support Israel.

but palestine is where the bombers come from. correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't recall palestine doing anything to stop the bombers coming from them.
and we should support israel because we've been doing so for a long time and because they're an ally.

Quote

-Provide cheaper education
dude, pre-college education is FREE. what more do you want? free college? just get motivated and get some scholarships. personal initiative is almost always better than government intervention.

Yes, I think we should cut down on college costs. They're ballooning at an out of control rate. SUNY education fees were raised 20% last year, and a lot of people had to drop out because they couldn't afford it. Poor people should be entitled to an education, too - it's the only way they're gonna break out of the cycle of poverty. And I don't think college students should be saddled with big loans upon leaving school. What if those people can't find a job in today's rather rough economy? (I know plenty of CS people who ended up stacking shelves at Target since they couldn't find a job - I was one of the lucky ones. It's kind of hard to pay back $10,000+ of loans when you're making $6.50/hr) How old are you anyway? I can't wait to see when you have to pay back your college loans.

since when are we supposed to be entitled to education?
also, i agree that college is expensive. i'm 17 and i'm starting college this fall. how did i do it? i worked hard to maintain a good GPA and score well on the ACT so that i can get scholarships. i'm also going into a field where i should be able to find a good job relatively easily. (actually, i'm considering the military right now, but i'm still planning on college.)

Quote

-Reinstate the estate tax
why not cut useless spending instead? why do we need this anyway?

To get more tax reserves so we don't have a massive-ass debt like we do now, and to prevent spoiled heiresses for not working at all for their money (*cough*Paris Hilton*cough*)

so we don't want people to get free money? WHY?! does this mean that if your grandparents give you $20000 that you're not going to take it because you'd rather work for it? why must we tax every single thing we can get our hands on?

Quote

-Talk China into pricing their yuan at its real value, not based on our dollar
i'd be more interested in taking care of the horrible human rights crisis in china right now. heck, even the late senator wellstone was in favor of dealing with it.

There's a lot of places with even worse human rights violations than China (Zimbabwe, Sudan, several of the more stricter Muslim regimes), should we deal with them too? It's kind of hard to deal with all that at once, though I do support dealing with it. If China revalues the yuan, it'll help to balance the striking trade deficit between the US and China.

my personal opinion is that we shouldn't be trading with them at all because of what they do to people over there.

Quote

-Join Kyoto and get China and India to making the same provisions
nope. i like my fossil fuels, thank you very much.

And I like my lungs, thank you very much. Fuck these big ass SUVs on the road and the soccer moms driving them.

kyoto applies to "industrialized nations." out of curiousity, who decides who's an "industrialized nation" and who isn't?
and what's wrong with SUVs? they're safer. much safer. if someone is willing to pay more for gas in exchange for saftey, why should i care?

Quote

-Try to reconcile with France, Germany
i almost laughed out loud when i read that. why? what on earth have they done for us? and what did we ever do to them to deserve the hate that they're spewing at us?

Talking down to them after they didn't support the war effort in Iraq (aka they've actually got some brains and balls to stand up to the US) "Freedom Fries" anybody? The dumbest thing I've ever heard. If we truly want to create this "global economy" that everyone's raving about (esp. libertarians), we're not gonna do it by making enemies out of anybody we come across.

i'm not too concerned with a global economy. last i checked, the global economy kinda centered around our economy.
and why are "freedom fries" any dumber than "french fries"?

Quote

-Increase troops' pay
not a bad idea, but i'd like to hear more on your ideas for this.
-Invest in NASA but at the same time, encourage private enterprise (Burt Rutan/SpaceShip One)
never heard of the two private ones, but not a bad idea. (on a side note, go read dave barry's article on the mars probe.)

These are both part of that "useless government spending" you so quickly deride.

wrong. i quote from the constitution now on congress' powers:

Quote

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

congress is supposed to raise and support the army.
i'm not sure about the nasa thing. once again, i jumped in before thinking about it. stupid me =(

Quote

Because sex is a natural instinct. If you are dating a cute girl for a while you're definitely gonna want some action, don't kid yourself and say you don't (you're probably just one of those bitter people who can't get any). People are gonna have sex, regardless of how much dogma others feed them about abstinence and "saving yourself for the right person". The most realistic way of cutting back on the number of unwanted pregnancies and STDs (and ironically enough - decrease abortion! yet the Republicans who want to ban abortion preach abstinence. This logic does not compute.) - is to provide safe sex education and provide free condoms.

so self-control shouldn't factor in? just because something is a natural instinct means we shouldn't try to control it? well, going to the bathroom is also a natural instinct, but people seem to control that one pretty well.

