If you were president of America...
- Thread starter Jv14
- Start date
Recommended Videos
How could I forget? Also, why in the world would you let Limbaugh off so easily? I say we cook them slowly over a fire and feed them to the sharks. Alive.1: Abolish any and all laws with no basis in logic. (Specifically any laws based entirely on religious scripture)
2: End welfare and all the other colossal federal money-wasters, and use that money to...
3: Immediately deport all illegal immigrants and secure the Mexican border.
4: Legalize gay marriage and marijuana.
5: Just abolish all government programs that the private sector can do better--which is pretty much all of them.
6: Executions will only be performed when there is incontrovertible DNA evidence of the crimes, and will be carried out within a week of sentencing for as little cost as possible--preferably a shot to the head from a .45
7: Also, like so many others in this thread said, use nuclear power.
8: NO CORPORATE HANDOUTS. America isn't a fucking communist country. If a business fails, it fails, and I won't waste taxpayer money propping it up. New businesses will rise to take it's place--that's what capitalism is all about.
9: End the federal income tax.
2: End welfare and all the other colossal federal money-wasters, and use that money to...
3: Immediately deport all illegal immigrants and secure the Mexican border.
4: Legalize gay marriage and marijuana.
5: Just abolish all government programs that the private sector can do better--which is pretty much all of them.
6: Executions will only be performed when there is incontrovertible DNA evidence of the crimes, and will be carried out within a week of sentencing for as little cost as possible--preferably a shot to the head from a .45
7: Also, like so many others in this thread said, use nuclear power.
8: NO CORPORATE HANDOUTS. America isn't a fucking communist country. If a business fails, it fails, and I won't waste taxpayer money propping it up. New businesses will rise to take it's place--that's what capitalism is all about.
9: End the federal income tax.
That's not a problem with the system but rather the politicians in question, isn't it? The President only has a single spot open at any one time, but there are hundreds of House seats and a hundred Senate seats. If they're doing the job, why elect someone else?paragon1 said:
Isn't it up to opposing politicians to make the competition?
I don't see prostitution or any other illicit drugs in that list. Where are they?
Hmm, that's an interesting point. Fun fact: Congress rarely has an approval rating of over 20%, but Congressmen usually have a high approval rate in their district/state. Which means that people don't hate their Congressmen, they hate all the other ones. The real problem is the same problem America usually has. Not enough people are paying attention to what their Congressman actually does, and all he has to do to get reelected again and again. If they stay in long enough, the chances of getting booted out are fairly low (since people prefer to keep the corrupt liar they have, for fear of the new one being a corrupt liar who devours infants on the weekend).Amnestic said:
[\
I agree. Though again this is a problem not with the system itself but with the people - in this case the populace rather than the politicians. The system is fine and if both populace and politicians actually took an interest in their local political system we might see a higher turnover right. Political apathy is something which has stricken the UK for a while now and I daresay it might be affecting America as well.paragon1 said:
Whether the actual electoral system needs reforming is irrelevant, but in regards to the number of terms the Senators/Representatives can serve, I think it's fine. I'm not about to start ordering for the Supreme Court Justices to have a duration on their service rather than the tenure that they currently enjoy, as it really doesn't serve a purpose.
Hmm.
Nope. I don't agree actually. Abolising the current laws is good, but placing them under State Control wouldn't do much. I was actually aiming for the entire legalisation, taxation and regulation of prostitution and all currently illegal substances. I don't partake in either of those, but I think it's stupid to keep them illegal when it's safer for the country as a whole to have them regulated and safe.
If I were President of America, I'd feel free to make whatever comments I want without worrying about whatever unqualified fuckstains in certain positions who call themselves "critics" or whatever have to say about it.
If I were Obama, for example, I'd not apologize for what I said about the cop that arrested the black scholar inside/outside his own home. I'd clarify what I meant, sure. But I wouldn't apologize. And those idiots that went off about how Obama shouldn't make such comments about such situations can suck it.
Seriously, politicians are bloody humans. I'll say what I freaking want.
Addition: I'd also legalize gay marriage, but not before telling the pro-gay-marriage people who keep going on about it to shut the hell up. If they keep pissing and complaining AFTER I've legalized it, I'll take it away again, then I'll tell the public who exactly to blame. Simple as that.
Second addition (lol): I'll shut down and place a ban on any and all petitions that were made to gather signatures to get sites shut down (a good example of this is Mothers Against Maddox).