[quote name='scorch]If i was president' date=' one thing i would do. Declair war on tobbaco (sorry for the shitty spelling, in Northeast england we just call is baccy). I would call my soldiers up to action, and drop napalm on all baccy fields. Burn them, and the world will hail me a hero (well, the non smokers would). Sure, we'll have the problem of black market dealing in baccy, but it'll just be like dope. Easy for the copdogs to sniff out. Then i'll execute the dealers. All drug dealers will be executed, depending on what they're supplying, class A will be death, class b will be prison and a large fine, and class C will be a slap on the wrist. Baccy would be class A, it's addictive, and it kills slowly. Dope would replace baccy, but only in designated chillout areas.[/quote']
man, if you thought second-hand smoke was bad before, just see what it's like after igniting all the tobbaco fields at once! =P

and that's all i have time for. i have to log off and go make breakfast now.
"thank you for playing space quest. you've been most entertaining."

edit: crap! formatting got screwed up!

This post has been edited by Pyro1588: 14 July 2005 - 02:08 PM

[Sai'ke]

I wanted to stay clear of this discussion but some of the points Pyro made are just so untrue that I have to reply to it ...

Quote

Minor drug offenses fill up prisons (which we, the taxpayers pay for) with people who probably shouldn't be in there. The "War On Drugs" initiated in the Reagan era has wasted tons of government money and put many people in jail (cocaine dealers serve more jail time than murderers! unbelievable), mostly from minorities.

Actually, this is quite true. You are actually wasting more money by keeping them in prison. Instead of jailtime, a fine would seem much more appropriate. The fact that cocaine dealers serve more time than murderers is just ridiculous...

Quote

oh boy! so if i want a free mustang, the government should give me one to better my life?

That's a ridiculous comparison and you know it.

Quote

and what's wrong with SUVs? they're safer. much safer. if someone is willing to pay more for gas in exchange for saftey, why should i care?

Actually you should do some research before you reply next time. An increase in the number of SUV's increases the number of people killed in traffic. This is a proven fact, and if you want them I can back it up with plenty of sources.

SUVs are safer for their occupants in some types of crashes, but are much more likely than regular cars to cause rollover fatalities for their occupants.

People riding in pickups and SUVs are less likely to die in a crash with a regular car than the people in the regular car. There have been plenty of researches though, and people driving SUV's crash far more often than people driving regular cars. So much, that in effect people sitting inside the SUV have no net safety benefit. And this is after adjusting for the fact that bad drivers are drawn to buying SUVs!

SUV drivers are 2.6 - 4 times as likely to crash than regular cars. A world full of SUV's would ultimately lead to a lot more traffic fatalities. It's better to learn how to drive better than to buy an SUV. Maybe take some car emergency courses (where you learn what to do when you're skidding etc).

So safety is actually a downside of an SUV. And buying an SUV would seem even more ridiculous if you take into account that you'd be burning more fuel. Over here, SUVs are banned from certain cities (because of pollution, safety and size) ... which I think is a step in the good direction.

As for kyoto, you should realise that as a human race, we are completely fucking up our habitat. We are polluting the skies (there is a reason for the ever increasing amount of lung cancer deaths, even though the number of smokers is decreasing), depleting our resources (what if in 40-50 years we will be unable to make plastics, or other oil-based substances? ...) and perhaps even changing the climate (global warming).
There is not a doubt about it that something needs to be done... And the US, who often like to think of themselves as a role model (at least, that's how it looks from a European point of view), could at least try to give a good example.

Supporting cars like the Toyota Prius by means of subsidies would seem like a very good idea...

- Sai`ke

[asgromo]

Okay, now I'll get up in arms about Pyro1588. =P

Quote

um, i thought that we want to punish drug offenses and that's why they're in prison. but of course, i'm mostly ignoring this response because of the "mostly from minorities" thing from the same guy that gave us " Sadly, I'm white, but that doesn't mean I'm as self-centered and racist as 99% of other white americans".

Okay, you miss the point. We do want to punish drug offenses, but the fact is that putting drug offenders in jail for dozens of years quickly fills up prisons. Drug offenses can in fact be punished in other ways... Ever heard of a fine? And by the way, djtiesto's "mostly from minorities" comment is just a matter of fact, sad but true.

Quote

oh boy! so if i want a free mustang, the government should give me one to better my life?

If the government has 50,000 extra dollars available for every citizen in the US, and they saw fit to implement such a program, I see no reason why not. Just kidding. There has to be some subjectivity in deciding how the government is responsible for the standard of living of its citizens. Those 50,000 extra dollars, in the case they were to exist, could go a long way to providing for most of the fairly progressive ideas djtiesto suggested.

Quote

so why don't get rid of that whole "indecent exposure" thing. i mean, if someone wants to dance around naked in public, they aren't hurting anyone, right? i mean, besides those religious people who say they shouldn't.

How does a homosexual marriage compare to dancing around naked in public? One denotes tax benefits, the other denotes dangling genitals and very bad hygiene. Your response is a very poor example of a straw man, which is something I want you to look up before you embarrass yourself worse next time. -__-

Quote

i still don't understand here. what tax loopholes are we talking about?

The tax loophole he's talking about is the one he's talking about: "Why should some corps with their offshore business centers in like Aruba, Bermuda, etc. be excused from taxes? They should have to pay like everybody else." It's a common practice among the big American corporations.

Quote

when you say "assault weapons," i assume that you mean automatics.
why ban them? i guess i have to list off the old "criminals will get them illegaly, anyway, but if we let civilians own them, it will cut down on crime" arguement.

The idea is that banning the sale of assault weapons in America will at least lessen their number. Your common mugger is going to be hard-pressed to find an automatic weapon for a price he can afford if they aren't being legally sold in America.

Quote

since when are we supposed to be entitled to education?

What? Are you crazy? This is a non-question. It's dumb. Are you utterly devoid of fantastic hopes for mankind's future? Did you not watch any Star Wars as a kid or something? I should think every child in America, whether they be child of citizens or illegal aliens or real not-of-this-earth aliens should be entitled to the same quality education as everyone else, because all children should be on equal footing. Lancer-X mentioned that Australia used to have free tertiary education. That's badass. But it will never happen in America because the quality of your education should be primarily decided by the wealth of your family. Pah.

Quote

so we don't want people to get free money? WHY?! does this mean that if your grandparents give you $20000 that you're not going to take it because you'd rather work for it? why must we tax every single thing we can get our hands on?

Nobody said we have to tax every single thing we can get our hands on.

Quote

kyoto applies to "industrialized nations." out of curiousity, who decides who's an "industrialized nation" and who isn't?
and what's wrong with SUVs? they're safer. much safer. if someone is willing to pay more for gas in exchange for saftey, why should i care?

The UN and common knowledge decide what an industrialized nation is. It's generally not that hard to tell, anyway. And as for SUVs, they're only safer on the part of the person inside. If there's also a smaller vehicle involved in any such incident where safety can come into question... Well... the passenger's of the smaller vehicle might not agree. And the fact is that some people actually believe there is a finite supply of fossile fuels inside this planet. SUVs use substantially more of them than most other civilian passenger vehicles. You should also care about the greater amount of byproducts they pass out of their exhausts, which float around in your atmosphere and get in your organic foods and your lungs and just don't foking taste any good, regardless of the gradual effects they may have on the ozone layer. =P

Quote

i'm not too concerned with a global economy. last i checked, the global economy kinda centered around our economy.
and why are "freedom fries" any dumber than "french fries"?

That's cute, but anyone with some scant modicum of common sense could tell you it can't possibly be true. There is no single great power in the current world economy, though there is a small few. And as for "Freedom Fries"? Well... Don't you think it a little pretentious to be suggesting that America's fries have more freedom than other country's fries? Or that France doesn't deserve to have its name on our fries? Besides, everyone knows french fries are originally Belgian.

Quote

so self-control shouldn't factor in? just because something is a natural instinct means we shouldn't try to control it? well, going to the bathroom is also a natural instinct, but people seem to control that one pretty well.

Right, except you only have to control the need to piss until you can find a toilet or an inconspicuous bush, whereas you need to control the urge to reproduce until your married. Did you decide these were comparable because they both required the use of your penis?

Anyway this thread makes reasonable people cry.