If I were Obama, for example, I'd not apologize for what I said about the cop that arrested the black scholar inside/outside his own home. I'd clarify what I meant, sure. But I wouldn't apologize. And those idiots that went off about how Obama shouldn't make such comments about such situations can suck it.
Seriously, politicians are bloody humans. I'll say what I freaking want.
Addition: I'd also legalize gay marriage, but not before telling the pro-gay-marriage people who keep going on about it to shut the hell up. If they keep pissing and complaining AFTER I've legalized it, I'll take it away again, then I'll tell the public who exactly to blame. Simple as that.
Second addition (lol): I'll shut down and place a ban on any and all petitions that were made to gather signatures to get sites shut down (a good example of this is Mothers Against Maddox).
I don't know about your solution. Sure, placing it under government regulation sounds good at first, but the system would eventually be exploited somehow, and then you've got lawsuits, scandals, the whole shebang. You'd have to find a really hard-to-break system for that... and even then, if somebody feels that the regulations are too strict, why would they bother following them when they can just continue doing what they were doing before?Amnestic said:
Granted, keeping everything illegal is rather pointless as well, with the sole exceptions of extremely dangerous drugs.
Putting it under any regulation sounds good at first but will eventually be exploited. The private companies are just as liable to corruption as our own government. I'm not saying it wouldn't have its problems, every system does. There are no perfect solutions and arbitrary lines would have to be drawn (same reason why the age of consent is 16 in the UK and not 15, even though it might only be a day's difference for some people.)scotth266 said:
Regulating them means that you at least know what's going into the drugs you take. It means you know that this lass at your local brothel is regularly tested for STDs. It means that you don't need to fear jail time and a criminal record for something which is entirely harmless to everyone around you - and sometimes yourself.
I'm not crazy enough to say that it would be flawlessly executed, but it's a damn sight better than the ridiculous laws against them we've got at the moment for no concievable reason other than "DRUGS R BAD MMKAY!"
My other argument was that people wouldn't be willing to switch to a regulated system when they already have an unregulated one in place, but you gave an excellent counterpoint against that: the assurance of quality.Amnestic said:
The only issue left really is: what drugs would you legalize, and how strict would you be with the regulations? Some people are attempting to ride the wave marijuana is taking in an attempt to say other, more dangerous drugs should get the same treatment, so it becomes an issue of which ones you want to keep illegal.
Personally, I'd focus on improving relations with the rest of the world. Paying back our national debt would be a huge first step in that. Not invading countries with flimsy reasoning for doing so would probably help too.
I'd probably be assassinated fairly quickly, especially after announcing my intentions to ban most of the lobbying that's destroying our political system. It's supposed to be about what the people want, not what the corporations buying off our politicians want.
I'd probably be assassinated fairly quickly, especially after announcing my intentions to ban most of the lobbying that's destroying our political system. It's supposed to be about what the people want, not what the corporations buying off our politicians want.
Preferably? None would be kept illegal. Obviously some drugs even now are still only acquirable by prescription only. A Doctor's consent might be needed for some of the harder ones to certify that it won't adversely affect their health in any way, but they'd still be legal.scotth266 said:
I don't have a list of all the drugs that are branded unlawful for the US and I'm not really sure where I would find such a list either, but I'd like to say all. It should be people's choice what they put into their bodies and as long as they're not affecting anyone else with it (Smoking in public places=Not allowed), then I don't see the issue.
Yes, things like heroin or crystal meth are more dangerous than marijuana, but if people are going to take them anyway it's better that we have them cooked up in a safe, clean lab environment where everything that goes into them is labelled clearly on the container rather than by some cokehead drug dealer in his dingy motel room.
Well, the reason Supreme Court Justices have life terms is so that they don't have to be swayed by the politics of the hour, and can make the decisions that are best for the country in the long run. They can also instigate the change our country might need that politicians either can't or won't risk trying. Desegregation in the 60's being a good example.Amnestic said:
As for Congressional term limits, I was never actually disagreeing with you. I was simply pointing out some relevant information you may have not considered. I agree with you that political apathy is a big problem. You dared correctly on that one, until the new millinium voter participation was in steady decline. I had no idea the U.K. was experiencing the same thing. If I had to guess, I'd say its because most people in our respective countries have had it so damn good that they didn't have any reason to give a damn. What do you think?
Lead a crusade against some yet-to-be specified enemy, raining fire and destruction from the skies. Triple military spending, and cut back everything else.