[Castlevania]

Balls to an economy. If I were president I would buy a secluded island somewhere in the Pacific and start from there. I'd bring along about 50 people, males, females, boys and girls and the community would thrive and live off eachothers well-doings.


Jobs
===

The forresters
These guys cut down trees and supply the village with wood.

The miners
Gather raw materials.

The farmers
Grow vegetables, milk cows and stuff. No animals are slaughtered.

The constructors
Build stuff.

The seekers
Seek knowledge. Includes scientists, geologists, thestorians (see below), etc.

The Jury
Random people are called up for this every now and again, works the same as over here.

The helpers
Various jobs like public services or watching over the island would need doing.


(There should probably be more here, but there are too many to list)


The educators and the education.
=====================
Education starts at 2 years old. Knowledge would be of the upmost importance. No secrets here, instead of history (HIS story) you would learn thestory (THE story). Evey student must overstand matters and learn the highest moral values. There would also be parenthood eduction whereby they would learn child psychology and anything else they want. Anybody in this society, in their old age, would be suitable to teach. They don't even have to send their child to school if they don't want, although, sometimes this could possibly lead to serious consequences.

In return for their duties, every working family would get a free house (which they could modify to their own taste), free food for life, free education and free healthcare.


The way it works
===========

No religion.
Nada. Believe in what you like. Love the world.

Repair program
If you commit a crime then you have defied the education system and your parents so you would undertake this. You would learn the errors of your ways and understand why what you did was wrong. If the person reoffends then that person would be shipped off to another country.

Crime.
When a child commits a crime the parents are held soley responsible and will undertake parental classes awswel as the repair program. The child would need repairing so it would undergo the repair program also. If, after this, the child reoffends then the whole family would be shipped off the island and sent to another country. When an adult offends once he or she would undergo the same theropy. Murder is inexcusible, you would be imprisoned for the rest of your life to protect the others.

Renewable energy
No pullution. Everything is powered by the planet. Unless that is, the scientists come up with something revolutionary.

Trading
Anybody found trading would undergo the repair program.

Luxuries
Make them for yourself or for others. Do it too often and you might be accused of trading.

Equality
Everybody is equal

Jobs
Jobs are given out at the age of 21 to the persons it suits most. Nobody would be unhappy with the job they get because they would know how important it is. Later on in life they are allowed to move if they want.

Weapons
None, anybody found with one will undergo the repair program.

Army and Defence
The island has no army. The island would be protected with a huge forcefield preventing any outside invaders.

Immigration
No one from the outside world can enter, only babies under the age of 1 week can be accepted. If you choose to do so, you may leave the island at any time but you would not be allowed to return.

It's all about love, knowledge and respect.
-----------------------------------

Oh yerse, I would make a kick-ass president!

[Tixus]

So, in a nutshell, Communism. =D

[djtiesto]

There is a reason why there are lots of minorities in jail for drug use... Are you aware of the CIA, under Reagan's directive, introducing and selling crack to inner-city minorities to fund the Nicaraguan contras?

Check this out

[Seven]

Well, communism in theory works.

<Everyone> GASP JENECAI IS A COMMUNIST

No, I'm a philosopher. Anyway, there's a lot of great points here, but you have to realise something about America. Imagine a water piping system that is fed from point A, fed by a very large, nearly infinite well. there are fifty pipes that lead out from pipe A, and at the end of each of these fifty pipes is a secondary pump with it's own well, albeit smaller, designated A01 through A50. Now from each of these pumps and wells, there are hundreds of more pipes, sprawling out to endpoints of even smaller wells, designated each with names. If A21-End23 breaks, do you turn straight to Point A? No, you go first to A21-End23 and try and fix it there.

The American government is responsible for America and all inside it. And while yes, housing and jobs are a government responsibility (before you disagree, look it up), finding Joe Shmoe of A21-End23 a job isn't. That's Joe Shmoe's responsibility. Now A21-End23, and even A21 will have facilities to assist him in finding residence and employment.

( I do realise that I completely ignored the fact that we have a three-tier government [Executive, Judicial, Legislative], I was keeping it simple for the sake of everyone's easy understanding. If this is too hard to understand still... I'm sorry, become a plumber )

There's more to America than the President. Most of the points made here are handled in the State, or even City governments, which hold just as important a position as the President of the United States does.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Terryn said:

-Regarding the definition (and sanctity, if you swing that way) of marriage, you're 100 years too late. It's already bespoiled. Darn women's lib and industrialisation, killing traditional reasons and roles for marriage! Also, associations like the below are just depressing:
"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle," he [John Conryn, R-TX] told an audience. "But that does not mean it is right.... Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."

I agree with Terryn here-- Not because of me and Zer0, but for multiple reasons. Should At-Home Dads be considered Fags? Are working-moms doing the wrong thing in attempting to provide as best they can for a daughter or son who was born into a world that is so much more expensive than possibly imaginable? Are we wrong for respecting women, permitting them to (gasp) vote and hold office?

[Micah]

It's pretty hard to say that the American government system doesn't work. Unlike other countries, whose governments change as often as every few years, the American government has remained pretty much the same for over 250 years, and we are now the most powerful country in the world.

Hell, monarchy isn't too bad, either. It's been around longer than the American system, and many European countries have stayed strong since the middle ages. I wouldn't mind living in Europe...perhaps Germany.

I like Europe's philosophy about borders. Yes, there are borders, but you don't need to fill out 10 dozen papers and get a passport to leave or enter a country. This type of thing could be possible between the USA and Canada, but I'm doubtful that it would work with Mexico, because of the huge economical differences between the two.

I don't know what the hell prompted me to talk about this, but I'll post it anyway.

[Nedemai]

Well the president of what isn't specified, so Ill assume its the president of earth in which case...

I would create a utopia society (everyone would be killed)

^.^

[Dr_Dos]

ohhhhhhhh i'm not going to like this.

http://www.mcwilliam...ks/aint/toc.htm

THIS IS MY BIBLE.

READ IT. STUDY IT. LEARN IT.

[scorch3000]

Interesting debate this. And Piro, you're right about the 2nd hand smoke from the fields, i'll imagine billions of smokers would flood to the site to get their last hit also.

[duvel]

No one comments on my ideas .

Oh and you guys are all silly discussing something that you will never have an impact on unless the president one day decided to establish America in full democracy (people vote on everything, laws and bills and all that jazz). Of course you could mail a letter to Bush but I'm not sure how much of an impact THAT will have.

So really you're arguing over nothing. This topic fails .

[Dr Lancer-X]

Quote

when you say "assault weapons," i assume that you mean automatics.
why ban them? i guess i have to list off the old "criminals will get them illegaly, anyway, but if we let civilians own them, it will cut down on crime" arguement.

Australia has quite comprehensive firearms restrictions, and we don't have a gun crime rate anything like that of America - perhaps there is a little merit to that after all. However, I agree that the ban is stupid--partly because it would just be awesome to wander around America with a fully automatic assault rifle without anyone able to do anything about it.

"Sure it's just for protection!"

[Castlevania]

ler, on Jul 15 2005, 02:57 PM, said:

No one comments on my ideas .

Oh and you guys are all silly discussing something that you will never have an impact on unless the president one day decided to establish America in full democracy (people vote on everything, laws and bills and all that jazz). Of course you could mail a letter to Bush but I'm not sure how much of an impact THAT will have.

So really you're arguing over nothing. This topic fails .

Ler: I found this thread quite insightful actually. As for your comments, erm, your ideas are not radical enough for me, sorry. But I think you would fit in very well on my li'l island, you'd just have to give up Christianity first, that's all.

Quote

Also since when has the government had anything to do with internet service? 0_o

Actually Tony Blair once pledged that every home in Britain would have access to Broadband by 2010(or something like that). I don't know if any other governments have pledged anything similar but I thought I'd just point that out.

Also, on a side note, some people here need to chill out when debating other people's opinions. They are just opinions afterall.

[Terryn]

THIS is the biggest way the US government has something to do with Internet services; the US is rescinding what it said before this administration and keeping the root servers to itself.

As for internet access, the local governments have a lot to do with it. Telecom companies are getting irritated (to say the least) that cities want to provide free wi-fi to help fill the cities' coffers.

[Trev-MUN]

emalkay, on Jul 15 2005, 09:31 AM, said:

ler, on Jul 15 2005, 02:57 PM, said:

No one comments on my ideas .

Oh and you guys are all silly discussing something that you will never have an impact on unless the president one day decided to establish America in full democracy (people vote on everything, laws and bills and all that jazz). Of course you could mail a letter to Bush but I'm not sure how much of an impact THAT will have.

So really you're arguing over nothing. This topic fails .

Ler: I found this thread quite insightful actually. As for your comments, erm, your ideas are not radical enough for me, sorry. But I think you would fit in very well on my li'l island, you'd just have to give up Christianity first, that's all.

Er? Wait a sec. Why'd he have to give up being a Christian if your idea of government is full blown religious freedom? o_O

At least, that's what I gathered from your post--that your island'd have no state-sponsored religion, and people could believe in what they like ...

As for the topic, uh, maybe I'll wade into this a bit later in the day or tommorow ...

[Castlevania]

Yeah he would definitely have to give it up before going. His mind would have to be fresh and clean so that when he starts acquiring knowledge he can begin to make up his own mind based upon his new-found wisdom and then believe anything he wants. Maybe he would become a Buddhist! Or he could even become a Christian again if he wants...or he could just run round naked in his spare time, the naked body is beautiful afterall.

EDIT:

Quote

no state-sponsored religion

Yeah, impossible, no money.

This post has been edited by emalkay: 16 July 2005 - 01:30 AM

[duvel]

The difference is that for most people I don't think that wisdom and knowledge has anything to do with belief . Which is why we have people who mock all religions simply because 1) most of them don't involve logic very much and 2) because they're tremendous pricks (mostly 2).

Anyway asking someone to give up their old religion in order to "gain knowledge and decide what he wants" is like asking a guy to jump off a sky scraper in order to gain super powers. Most people aren't going to do it, simply because they are far more comfortable being what could quite easily be wrong or plain out blasphemous to some god he doesn't worship, because a major trend in all religions is that all or almost all punishment for not doing well and stuff comes AFTER someone dies, usually because you don't often see people being periodically struck by lightning and such, and because of that wonderful idea of waiting till the end of your life to get that punishment, most people procrastinate to find out what they truly believe in and just sort of not care, which I guess you can't do much about.

Now the case of atheists is much stranger because they specifically believe in nothing. The logic behind this is that they feel they haven't seen any evidence of a god or gods existing and thus think there is none. They don't paticularly care to really take much insight as to whether they're right or wrong because they're confident in their beliefs and think that waiting till death to find out isn't really bad.

Agnostics are the ultimate pricks of the universe. Why? Because they refuse to make any decision, stating that no decision is the only logical course since there is a chance that there may or may not be a god and that he could take on many forms. The reason why they're the ultimate pricks, however, is because they feel they can point out logic holes in other religions (which wouldn't be so bad; I mean a lot of people do that, specifically atheists) and then proceed to take a feeling of superiority because they've evolved their thought process above "primitive" social behavior like religions. Don't think I don't know what I'm talking about, I met a guy who fits this description (and no, it's not an mzxer or zzter). I think the real reason why no one actually gives a care as to what the agnostics think is the logical way of life is because agnostics have such a superiority complex that other people write them off as bastards. The truth is that agnostics aren't really all that smart anyway, because not taking action is just as bad as taking the wrong action, so you might as well take a gamble with something you believe in.

Now that I've attempted to state what I think about all forms of religion (and yes, that's generally all forms of religion, although I guess I left out the types that are basically Jedi-ish (all powerful force type thing, or ideal that you should live for; think Buddhism)), I will ask that you neither support or deny anything I might have said in this post as I will be totally ignoring any of that. Or really I guess you could and argue amongst yourselves while I lower myself to the level of agnostic and look at you with contempt because I supposedly know better but really I think it's better to just forget about it all.

Good day to you all.

Oh btw if you haven't figured it out yet I really don't like agnostics. This might be a very broad generalization but they all seem to really hate just about all forms of religion and look down on anyone who is in one of them, like they're a better person. I'm a firm believer that all humans are equal (mostly because of that wonderful verse in Romans, I guess) so thinking that being indeciscive makes you better doesn't really fit my bill as to good action.

PS I really am not going to reply to this.

[Torte]

I call for a lock of this topic because this is gonna turn into a flame war if people continue like ler did. This is like asking for religious bashing here.

PS. Nothing wrong with any religion as long as they don't do any harm to anyone else.

[Koji]

Okay

Gay marriage, I support. Each american has the right to happiness, and if this includes being with a person of the same gender for the rest of their lives, they might as well be alowed a propper marriage! None of this half marriage civil union crap. Seriously, what a double standard! Civil unions are allowed in every state, unlike marriages, and the only difference is that civil unions don't give you legal and financial marriage benefits wich many married couples simply couldn't make it without. So when you think about it, whoever made up civil unions is obviously trying to give gay couples a really really hard time at obtaining the american dream, wich just isn't right no matter how you look at it.

Taxes? FLAT TAX + Federaly regulated stores. Okay here's how it works, you are all taxes a given percentage of your income. However, if you buy goods from government regulated stores or brands that are of the bargain variety, the profit to the government of these goods is subtracted from the tax.

For now, that's all I'll write.

[Castlevania]

ler, on Jul 16 2005, 03:18 AM, said:

The difference is that for most people I don't think that wisdom and knowledge has anything to do with belief . Which is why we have people who mock all religions simply because 1) most of them don't involve logic very much and 2) because they're tremendous pricks (mostly 2).

Anyway asking someone to give up their old religion in order to "gain knowledge and decide what he wants" is like asking a guy to jump off a sky scraper in order to gain super powers. Most people aren't going to do it, simply because they are far more comfortable being what could quite easily be wrong or plain out blasphemous to some god he doesn't worship, because a major trend in all religions is that all or almost all punishment for not doing well and stuff comes AFTER someone dies, usually because you don't often see people being periodically struck by lightning and such, and because of that wonderful idea of waiting till the end of your life to get that punishment, most people procrastinate to find out what they truly believe in and just sort of not care, which I guess you can't do much about.

Now the case of atheists is much stranger because they specifically believe in nothing. The logic behind this is that they feel they haven't seen any evidence of a god or gods existing and thus think there is none. They don't paticularly care to really take much insight as to whether they're right or wrong because they're confident in their beliefs and think that waiting till death to find out isn't really bad.

Agnostics are the ultimate pricks of the universe. Why? Because they refuse to make any decision, stating that no decision is the only logical course since there is a chance that there may or may not be a god and that he could take on many forms. The reason why they're the ultimate pricks, however, is because they feel they can point out logic holes in other religions (which wouldn't be so bad; I mean a lot of people do that, specifically atheists) and then proceed to take a feeling of superiority because they've evolved their thought process above "primitive" social behavior like religions. Don't think I don't know what I'm talking about, I met a guy who fits this description (and no, it's not an mzxer or zzter). I think the real reason why no one actually gives a care as to what the agnostics think is the logical way of life is because agnostics have such a superiority complex that other people write them off as bastards. The truth is that agnostics aren't really all that smart anyway, because not taking action is just as bad as taking the wrong action, so you might as well take a gamble with something you believe in.

Now that I've attempted to state what I think about all forms of religion (and yes, that's generally all forms of religion, although I guess I left out the types that are basically Jedi-ish (all powerful force type thing, or ideal that you should live for; think Buddhism)), I will ask that you neither support or deny anything I might have said in this post as I will be totally ignoring any of that. Or really I guess you could and argue amongst yourselves while I lower myself to the level of agnostic and look at you with contempt because I supposedly know better but really I think it's better to just forget about it all.

Good day to you all.

Oh btw if you haven't figured it out yet I really don't like agnostics. This might be a very broad generalization but they all seem to really hate just about all forms of religion and look down on anyone who is in one of them, like they're a better person. I'm a firm believer that all humans are equal (mostly because of that wonderful verse in Romans, I guess) so thinking that being indeciscive makes you better doesn't really fit my bill as to good action.

PS I really am not going to reply to this.

Looks like somebody is in need of the repair program. But seriously, c'mon Ler, I thought you were better than that, I think you may have offended some people with those remarks you made about agnostics.

Quote

Agnostics are the ultimate pricks of the universe

Quote

I'm a firm believer that all humans are equal

(I seriously hope none of it was aimed at me, I do believe in God afterall, I'm gnostic.)

I don't think you'll find many agnostics calling Christians pricks, there was no need to be offensive. Everybody's in the same boat, right? We're all just looking for answers. Some people choose religion, others choose science, some may have both, or whatever. Just because some people question your beliefs doesn't mean you have to get all up-in-arms about it. I think you should take that back.

Okay, I'm not talking about religion in this thread from now. I'm up for discussion but please, don't take my ideas seriously, if I've offended you Ler, or anyone else, I sincerley apologise.

This post has been edited by emalkay: 16 July 2005 - 11:40 AM